Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
OOPS, wrong file
archive 3
Line 1: Line 1:
== August 2008 ==
== August 2008 ==

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pilot (30 Rock)}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Luan Da}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sri Lankan Tamil people}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dwain Chambers/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dwain Chambers/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/India House/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/India House/archive2}}

Revision as of 15:53, 29 August 2008

August 2008

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pilot (30 Rock) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Luan Da Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sri Lankan Tamil people

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 19:33, 27 August 2008 [1].

Dwain Chambers

Nominator(s): Sillyfolkboy (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article as I've expanded the article extensively and the peer review seemed to suggest it was close to FA standard. Also, it seems to stand up next to Ian Thorpe, the only other track and field athlete FA I found. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please close and archive the peer review; per the instructions at both WP:FAC and WP:PR, articles shouldn't be simultaneously listed at both places. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed the peer review. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Giants2008 (17-14) 19:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - —This is part of a comment by Giants2008 (of 02:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]

  • "but he finished last, suffering from cramp in the finals." Shouldn't this be "a cramp"?
    • Fixed.
  • American football should be linked in first use instead of second.
    • Fixed.
  • Junior atletics: "and broke the 100 metres sprint record with a time of 10.06 seconds; a world junior record at the time." Change the semi-colon to a comma.
    • Fixed.
  • Senior athletics: Delink British here. We don't need something that well-known linked so much.
    • Fixed - is it still excessively linked in the article?
  • I'm concerned that some terms may not be encyclopedic. For instance, are grabbed and steamed really appropriate for our best work?
    • Fixed those instances - problem was that phrases like "he finished in second place" were getting a bit repetitive. Any more changes suggested and do you agree with my fixes?
  • Sevilla World Championships to Sydney Olympics: "Chambers studied the technique of other sprinters in order to improve himself." Sometimes, writing is crisper with fewer words.
    • Fixed, are the other uses justified in their use or should they be removed too?
  • Darren Campbell was linked in a previous section.
    • Fixed.
  • "This fired Chambers' confidence" I didn't know confidence could be fired. Maybe try raised? Also, I think games should be Games for the Olympics.
    • Didn't really see the problem here but I've changed it to "raised" per your suggestions.
  • The Atlantic link needs ocean capitalized.
    • Fixed. (Now that's some thorough article checking!)
  • Edmonton World Championships: The IAAF needs to be spelled out in first use, with initials in parentheses.

Giants2008 (17-14) 02:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked for more thoughts on my talk page, so I've come back to review more.
  • Change the heading Early Career to Early career.
  • Who is the AAA?
  • "The AAA trials and British Grand Prix had seen the runner add another string to his cap,..." Another string to his cap? Again, this is inappropriate for a featured article. I sympathize with you on avoiding repetition, but there has to be a better way.
  • Maurice Greene doesn't need another link in Edmonton World Championships. Also don't like this sentence: "Defeat in Sydney was fresh in his mind and Chambers pondered on the victorius Maurice Greene." Never heard the term "pondered on" before; maybe it's a British thing? Oh, and Tom Fordyce can be linked.
  • "This was not enough for a medal in a strong race which featured five sprinters running under ten seconds, Greene was triumphant once again." Comma needs to be a semi-colon.
  • 2002 Commonwealth Games: "The opportunity of international glory on home-turf appealed to Chambers in the forthcoming 2002 Commonwealth Games; hosted in Manchester, England." Change semi-colon to a comma. More importantly, this sentence needs a citation because it reeks of original research without one. It shouldn't be hard to find something on this, if the current references don't discuss it.
  • Linford Christie was linked in the last section.
  • 2002 Commonwealth Games linked twice in section.
  • Don't like the way his cramping is phrased here either.

I'm sorry, but I have to oppose for now. I'm finding too many glitches. Please get more editors to work on this to help improve it. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand how you feel on this. My most-edited article is on an LPGA golfer, and there aren't many editors working on female golfer bios either, though the ones that do work on these articles are good editors. I'd normally tell you to seek help from a quality editor who edits similar pages, but if these people don't exist you're better off looking elsewhere. Try seeing if anyone at WP:PRV is interested in helping. I'll give you some more to do now.
  • 2003 World Championships: Maurice Greene doesn't need to be linked again. We already know who he is by now.
  • One piece of advice I can offer is to be cautious with phrases like "excelled" and "impressive", which are peppered throughout the article. Many reviewers consider these POV, even if they describe one's performance, like these are.
  • "Chambers squandered his anchoring lead in the 4x100 metres relay, allowing Joshua J. Johnson to steal first place for the U.S. team." I have a little issue with "steal". This is implying that the U.S. weren't as good as the British. Instead of putting it like this, maybe just say that the British team was favoured (British English :-) heading into the race, assuming that they were.
  • "Chambers was about to become big news." I'd like to see "Chambers was about to make big news." If you could work "headlines" into this, it would be even better.
  • Drugs ban: Don't need another United States link.
  • "baseball big-hitter Barry Bonds." Probably better to just say outfielder. If you want a descriptive term, call him a power-hitting baseball outfielder.
  • Double BALCO and Victor Conte links aren't needed.
  • Comma after "Nehemiah's old team".
  • "appearing on British reality series". Change to "appeared on the British reality television series".
  • Return to athletics: Another repeated link, this time UK Athletics.
Important note before I end this batch: I own a copy of the book Game of Shadows, which includes information on Chambers' drug use, though it is mostly about Barry Bonds. If a reviewer wants to know more on this, let me know and I can provide some book citations. While I'm on the topic, I happened to look at the first page on Chambers (101), and it implies that Chambers considered his move to California a last chance of sorts. If he was thinking about retiring then, that is a vital fact not included in the article. The next page says he credited Conte for his improvement in 2002. Just a couple things to consider. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again (diff). I'll look to further reduce possible overlinking and reduce the lead after seeing what User:TheHYPO did on Usain Bolt. I've already seen removals of phrases like "excelled" and "impress" in the Usain Bolt article and while I think it makes wikipedia entries a little more boring and dry I'll concede on this. I'm glad Donald Bradman wasn't punished as such!
Thank you very much for your excellent and insightful comments. They've improved the article significantly and you've really helped
Thank you for you comments. They've improved the article and helped.
Your comments helped improve the article. :-) 15:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem. In response to a question on my talk page, here is a sentence from the book which I touched on earlier: "Chambers decided to come to the U.S. to take one last shot before quitting entirely." Are you sure this hasn't been reported anywhere in Britain? Two more interesting facts: The book implies that Conte chose to work with Chambers to get back at Tim Montgomery, with whom he had a feud over a payment dispute relating to "supplement" purchases. Also, an anonymous track-and-field source stated in the book that Chambers moved to America so he could gain access to Conte's drug program. Not sure if that's a good enough source, though Giants2008 (17-14) 18:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the quote listed as I think it is covered with the "frustrated by the distance..." sentence. I can't find anything relating to ideas about retiring - though Chambers is partial to the occasional dramatics I think maybe it's a bit of hyperbole in the book; after all, Chambers was only 24 at the time and it would have seemed a strange thought to have. What is the info about Montgomery like? Do you have a quote to support something like - "After a fall out with American sprinter Tim Montgomery, Conte looked to Chambers to fill the athlete's berth"? I would exclude the final info on grounds of verifiability, much hearsay can develop in light of a scandal so I'd like to keep it to the verifiable basics. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot more about Montgomery than Chambers. This is the sentence I'm referring to, again from Game of Shadows: "Conte decided that he would have the last word—he would create a sprinter even better than Montgomery." Naturally, there's a catch; the authors cite a pair of anonymous sources who Victor Conte worked with. It is from a best-selling book from a major publishing house, but I'm not sure if this is the direction you want to go. Just wanted to give you the facts required to make a decision on this. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The problem is with the whole balco situation I think the truth is obscured and the myths are propagated. Regardless, I don't think this is an earth-shattering misconstruing of the facts and the statement i previously wrote is extremely neutral - I think I'll change it to "After parting ways with American sprinter Tim Montgomery, Conte looked to Chambers to fill the athlete's berth". It's a shame there aren't more reliable sources about Chambers' time with Conte. I have enough problems straddling between the views of "Chambers went to the US to do drugs" and "Chambers didn't realise they were drugs at all". I imagine it's a shade of grey in between those two views but sadly I think Game of Shadows isn't going to reveal it to us. Thanks for the hard work on getting the source though, I really appreciate it. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this could do with some further copy editing methinks. The majority of the article is well written and presented but some words and statements are really diminishing (as already pointed out). Also, I dont know much on the article subject but the lead says "He currently has a lifetime ban from Olympic competition due to use of banned substances.[3]". The reference provided says 'Chambers gets two-year ban'. Obviously a contradiction, please ensure that all references are correctly placed at the right times! Domiy (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a reference to his court case loss over his Olympic ban — The initial ban was from all competitions and the British Olympic Association enforce a lifetime olympic ban for any convicted drug abusers. Is it clear or could it be better explained? I was worried about making it too wordy. Additionally, are your problems with the prose now resolved or do you have any other concerns? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment excellent job with images (criteria 3) Fasach Nua (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I reviewed the sources at PR, and my concerns were resolved there. I double checked the sourcing when it hit FAC, and it's still looks good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to note that I've added the runner infobox that I found whilst writing the Usain Bolt article. Think it looks better than just the medals topped by an image. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would prefer having considerably shorter introduction. It goes into too many details, like listing several competitions he took place at. Mentioning inspiration by Maurice Greene and appearing in reality shows isn't intro material as well. Just write the basic things, the others are dealt with later in the article. So much for now, I'll come back later. --Tone 07:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest I remove? I only listed the most important competitions: Olympics/World Championships and Commonwealth games in his home country. I'm cutting out little bits that don't add much however. I think reality shows (and his football try outs) are important to the lead - after all this is pretty much all chambers did for three years of his prime sporting life so I think it justifies the five words it takes up. Also, quite a part of the article is a document of how Chambers saw Greene as both his rival and someone to look up to. I thought the lead was supposed to summarise the article, not strip it down to bare facts? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some more reduction of the lead. I find it quite difficult to remove things given how varied Chambers' form was and how he flitted between athletics and other sports. Compared to Ian Thorpe it covers the same material albeit longer given Thorpe only competed for six years as opposed to Dwain's 13 (with 3 years of suspension) and the lack of a drug scandal to explain. Any ideas on how to reduce what's there already into something more concise? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have trimmed some sentences that do not fit in the lead. It looks better now though some more could be done. Feel free to revert me, though. --Tone 22:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a couple more tweaks but I think you've done a good job of reducing it. I suppose I was writing more for athletics fans than your average reader! Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Units abbrevation Just a note that, though I wrote it differently originally, I intend to reduce all excess "metres" and "seconds" when the unit is established in both lead and article. I will use the full metres when a separate event is listed (e.g. 4x100 metres) but I will reduce those to "m" when they are also established in the article/lead. Any objections? (see Ian Thorpe usage and the guideline) Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wonder what is the purpose of having Please see IAAF decision on Chambers' drug ban under Notes. Isn't this referenced earlier in the article? I find it redundant. --Tone 21:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking to provide extra info to the reader there but if you feel it's redundant I'll remove it. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—I've looked up mostly for style flaws:

  • Lead section:
    • According to this, the birth place should not be entangled with the birth date, but indicated afterwards, outside the parenthesis.
      • Removed - listed in personal life section.
    • Link the first "100 metres sprint" instance directly to 100 metres, to avoid a redirect. Also, link "Edmonton World Championships" to 2001 World Championships in Athletics.
      • Done - though wikipedia policy states this is not a problem as long as the redirect is relevant.
    • "Chambers received a two year athletics ban (...)" — hyphenate "two year" (i.e. two-year).
      • Done.
  • "Senior athletics":
    • Merge first two sentences, since they are short and related;
      • Done. Thought it might've been too big in one but if you say it's fine then it's fine.
        • I'm not sure you did. They seem untouched.
          • Did you mean merge the senior and junior athletics sections? Senior used to be in two parts as you can see here
    • "(...) former sprinter Mike McFarlane and the Commonwealth Games gold medallist became his coach." can be rephrased to "former sprinter and Commonwealth Games gold medallist Mike McFarlane, who became his coach."
    • "Chambers felt elated at the achievement but the competition was fierce. Fellow British sprinter Jason Gardener(...)" you can join these sentences as well.
      • Rephrased both sentences as requested.
    • It's "Seville" in English, "Sevilla" is Spanish form. Change following sub-section's title AND further instances, accordingly.
      • Oops! The IAAF native listing format and a year in Spain have obviously rubbed off on me! Done.
  • "Sevilla World Championships to Sydney Olympics":
    • The first link for "United States" is US; the MoS abbreviation guidelines recommend you spell out abbreviations and give the acronym (between parenthesis), with later instances replaced by the acronym only; for example, you say "USA team" later on when you can use "US".
      • Done.
    • Unlink second instances for "Marlon Devonish" and "2000 Sydney Olympics".
      • Done. I seem to have gone to town on the linking in some parts!
    • "21-years-old" or "21 years old"?
      • Unsure so changed to "the age of 21"
    • "In an interview with the BBC's Tom Fordyce (...)" — why a "the"?
      • It makes more sense to me that way: "an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation's Tom Fordyce" as opposed to "an interview with British Broadcasting Corporation's Tom Fordyce". What do you suggest I do?
        • Im' not sure, so leave it until someone else, knows it better. It's funny how that "the" seems more natural when BBC it's spelled-out.
          • I guess spelling it out fully in it's first instance here couldn't do any harm anyway. Fixed.
    • "(...) sprinting over 50 metres, 60 metres and 200 metres in various competitions." — you're enumerating so you can keep only the last "metres".
      • Done. What do you think of the idea of reducing them all to "m"s and "s"s?
        • Good idea. Don't forget though, that there must always be a first spelled-out instance.
  • "Edmonton World Championships":
    • "He won at the IAAF Grand Prix in Sevilla (...). In the run up to the 2001 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) Edmonton World Championships (...)" — Two links to the same page and the extended form with appended acronym is not the first instance. This must be corrected.
      • Fixed.
    • Tom Fordyce is linked here but his name shows up in the previous sub-section. Place first link there.
      • Fixed and removed repeated BBC info.
  • "2002 Commonwealth Games":
    • "Emerging as the favourite to win the 100 metres at the [2002 Commonwealth Games(...)" — there's a left square bracket lost in there.
      • Done - Cheers for that one.
  • "Drugs ban":
    • "A sample for an out of competition drugs test" — shouldn't it be "out-of-competition"?
      • Indeed it should - done.
    • The link on "The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) were(...)" should be on the extended name, which is the actual title of the agency's article. The same needs to be done with "Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO)".
      • Fixed.
    • You can put anabolic steroid when THG is mentioned for the first time.
      • Done.
    • "Chambers tried out – unsuccessfully – with Nehemiah's old team" — replace spaced en-dashes with em-dashes.
      • Done.
  • "Return to athletics":
    • "After a two year ban for drugs, Chambers" — two-year ban.
      • Fixed.
    • "gold-medal-winning" — gold medal-winning
      • Done.
  • "NFL Europa":
    • "Chambers' new career was brought to a stand still (...) The situation worsened further the NFL closed (...)" — "standstill"; "worsened further when the NFL closed (...)".
      • Fixed standstill and added when.
  • "High Court appeal":
    • "British Olympic Association" is already linked in the sub-section "Athletics pariah". You can add the "BOA" acronym there, right after the spelled-out name, and leave only the abbreviation in this sub-section.
      • Done.
  • Correct "Chambers'" to "Chambers's". There are PLENTY!
    • It appears both Chambers's and Chambers' are correct and it's a matter of preference - the style I tend to follow is the one listed in the first bullet point here. Note it can be pronounced in the same manner as plain "Chambers" is. The difficulty lies in if the extra "s" is added it leaves the reader with the hard pronunciation of "CHAYM-BURZ-UZ" which I feel is awkward.
      • Oh, didn't know about that exception (I'm not native English-speaker). Then, be sure that you have always that possessive form throughout the article.
        • "Chambers' is used throughout the article now.
  • I count eleven red links. You can either create articles for all of them or remove the links altogether.
    • What about this?
      • Needed a little more time to check sources for making articles - I've reduced it to three red links now through making articles, changing where the link directs and in a couple of cases plain removal. British Grand Prix in Athletics, Weltklasse and European Clubs' Cup still remain and I believe they deserve articles. I may create these last ones personally in the future.
  • The "Personal life" section is rather small. Can't you incorporate it in "Biography", somehow?
    • This issue was raised in the peer review — the difficulty is that all the information I can find about his family lacks a clear date thus it is hard to fit chronologically within the main body. However, I feel the information is very relevant to the subject and would not warrant simple exclusion.
      • It's just it too small to be a section of its own. Chambers's personal life is a part of his biography after all. Would it seem too strange to put this as the last sub-section under "Biography", even if it does lack a chronological sequence?
        • I agree that it is part of the biography but tacking it on to the end of a mainly athletics based body does seem awkward. I think the "Biography" header is causing more of a problem in this way. Maybe it should be athletics career because that's the sole focus anyway? I would prefer to keep a chronological main body even though the personal life info is scant. I have used the headings to both break up the text in to specific sections and make a helpful table of contents. See the TOC at the beginning of the article - it makes more sense that way. I imagine that if he finishes his autobiography there will be plenty of verifiable information to add to the personal life section and maybe an athletics "Style" section too.

So far, this is what I've noticed better. Otherwise, it seems fully comprehensive, well sourced article, with a good writing (though many times commas are missing). Parutakupiu (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much, for the rephrasing and formatting suggestions especially. In terms of commas feel freeto do it yourself and place them in wherever you feel necessary. Comma placement seems to come down to personal preference on occasions so it's hard for me to spot where they are missing. Thanks for all the comments. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:33, 27 August 2008 [2].

India House

Nominator(s): User:Rueben_lys
previous FAC (19:19, 25 July 2008)

This is the second nomination, after a failed nom last month when it failed due to prose, spelling etc issues. The article has since under gone a major copyedit, and some additional image etc have been added. I feel this is ready for a renomination. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Article strikes me as very long... This isn't necessarily a dreadful problem, except it expends an awful lot of words lingering over the background. Get to the point - this is not an article about the wider Indian nationalist story. Cut away a good chunk of this material. --Dweller (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is 36 kb (readable prose size), which I cant at all see as being long. It's in fact on the lower end of the recommended size. The background section has undergone significant changes and reassessment through the previous FAC to include the important historical context, especially where new readers are concerned. The version now on gives adequate background without overindulging in detailed history. Some editors have in the past commented that it provides the right balance, and I myself will be very loath to alter it as it stands now. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Moreover, it only raises the three points of a. the congress being founded, b. the movement extended to britain, and c. Shyamji Krishna Varma (the founder of the organisation) had an outlook on which his activities were built. I dont think it dwells at any length on Indian nationalist story at all, and in fact provides very neccessary background to the article. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I reviewed the article. In fairness, I agree, the article's not too long over all. However, I had to wade through all of this (below) which includes just one tangential mention of India House, before the article turns its attention to the actual topic:

Background Nationalism in India The growth of the Indian middle class during the 18th century, amidst competition among regional powers and the ascendancy of the British East India Company, led to a growing sense of "Indian" identity.[10] The refinement of this perspective fed a rising tide of nationalism in India in the last decades of the 1800s.[11] Its speed was abetted by the creation of the Indian National Congress in India in 1885 by A.O. Hume. The Congress developed into a major platform for the demands of political liberalisation, increased autonomy and social reform.[12] The nationalist movement became particularly strong, radical and violent in Bengal and Punjab, though notable, if smaller, movements also appeared in Maharashtra, Madras and other areas in the South.[12] Within this growing unrest, the controversial 1905 partition of Bengal had a widespread political impact: it stimulated radical nationalist sentiments and became a driving force for Indian revolutionaries.[13] Indian nationalism in Britain From its earliest days, the Congress sought to inform public opinion in Britain, seeking its support for Indian political autonomy.[12][14] The British Committee of Congress published a periodical titled India, which provided a platform for moderate (or loyalist) opinion and demands, while informing the British public about the Indian situation.[15] The British arm of the Congress also established an Indian parliamentary committee in the British Parliament with a view to influencing policy directly.[16][17] However, the British organisation was largely unsuccessful, prompting socialists including Henry Hyndman to advocate more radical approaches.[16] The committee also drew criticisms for its cautious approach, most prominently from Indian students in Britain.[14] After the decline of the Congress and during the political upheaval caused by the partition of Bengal, a nationalist Indian lawyer named Shyamji Krishna Varma founded India House in London.[18] Krishna Varma was an admirer of Dayanand Saraswati's approach of Cultural nationalism and held respect for Herbert Spencer, believing in the latter's dictum that "Resistance to aggression is not simply justified, but imperative".[19] A graduate of Balliol College, Krishna Varma returned to India in the 1880s and served as administrator (Divan) of a number of Princely states, including Ratlam and Junagadh. He preferred this position to working under what he considered service to the alien rule of Britain.[19] However, a supposed conspiracy of local British officials at Junagadh, compounded by differences between Crown authority and British Political Residents regarding the states, led to Krishna Varma's dismissal.[20] He returned to England, where he found freedom of expression more favourable. His views were staunchly anti-colonial, even supporting the Boers during the Second Boer War in 1899.[19]

That's excessive, and not a good use of summary style. --Dweller (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the three points mentioned above. What you have is three paras that puts the rest of the article in context rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
We don't need the History of the rise of nationalism and the birth Congress in this article; the article merely needs to note its existence and make sure a reader knows what it is. A lot of this information should not be in a FA, but signposted from it. --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is three lines a history? You have to remember that what it says is not an outside bit, but a whole part of the story, ie, that the rising middle class nationalism (these are still the young days) provided India House it recruits; Congress's foundation allowed the loyalist factions a voice, but the Congress Committee's lack of success added to the 1905 partition of Bengal fed discontent among a large part of the population; Shyamji Krishna Varma had an idea in his head, and he founded IHRS in response to the congress. Without mentioning where the congress was seen inadequate, what the problems in India were when the organisation IHRS was founded, and what the ideas of the founder was, it is not just inadequate, it is pointless. You also have to remember that most people have a extremely simple and wrong idea that there was only the Congress and nothing else, and that too was not there 1920s or something when Gandhi arrived. Of note, the background is similar to the opening sections in other FAs like Conatus, Oxidative phosphorylation, Macintosh Classic, and especially history FAs like 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt, Puerto Ricans in World War II,Political integration of India etc. The section itself is 2.7kb, which in 36 kb article seems appropriate. Besides, as I have pointed out, the background section was constructed through consensus through and after the previous FAC, to provide the right info and balanace without making ruckus of unneccessary info. The consensus so far upto the last edit before this nomination has been that the background section is just right. I am sorry but this is getting drawn out. I think reducing the background section will make the article not only context-less, but below par, alter meanings, and give out wrong factually incorrect ideas and possibly facts. You may request for comments in the article's discussion if you wish. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, this isn't drawn out... check out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Donald Bradman and click all five "show" buttons, if you want to see drawn out!!! :-)
Let's take this slowly... FAC has exacting standards and often demands of the article writers that they make changes they disagree with. I'm happy to wait and see if other FAC reviewers disagree with me - I've been wrong before.
If you find a few voices telling you to change it, you'll struggle to pass FAC without doing so. So let me know at my talk page if there's a consensus either way and I'll come back and finish reviewing the article, because for me this is a real barrier to supporting, but I'm happy not to oppose while it might just be me arguing on my own for something everyone else disagrees over. --Dweller (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the background as it stands—one short paragraph on nationalism in India, and another on Indian nationalism in Britain—is ideal. However, you may want to make the summary of background on Shyamji Krishna Varma (i.e. the third Background paragraph) its own section. This will further make clear that the article is heading in a very definite direction, I think. You might even consider moving this newly-made section to the start of the India House section, cutting the stubby Congress stuff that is now there (that belongs in the second paragraph of Background if anywhere, perhaps merge by mentioning chandra pal along with hyndman and the students?). Though it is background, the Varma stuff is also part of the start of the India Story proper, so this move would have its own logic, and might improve pacing. Have a look at both these options in preview and see what you think. 86.44.17.5 (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, image attribution in article space is strongly discouraged. The feeling is that attribution on the image page suffices. 86.44.17.5 (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with bith the above editors. Specifically to Dewellers, I agree with your point of other editors asking for a change, which is why I am saying ask for an RfC if you feel it is particularly unsuitable, no offence ment here, and I welcome the feedback. With regards to 86.44.17.5's comments, I'll try the changes you mentioned. In the meantime, I am slightly confused about the image attributions point you raised. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Background section and the intro India House section has now been modified. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the image point, I'm referring to putting "courtesty of" in the captions, which is discouraged in our manual of style, specifically Wikipedia:Caption#Credits. Separate query: would the Dispatch publication mentioned in the article be the Sunday Dispatch? 86.44.17.5 (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, yes, this has now been put to dab. Also, images sorted. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 22:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Background section, I'm going to work on this in a sandbox, here. Take a peek if you like. --Dweller (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, without even trying (and deleting almost nothing from the second half of it) I've reduced the Background section by about a third. Please review my sandbox effort. I'm sure that something similar can be done to this article that would make it more properly focused on the subject matter, as fitting an FA. --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Background section, I'm going to work on this in a sandbox, here. Take a peek if you like. --Dweller (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, without even trying (and deleting almost nothing from the second half of it) I've reduced the Background section by about a third. Please review my sandbox effort. I'm sure that something similar can be done to this article that would make it more properly focused on the subject matter, as fitting an FA. --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, but the problems are

  • it does not make the distinction that Congress was moderate, and that revolutionary movement was seprate, and especially, not moderate like the congress.
  • Secondly, it doesn't say much (if anything) about the Indian identitiy issue, which was very very influential (you will see that Savarkar later used "Indian" appeal, as opposed to SKV's European philosophies).
  • It doesn't note the particular prominence of Bengal, Punjab and Maharshtra. This is important since the revolutionary movement at this time was more or less confined to these places, and most recruits at any time were from these provinces. This background influenced the later activities in the movement, and essentially provided many of the philosophies that shaped it.(Savarkar was Maharshtrian, Chattopadhyaya Bengalee, Har Dayal Punjabi). There is a note later in the article which emphasises further that most recruits to India House were also from these provinces. This is important since the revolutionary movement at this time was more or less confined to these places, and most recruits at any time were from these provinces. This background influenced the later activities in the movement, and essentially provided many of the philosophies that shaped it. Take them away, and there's not really anything till 1920s when Gandhi appears to the scene. Very importantly, the Sedition Committee report i 1919 on the Revolutionary movement in India notes these when reporting on India House (in a three page section devoted to India House)
  • Also, the 1905 parition of Bengal's impact appears a bit muted, it needs to be emphasised a bit more. Otherwise I think it looks great. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I know nothing at all about this topic, so I'm bound to have screwed it up. I was just giving a for-instance. Feel free to use or reject any of my suggestions, but I hope you can now agree that the Background section can be much reduced, enabling the reader to get to the point faster, with no disastrous loss of knowledge. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But this is exactly what I am trying to explain, the reduction you showed has taken away very important bits to the background of how, why and what philosophies guided India house, and also gives a wrong impression of the Indian movement. It does nothing to suggest to the reader that there were very strong "other" forces and influences in addition to the Congress, which ultimately will leave the uninformed with rather skewed picture. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, fix it as you wish. Just beware that your concern is that the reader will not understand India House, the topic of the article, rather than Indian Nationalism, which is not the topic of the article. --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if it might be more appropriate to take off this nomination and call for an RfC for this section. If you, in the reader's shoes (and not an editor's shoes), feel that it is drawn out, surely other readers may see it drawn out as well. What do you think? rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Others may disagree with me, but this is a good place for it. If the article wasn't up for FA, I wouldn't care a jot about the Background section. The discussion only makes sense here, in the context of an FAC. This FA is still very very new - if you resolutely disagree with me, give it some time and wait to see if other reviewers come in and have an opinion. I'll drop a line to one or two battle-hardened FA copy experts and ask their opinions. --Dweller (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont "resolutely disagree" to altering the background (haha) as long as it preserves the essential points. What I did think was that the background, after having gone through an FAC and two langlit and prose c/e, was appropriate. But I dont think I am right always, so as I said, other voices welcome. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Leave it here and wait for other views. I've dropped a line to two regulars. If they disagree with me, I'll hide this section and we'll move on. --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look tomorrow (lame edit to serve as a watch post, could have just ticked the 'watch' tab above I guess..) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled into this, but fools rush in... I read the background section carefully, and to me, the first part of the "Nationalism in India" and the whole of the "Indian nationalism in Britain" subsections are essential background for a non-specialist. However, I'd be inclined to lose the last two sentences of the "Nationalism in India" section, since what's happening elsewhere in India seems less relevant. If these sentences went, I'd also lose the two subheadings, and maybe split the long second paragraph into two. Hope this helps,ignore if nonsense jimfbleak (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful from my perspective, thanks. An opinion that agrees and disagrees all in one could not possibly be 100% wrong, lol. Could be you're 100% right. --Dweller (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. A very important thing to note, the parition of Bengal was a watershed in the nationalist movement both within India and abroad, and Congress was seen incapable of resisting, hence Krishna Varma ultimately took he plunge. In my opinion, if anything, the last two lines needs to be made stronger, since (it appears the sentence does not emphasise) that event was one of the key events. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Founded under the patronage of Shyamji Krishna Varma as a student residence... - 'as' --> 'at'?
No, its as, ie, he founded a student residence and called it India house. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images Six images claim fair use in this article (five in the intro collage). Though it would be lovely to have them—they give a feel for period, personalities, ethnicities—personally none of them significantly aid my understanding of India House. Claims that they may be covered by {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} have varying degrees of likelihood of being true; all dates of publication are unconfirmed. This is a bit disappointing given that the question of images was raised in the previous FAC. If none of the copious amount of reference works cited have info on these images, then they didn't need them and nor do we. I would oppose on this basis.

A further image is used under {{PD-India}}. I'm no expert on thse matters, but I thought images needed to be PD both in the US and in their country of origin to be free here, though the very existence of the template seems to indicate I'm wrong.

Can the nom confirm for our peace of mind that the other images here were in effect made free by their authors, rather than simply allowed for use on Wikipedia without understanding of what that entailed? Some of the image page language about "permission" makes me a little uneasy. 86.44.27.232 (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image that are claimed free (Image:India House today.jpg and Image:Champakaraman Pillai.jpg I definitely have permission, from Londonremembers.com and Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan). Sorry, just relaised the template on C.R. Pillai claims expired copyright, I will change this in the next four hours. I've gotta rush. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought, given the borderline fair use status, in combo with the "'feel for period, personalities, ethnicities'", and AGFing on the other images, i withdraw objections and support.
One query you might be able to help me with: why is our article on Shyamji Krishnavarma so titled, when both that article and this refer to him as Krishna Varma throughout? 86.44.27.122 (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I massaged he prose a little, and it could probably be massaged a little more, but it has a nice flow (better in the lower half of the article than the beginningm which is unusual). For me who knows nothing about the circumstances of the politics etc of the time, the background as is is good. Whether it is slightly more or less is not a deal-breaker for me but what is there is good. A fascinating red, comprehensive and great tale. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Much improved. As Casliber said; "A fascinating re(a)d, comprehensive and great tale." --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the supports. On 86.44.27.122's query, his full name's actually Shyamji Krishnavarma Bhansali as far as I can gather, but all the reliable sources I can gather refers to him either both as Shyamji Krishna Varma or Shyamji Krishnavarma. I guess it is because of the way Indian names can be written, ie, Krishnavarma is conjoined word of two seperate names, so my guess is that either is correct. The article itself uses Krishna Varma throughout (I believe). Additionally on the issue of images, I have tracked down the first publication year of Cama's photo with the flag, and this is 1907. Hence, this is copyright expired. On the fairuse images in the collage, this is what I have to say. The images of Iyer, Acharya, Savarkar, Bapat along with Dhingra (the latter in public domain) are of very prominent figures of the organisation who are famous for their revolutionary activities. Anant Kanhere's image in the collage signifies the links to the Indian revolutionary movement, C.R. Pillai's image indicates the links to Indian movement in continental Europe as well as the links to the later WWI conspiracy. Maud Gon signifies the links to Irish nationalist/republican movement(among the Irish, Egyptian and Turkish nationalism mentioned), more importantly because she coordinated the attempt to storm Savarkar's van, it showing how deeprooted the collaboration was. Lastly, the TIS image is in public domain but further signifies the message, aims, and activities of India House, its headlines are self-explanatory. Placing this in the middle of the images (low resolution, mind you) of the India House members, I thought, incorporates and indicates the scope and works of India House, and aids understanding the article.I hope the much abused Fairuse rationale template is justified here :) rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 23:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definite oppose. Now this is an engaging, exciting read, and frankly a matter of great importance in understanding the political undercurrents leading to the modern Indian state. But after the first few sentences, the prose needs major surgery at every turn. Here are my comments on reading the first few paragraphs of the article. As well, if there were calls for the background to be trimmed, I'm afraid to say that I find the opposite, that it needs a little fleshing out so that non-experts can see the big picture properly. Not much more—perhaps five or six lines to forestall the need to ask basic, dumb questions about the whole thing. Assume ignorance like mine on the larger context.

  • "noted" twice in two sentences in the lead. What does it add? Is it verifiable? Who's noting what? "Prominent" might be OK.
  • This sentence is a bombsite: "The organization was subsequently investigated by Scotland Yard and became the target of the Indian Political Intelligence Office's work against Indian revolutionaries; the Metropolitan Police's crackdown on India House's activities caused in a number of its supporters, including Shyamji Krishna Varma and Bhikaji Cama, to leave for Continental Europe where they continued their activities." "the Indian Political Intelligence Office's work against"—The apostrophe is impossibly clunky, as is "Police's". "India House's activities" could be better as just "India House". "Work" is vague; was it a campaign? If so, "the campaign by the Indian Political Intelligence Office". And was it the only target? If not, make it "a" target, or "a key" target. Remove "in", ouch. Comma after "Europe".
  • "competition among regional powers"—"between" is better.
  • Your average reader might be forgiven for wondering why "the growth of the Indian middle class during the 18th century" should logically have led to "a growing sense of Indian identity". The sole reference, to [10] (Mitra, Subrata K (2006), The Puzzle of India's Governance: Culture, Context and Comparative Theory", suggests that it's part of a puzzle that you can't just put to the reader without a little explanation. And what has "competition among regional powers and the ascendancy of the British East India Company" got to do with this? I'm lost. Then, I suppose it's the "growing sense of Indian identity" that is the referent for "this perspective, here: "The refinement of this perspective fed a rising tide of nationalism in India in the last decades of the 1800s.[11]" Is "refinement" the best word? Refinement is what we do to prose that's a good deal better than this already. Perhaps "evolution", but it's still a bit vague.
  • "Its speed was abetted by the creation of the Indian National Congress in India in 1885 by political reformer A.O. Hume." "Abetted" is an unusual, even outmoded word. "Reinforced"? " fed a rising tide of nationalism in India in the last decades of the 1800s,[11] which was reinforced by the ..." or ", which accelerated after the creation of". Can we have all name initials unspaced, please? It's inconsistent, so you'll need to pipe some links.
  • "Notable"—there's that word again. Who's doing the noting? Remove "particularly"—it's unnecessary given the strength of the surrounding epithets. Remove "also"
  • "Within this growing unrest, the controversial 1905 partition of Bengal had a widespread political impact as it stimulated radical nationalist sentiments and became a driving force for Indian revolutionaries.[13]" Try this: "the controversial 1905 partition of Bengal had widespread political impact on this growing unrest, stimulating radical nationalist sentiments and becoming a driving force for Indian revolutionaries.[13]"

There's evidence of dangerous reliance on the dictionary and the thesaurus. And perhaps there's been a tendency to draw on small packages of summary information from the sources in ways that haven't led to its smooth integration into the narrative—at least in the lead and the Background. Someone needs to go through it very carefully to identify the many phrases and clauses that are vague and/or ambiguous. On one level, it's well-written, and this is a good foundation for making this a simply superb FA and a valuable contribution to the world's understanding of an important part of 20th-century history. Please buzz me when considerable progress has been made. Do you know where to find the right people to copy-edit it? Tony (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Till somebody decides how much background satisfies their apetite, I am not going to incorporate any more changes. As for the prose and other concerns you raise, I am afraid I am not even going to try and placade you because in the last FAC you raised the issue of too many references, too much info, etc, etc, and now its going the opposite direction. And pardon me but some of your concerns appear to me to be more self-explanatory. Eg, your last but one point- "notable-there's that word again. Who's doing the noting? Remove "particularly"—it's unnecessary given the strength of the surrounding epithets. Remove "also"." Noted by the people of the time, and noted as noted by the people of the time by the historians and authors who write on the movement who I have provided as references. And, really, "also" is a real word in English which deserves and/or requires use sometimes. The article has undergone four major langlit and prose c/e now by different editors, and I myself am not going to nominate it for anymore to anybody else. There are two or three minor prose problems that I intend to sort out. But otherwise, Tony, I am afraid I dont see any issues that you have raised that were really as drastic as you suggest, neither were these noted by other editors, nor do I think it would help if I even tried to address your concerns. I will however, give you massive thanks for the sentence on the Bengal partition, which I will add now to the article. No hard feelings. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made all name initials unspaced. 'Twas only a few early names that were not already so. 86.44.28.251 (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, we can sit around and do nothing, staring each other down, or you can take steps to improve the article. I'm not copy-editing it myself—it's your article. It can't possibly be promoted in its current state. Please read the instructions carefully, particularly this statement:

Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

Tony (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, its not "my" article, its a wikipedia article where I've been a significant contributor. I have pointed out with some examples why I thought I didn't find anything to construct with the criticisms you provided. I didnt mean to be rude, if that's what you thought. As for taking steps to improve it, Tony, the article has seen four major c/es, two with help from the LOCE. I would have thought that after such extensive surgery, prose and c/e stuff should be ironed out. If there's anything you find unsatisfactory at a critical scale that you outline, I am afraid, I will have to disagree with you. Ofcourse, you could take the wiki spirit further and edit yourself since, I have noticed your contributions to some of the article, and in fact I do thin k very highly of them. But I think you're searching for a particular "perfect prose", and I think that needs to come from yourself. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As one of the copyeditors on this article, I agree with Tony that the prose still has problems – some of them are things I just didn't catch, some are things I don't look closely for when doing a copyedit, some are things that were apparently changed after my CE. I'm willing to give the article another pass, but I don't know when I'll be able to get to it. In the meantime, I'll see if I can recruit anyone to have a look. Scartol • Tok 23:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by Moni3
  • I read the article twice, just to make sure I understood what was going on. It took me the second time to understand everything, I think. For me, that means the writing can be made clearer a bit.
  • Just in case the proverbial 12-year-old doing a report on Indian nationalism needs a reference, can you state for how many years India had been occupied by Britain at the beginning of the background? And what it was about British colonialism that so upset Indian nationalists? On the face, it would seem occupation alone would do it, but what were their major objections at the time?
  • I have to be honest and say that the large number of Indian names lost me a few times. There were some without blue links. Are they quite necessary for the article? Those with blue links, I feel, are written as if the reader knows who these folks are.
  • The definition of "sedition" varies from one country to the next, and differs in times of conflict. Seditious literature seems to be a theme of the article. Can you provide examples of what was considered seditious to British authorities at the time?
  • How did British and Indian popular opinion (beyond the authorities) view the activities of India House before and after the assassination? This might be my populist-leaning American approach, but if popular opinion was sympathetic or angry at the organization, that would lead to how difficult their road would be to survival.
  • An interesting article that will be quite comprehensive with just a few changes. --Moni3 (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks Moni3. Could you grant me say a coupla days, I'll have to go back to the sources (returned them to the library). Thanks though. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 13:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the points I can address right now. There's two Indian names in the article Hem Chandra Das and S.L. Joshi, which are red links. Hem Chandra Das I intend to create an article very soon, Joshi I dont know anything about so cant do anything. The other name that is a red link is Nicholas Safranski, that's a Russian name, and a person I know very little about. The other names, I will provide some contexts to in the next 48 hours. "Seditious literature", frustratingly for myself, is a term that Valentine Chirol threw around in abundance in his book the "Indian unrest". Later authors simply use his version, mostly for literature even remotely nationalist, without going into details of contents. I will try to dig this up, but a forewarning that this might not yield very fruitful results.

There is a bit in the section "Indian nationalism" which talks about the opinions of Indians and British ordinary people, do you want more (happy to give more)? rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 13:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful to start the Background section with two sentences or so that explain how long India had been occupied, and what economic role Britain played in the occupation. Some of the most basic American history lessons on American Independence start with British taxation and censorship.
On seditious literature: you don't happen to have access to any of the India House newspapers, do you? If so, are you able to say India House Resident A wrote an article that promoted Violent Act X (and perhaps a couple other examples)? Was it simply the topic of Indian nationalism that was seditious? Or were these what we would consider hard core equivalents to contemporary militia writings on how to overthrow the government? Oklahoma City bombing and all? Chirol is quoted, and that's good - what are his background and political leanings? Could you say "Journalist Valentine Chirol, a staunch defender of the British Empire, wrote in year 19xx ..." This goes back to the names - don't assume anyone reading this knows who any of these people are. Unfortunately for the anglo-centric, you might have to work extra hard on differentiating Indian names by using a descriptor in front of each one. I think one of the major criticisms of common readers to War and Peace is that they can't keep all the characters with their Russian names straight. So you and Tolstoy are in good company. --Moni3 (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Background section'e been expanded a bit, tell me if this is satisfactory, or more would be appropriate. As for the newspaper, there's a section on TIS, which describes in brief what the message was. There's also an image in the introduction collage (Philosophy of Dynamite) which would give an idea what the message. Are you suggesting that this be incorporated into the text? rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read through it again a couple times. I was hoping for something even a bit more basic. How long had the British East India Company been operating? What were their practices? You state rather generally that there's a rise of the middle class, and "steady erosion of pre-colonial socio-religious institutions and barriers", and "emerging financial interests" - what does that mean literally? Why would this group of people want to plan assassinations and write about overthrowing the British government? Why did they feel they were being treated so unjustly? If you can't relay their frustration to the reader, the reader's not going to believe India House had any just cause. It is my understanding that tea, cotton, and salt were some of the major crops controlled by Britain; plantations owned by Britons used very cheap Indian labors (bordering on slavery?), shipped Indian goods to Britain where they were manufactured into product, and resold to Indians at inflated prices, ensuring that Indians did not benefit from their own labor or land. That's a cause for getting angry. What were the other complaints of Indians upset with British colonialism?
On images of the newspaper: images should complement the text, not replace it. If an image says something that text should cover without the image, it should be in the text. What I understand from TIS is that Krishna Varma was able to write critical opinions of the British colonial government and its policies in Britain because writing the same in India would cause severe repercussions, is that correct? I'm not seeing where that's seditious. Were there articles that asked Indian students to put their feelings of injustice into practice by making bombs, targeting government officials or buildings, or organizing to ensure massive unrest? If so, examples of these should be included in the text. If not, make it really crystal clear that even writings expressing the Indian desire for self-rule were considered (by who?) to be seditious. One scoffing columnist may have had some influence, but Scotland Yard got involved - someone high up took notice.
The writing is clearly at a high level for this article, and the research well done. I'm concerned that it's also really detached. I think that you're giving your readers perhaps too much credit to understand the Indian point of view. It's the difference between explaining it well, and grabbing the reader by the hand and forcing him in the shoes of those who were there. I rather like to be taken on a bit of a wild ride, so I would like to be placed inside the minds of really pissed off Indian students meeting in India House talking about how much the British government really, really sucks. Then I'd like to be put in the mind of British government officials or industrialists who equate their involvement in India to the core of their very British sense of self, who would defend holding on to India against all odds. --Moni3 (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:13, 26 August 2008 [3].

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Nominator(s): EclipseSSD (talk)
previous FAC (05:06, 10 June 2008)


Self-Nomination: I am nominating The Texas Chain Saw Massacre for FA status, because between this nomination and the previous one, I believe that I and other editors have significantly improved and expanded this article enough for it to reach FA status. It is my opinion that the article explains all the relevant points in a good amount of detail, and has valid references to back up the statements made, where necessary.--EclipseSSD (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images

  • The source link does not work. Listing who the main characters are and who played them would make this a better rationale. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link seems to work for me, but I've changed it to the main website with the screenshots, so most people should be able to access it now. --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who owns the copyright to this film, by the way? That needs to be included in the fair use rationale.
  • Image:Leatherface1974.jpg - There is no fair use rationale for the Texas Chainsaw article.
  • Image:Tope Hooper TCM.JPG - I am not convinced that we need a fair use image of the director making the movie. What is an image of this necessary for the article?
  • Image:Leatherfacenumber1.jpg - This is an insufficient fair use rationale. Please expand upon the reasoning for why this image must be included in the article to significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the film (see WP:NFCC). Also, there must be a separate fair use rationale for each article in which the image is used.
  • Illustration alone is not a sufficient reason to use a non-free image. We have to have a compelling reason to use this particular comic book cover. I would suggest removing this image unless we can find a good reason to include it. Awadewit (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the purpose for the image on the film's article. Let me know if I should expand upon that one.--EclipseSSD (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think "first comic" is enough. Awadewit (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments help! Awadewit (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues Addressed. Feel free to go over and correct, if corrections need to be made. --EclipseSSD (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Once again, I support this article. If there's anything that I can do, let me know.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're trying to sort the referencing out. Any help would be greatly appreciated. --EclipseSSD (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I've got my usual FAC sourcing load, my own FAC up, and a class tonight. Sorry, can't really help (and would be hopeless anyway, I don't follow movies at all). If you want some suggestions, I strongly suggestion contacting Moni3 (talk · contribs) who has worked on some film FACs and is in better touch with good sources for movies. I do bishops and horses, they don't work so well for movie sources! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Plot section is too long. The image in the plot section doesn't meet fair-use criteria. There is no critical commentary on it. The image of Leatherface in the cast section seems obligatory, and unnecessary. Heck, the cast section seems completely unncessary itself. You might as well get rid of it and list the actors in the plot section, because the only thing in the cast section is a brief description of who that character is in the film (something the plot section covers). Leave the sequal information for the film series page, there's no need to go into such detail when the film series page should already cover that. It seems the "Adaptations" section covers the adaptations and continuation of the other films into the comic book medium....not something for this page. If it isn't directly related to this film, the film series page probably should cover it since that page covers the film series as a whole. I don't think this page is close to FA status right now. I would probably also challenge how it met some of the GA criteria, because a lot of the article seems to be choppy in the prose. I would personally withdraw this nomination so that the article can go through a thorough cleaning. I think a peer review would be in better order, as you don't have to worry about trying to get things done in time (and I think there is too much to do to get this in FA shape in a relatively decent amount of time), and you can get more suggestions for improvement. I would be more able to help if this was under PR, as I don't have the time to rush to clean up the article for an FAC.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - This is the last nomination of the article from me personally. I've done a great deal of work on the article, however, I don't think any of that really mattered at all. If anybody wants to nominate the article without mentioning my contributions, that's okay. It's been an honour to work on this article and nominate it, however, I think there is more to learn, so I shall leave it up to the people to decide the fate of this nomination. I probably will continue to edit the article, but won't feel up to nominating it. So, hope to see somebody elses' name by the nominator's place next time. Thanks to all who contributed in the last 2 and this discussion. I've learnt a lot. --EclipseSSD (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: Hi, Eclipse. You really need some good references for this article. I think I mentioned the same in the previous FACs for Texas Chain Saw Massacre. It seems obvious that are you passionate about this topic, so reading about this film should not be a chore for you. It might be difficult to get some of the references necessary if you don't live close to a large library, but you should check out the Interlibrary Loan department in your local public library. If you do live close to a college or university, you can visit their library and use their materials while you're in the building. You would have access to film journals, and articles on culture and media. Some of them might let you check some stuff out - you should ask. But I think as of now, your biggest impediment is the lack of good sources. This article could be not just a companion to other informative articles, but among the best and most comprehensive pieces of writing available anywhere. You should not stop working on it until you know it is. I know that working on FACs is arduous and often does not ever seem productive. It can be brutal. But this article of yours here is honoring the subject. This is the "batshit insanity" comment on my userpage. Don't stop. Keep going, looking, searching for more information. When you can "Boo-ya!" at commenters at FAC who may cast aspersions on your sources, you know you've got enough. --Moni3 (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Image:Tope Hooper TCM.JPG seems to be replaceable Fasach Nua (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is it? The photo isn't just of Tobe Hooper, it's Tobe Hooper working on a film thirty years ago, so I don't know how many free use pictures with that particular intention could be found.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it isn't replaceable, it need to be clearly stated in the rationale how the use of a thirty year old picture significantlyincreases the understanding of the subject "texas chain saw masacre" by the reader in a way that cannot be achieved using a contemporary picture. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


question' - The article title is "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre", yet the poster is "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", various other internet source are with and without the space, could you supply a ref for the name? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The film itself & the DVDs, videos of it have two words for Chainsaw. So it spells Chain Saw instead. The 2003 remake spells it out as one word. The original 1974 movie poster does have the one word, but most DVDs & covers go for 2 words now, and is also in the beginning of the film. I'm not sure references would really help it alot. Any thoughts? --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I've contacted several members of the former LoCE to request a copyedit of the article, and am currently awaiting a reply.--EclipseSSD (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • Per a request I've gone through most of the article and gave it a good copyedit—not the best, but something to work off of. As I worked my way through the text, I had a couple comments and questions:
  • The lead seems quite a bit sparse for an article of this length.
  • The Plot section seems unusually long and detailed for film articles. I would trim it down myself, but I wanted to hear what the nominator thinks.
  • That image of Leatherface in the Cast section doesn't add much.
  • I'm concerned about comprehensiveness; some of the sections—Legacy and Release in particular—seem to have potential for massive expansion if you really did some good research. I agree with Moni3 about this.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with what you're saying. The plot section should be trimmed down a bit. I'm gonna see if I can do a lot more research about this film to make this article truly deserving of FA status. I give the go ahead for anybody willing to trim the plot section to a more appropriate length. If The Texas Chainsaw Massacre task force is created, it should be a lot easier to bring this article up to coat, because more people will be contributing. For anybody who's interested in helping out with this film franchise, see the task force proposal link on the talk page of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre article. --EclipseSSD (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I trimmed the plot section down to 563 words - for a movie that is only 80 minutes and rather simple...that's probably pretty good. Not saying it's perfect, I'm sure it could be tightened up more...but it's certainly a start. I added the rest of the actor names and removed the cast section, which served no real purpose since there was no real world information there, only the same plot info that's in the plot section. I also removed the image from the plot section and the cast section. Neither image had critical commentary to support why it was lending to a greater understanding of the section it was placed in. I think, if the info could be found, that the Leatherface image could be replaced in the article, but somewhere in the production section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll return to review this properly, but to start with, please see WP:CONTEXT about the linking of the names of commonly known countries, especially English-speaking ones, and of common words such as "sledgehammer" and "cannibals", among many others not even piped. Please weed them out. Tony (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've removed all of the comic information. As I read it and was cleaning it up, I realized that none of it had to do with this film. They didn't start publishing till 20 years later (well after two sequels had come and gone). They had not adapted a version of the original film (just the third film). That info had no place on this article, so I moved it to the film series article where it is more appropriate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:55, 25 August 2008 [4].

Meshuggah

Nominator(s):  LYKANTROP  ✉

I'm nominating this article about a Swedish experimental band for featured article because I think that it is ready for the nomination. I've discussed it with several users (peer review) and I think that it passes the FA critria now.  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prefixmag, Sputnikmusic, about.com and rockdetector are proffesional-music-critics sources. guitarworld.com/metalkult is very professional as well (explanation here). Metalstorm is the only source that is not as reliable as the others. But it can be removed because the information has also some other sources. I used the selfpublished sources so that they do not support any controversial information. Only additional and specifying information or non-contentious facts are supported only by the selfpublished sources.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the 2 problematic references.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 14:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allright:
I'd be happier with more positive reviews from more than one source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph in this Blabbermouth news about Rockdetector.com's Garry Sharpe-Young books says: "Zonda Books will publish Garry's "Death Metal", "Black Metal" and "Power Metal" books before the end of the year. These MusicMight titles replace the 2001 editions, which have consistently ranked number 1 on their Amazon.com searches for five years and more." Some information can be found here (introduction) and here--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information about Chad Bower comes from the about.com page for him. Third party information would help more. Also, with About.com, just being backed by The New York Times doesn't work, since there doesn't seem to be much editorial oversight over about.com. I'll confess that about.com is Sandy's baby, she's better equiped to discuss why its questioned. (She's done the research about it, that's why). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any better information directly about Chad Bowar than the source I posted above. I only can find things such as interviews by Browar like for example this one. Sorry, but I dont know what the "Sandy's baby" means.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) the FAC director's delegate. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Metacritic is just an aggregator, being included there isn't a guaranty of reliablity. If you're just using the sputnik stuff as reviews, attribute the information to the reviewer at Sputnik and it'll pass. However, using a review for factual information means you need to prove the reliability of the reviewer or the site overall. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the reviews are reliable when they are recommended by WP:ALBUM#Review sites. I think that when you judge the reliability of sources such as Rockdetector, About.com (Chad Browar) and Sputnikmusic (staff reviews), you should also take into account that Meshuggah is relatively an underground band in the circles of experimental metal genre, which is also absolutely not a mainstream musical genre. About Browar we know that he

"has been involved in metal for over 20 years. He writes or has written for several national music publications including Outburn, Hails and Horns, AMP, Lollipop, Loud Fast Rules and more. He's done hundreds of interviews over the years with members of bands such as Judas Priest, Metallica, Cannibal Corpse, Queensryche, Sepultura, In Flames and more. In addition, Chad has covered events like Ozzfest, Warped Tour and the New England Metal and Hardcore Festival. He's also worked in radio for the past two decades at stations all over the country."([5])

From Sputnikmusic I used one review written by one of two "Heads of Staff" of Sputnikmusic. About the Sputnikmusic staff reviewers we know that

"The Sputnikmusic staff is a small group of writers and reviewers who are acknowledged as the most exemplary reviewers on the site. Staff reviewers are expected to exhibit a high level of reviewing prowess and activity on the site, consistently write at an expert level that is devoid of errors, and review new releases. Staff reviewers also contribute to the site through the "Staff Picks" feature on Sputnikmusic, in which they select recently-released albums (2005 or later) for their genre(s) of interest that they highly recommend to the community. Staff reviewers will receive the bulk of the new promo CDs coming to Sputnikmusic, and many of the staff writers keep in constant contact with record labels, artists, and artist management; in doing so, they receive promo copies and other inside information. Because of their position, the staff is entitled to certain perks that non-staff writers cannot receive (such as reviewing an album and submitting it to the site prior to the album's official release date, especially if they've maintained contact with the artist or someone affiliated with the artist)."([6])

I am absolutely not telling you to accept some not-that-good sources or bring down Wikipedia's standards or to narrow your eyes when judging these sources. I just want to emphasize that "how reliable a source is depends on context." If we accept only the best known mainstream sources such as Rolling Stone magazine, we could never create a featured article about an underground experimental band, which is renowned by professionals, but does not have a huge publicity, because of low mainstream popularity. Therefore I think that the three sources above should be accepted as reliable, because they are written by pofessionals, but not so famous ones.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, this does not qualify them as experts under WP:SPS, which discuss experts publishing in their field but not in mainstream sources. And just because a Wikiproject suggests some sites doesn't make them reliable according to WP:RS or WP:V. I really am not trying to be a pain here, you'll note that I"m not opposing the article based on these sources, but they need to fulfill the basic Wikipedia policies to pass FAC. I'm perfectly willing to leave them out for other reviewers to decide for themselves on their reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are not a pain here, I just want to solve the problem. We have some third party sources about reliability of Rockdetector, but what now with the Sputnikmusic and About.com?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About.com I'm punting to Sandy (I corrected my typing error above, btw) and on Rockdetector I think we're close enough that I'm confortable saying "borderline, not necessarily proven for all things, but can be seen how it's being used in each case". Sputnik, I still haven't seen anything that looks third party. If you've put it up, I apologize, my sinuses are making my head feel like a watermelon today, and I'm not the brightest bulb on the planet today! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for "punting About.com to Sandy". I hope you"ll get well... I had enough of messing around with Sputnikmusic. No third-party sources about its reliability. I just deleted it because the source had almost no impact on the content of the article. Only one statement was not backed up by any other source (and it was deleted). --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Can ONLY the band edit it? If that's the case, it would be like their website, and a primary source. If others beside the band can edit it, then it's like a wiki, and wouldn't be reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is like their official website. I also used in the article almost only for the history issues. I generally make an effort not to source any controversial content with these sources. I used it mostly for the details in the history of the band.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're just using the review as a review, you attribute it to "According to (blah), the reviewer at (blahsite), (review of the music style, etc)." But if you're using it to cite facts, you need to show that the reviewer is reliable and published elsewhere or that the site overall is reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This website is used once in the whole article and the content has two other sources. It can be removed.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, is this site gone from the article? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has been removed. It was not indispensable (as the metalstorm and the prefixmag).--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is what you asked for. Every time I used a selfpublished source, I focused to use it only for non-contentious topics. I used them only for additional and more detailed information and facts about the history of the band, which were not so detailed in other sources. --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images

These should be relatively easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed that.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that, but the user does not have a userpage anyway.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lykantrop is listed as the uploader and Valerian Noghin as the author and User:Valli as the copyright holder. We need to establish somehow that these are the same people or that User:Valli and Valerian Noghin are the same person and that they did release the photo somewhere. Awadewit (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Originally the picture was uploaded to Wikipedia by user:Valli (Image:Tomas Haake.jpg). I wanted to move it to the Commons so I asked on Village pump and they told me to upload it to the commons again and leave the author and the licence as it was originally. Somebody told me about this tool later, but did not use it anymore. Maybe we can just move the original one to the commons (with the Move-to-commons assistant) and delete the newer version (that was uploaded by me). On the other hand, we can simply use the original as it is.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used the Move-to-commons assistant and the image looks fixed.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 06:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images look good. Awadewit (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose-needs a thorough copyedit. Here examples from the lead. Comments I'm sorry, I jumped the gun on that. I will go through and fix the lead now. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Meshuggah are a Swedish five-piece experimental metal band that formed in 1987." Subject-verb agreement, please. The band is a single entity, are-->is.
  • "Meshuggah first acquired international attention with the 1995 release Destroy Erase Improve for their fusion of death metal, thrash metal and prog metal." Wrong verb, acquired should be attracted.
  • "Meshuggah have been labelled as one of the ten most important hard and heavy bands by Rolling Stone and as the most important band in metal by Alternative Press." Once again, we're talking about one band (have-->has).
  • "Nothing and all later albums reached Billboard 200, obZen ceased on No. 59 and sold 11,400 copies in the first week." This sentence is vague. I don't understand how an album is "ceased".
I fixed this up the best that I could. However, someone who understands the content better should proofread what I've done. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks allright now.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 09:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band was nominated for a Swedish Grammy Award in 2006, played on the Ozzfest festival and are currently on a world tour." This sentence should be split up. These events are rather unrelated. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section is the part of the article that has been made at last. The whole article body went through a detailed general copyedit by both User:Kakofonous and User:Laser brain. After that the article had almost no changes, but the lead section was completely re-written (by me - I am not a native speaker). That is why the lead needs copy edits.
All these "are-->is" "errors" are problems of American/British English. It has been changed by some user here. Many articles use "are" instead of "is" - for example typical english bands like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple. Meshuggah are a European band, so why should American English be used?
Yes the lead section needs copyedit anyway. It was written by a non-native english speaker. But the rest of the article has been checked by several users. I would welcome if someone helps me with the lead section rather than just oppose the nomination.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I addressed almost all the issues in the lead. I'll look at the rest of the article when I get time. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC) More comments[reply]

  • I find that in the Lyrics, songwriting and recording section, there is an specific statement on obZen's lyrics and themes, but none of the other albums.
  • Maybe there should be a main article link to the articles about the albums in the section describing the albums.

These issues are not big; I'll have no problem supporting the article once these are fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the links to the main articles and I also added few more lyrical themes in that section. The new three sentences will probably need copy-edit.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 09:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited the new sentences. Great job! My support will come as soon as the sourcing issues are resloved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuetral This is one of the best written band articles I've seen. I was weary when I was reading becuase I saw no reviews, but then I got done reading the biography, and I saw the phenomenal style section. It is freakin amazing. The one thing I hate to mention, is some of the sources are questionable. Whenever I have been at FAC, allmusic biographies were only able to be limited as sources, while this one is used a lot. The band's official website is also questioned because it may not be nuetral, but this one looks nice because it was written by ESPN. I really hate mentioning that because of the controversy caused for using the autobiographical info for Opeth when I wrote that. Rockdetector is also usually seen as a problem site. I think it is a beautiful article, but some sources, I hate to say, are questionable. If there is some type consensus on them, I would gladly change to a support. Burningclean [speak] 04:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:55, 25 August 2008 [7].

Oil shale extraction

Nominator(s): Beagel (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think this worth to be assessed as FA. The article is quite technical and there could be some problems with its prose. At the same time, the current prose is probably a good example of joint work which involved both well established oil shale experts (namely Alan Burnham) and experienced wikieditors (special thanks work the copyediting to user:Novickas and user:Gprince007 and for reviewing to user:JMiall and user:4u1e). However, if you have any idea how to further improve this article, please make your suggestion to make it really worth to be FA. Beagel (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link checker tool shows two dead links.
    Dead link removed as the information is verified by other sources referred in the text. However, I would like to ask what is the official policy concerning use of web archives like Wayback Machine?
  • Current ref 11 (Soone, Juri) is lacking a publisher.
    This is a paper presented to the International Oil Shale Conference held in Jordan on 7-9 November 2006 and organized by Jordanian Natural Resources Authority and Al-Balqa Applied University. The author Jüri Soone is a director of the Oil Shale Research Institute, Tallinn University of Technology. Conference materials are published at the website of the Sustainable Development Networking Programme in Jordan. In this case, who should be marked as publisher? Beagel (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.freepatentsonline.com/ what makes this a reliable source:?
  • Likewise http://www.patentgenius.com/?
    Right now there are two references to patents. Concerning the ATP retort, the information provided in the patent is verified by third party sources. This technology was also used in practice at the Stuart Oil Shale Project. Concerning Multi-Mineral Corporation, this method is quite notable as referred by several sources and classifications. At the same time, there is not so much information about the technology itself. Therefore, the patent information could be useful. I also add one additional reference to verify the sentences referring to the patent information.Beagel (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And http://www.aboutremediation.com/default.asp?
    Verified by additional source
    Can't say that this source is not reliable (at least the information seems reliable and the description of technology seems quite good). However, as there are also other sources, this references is removed.Beagel (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what makes http://www.hubbertpeak.com/ a reliable source?
    Although website itself probably can't to be considered as reliable source, the author of this article, Jean Laherrere, is a reputable petrochemist and oil shale specialist and his works are cited in other reliable sources, e.g. report by the European Academies Science Advisory Council. His reliability could be verified by Google Scholar search.Beagel (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/06/oil-shale-development-imminent.html? It's a blog.
    I agree about blogs in general. At the same time, Robert Rapier—the author of the referred essay in this energy blog—is a well known writer on energy issues. He has a master's degree in chemical engineering, and has 15 years of experience in the petrochemicals industry. He holds several U.S. and international patents, and is currently employed by a major oil company. Therefore he could be considered authoritative and also trustworthy in relation to the subject. However, as this reference is not necessary, I removed it.
  • And http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page1?
    Mineweb.com is an international mining online publication. It is published by Moneyweb Holdings, listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange [JSE:MNY]. Therefore it is reliable as any other information agency. However, I changed publisher to Moneyweb Holdings.Beagel (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I'm traveling, so responses may be delayed a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I changed two cite web references to cite patent.
  • ex situ and in situ should be defined in the lead section. In general, the lead could be targeted to a broader audience.
    Defined.Beagel (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images are too small for my taste.
  • My personal preference is for no line breaks within the references.

Otherwise looks good on a quick read. --Kkmurray (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a —This is part of a comment by Tony1 (of 05:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]

  • Let's have a look at the opening.
    • "(shale gas can also refer to gas occurring naturally in shales). The process also produces ..."—We haven't yet heard of "shale gas", so why is it an "also"? THis solves the problem of two "alsos". "that occurs" would shift the possible meaning away from the process-oriented formation ("occurring").
      What problem is exactly with shale gas? Term "shale gas" has two different meanings. The first one is the gas produced in the process of oil shale pyrolysis. Another meaning is gas occurring naturally in shales (See shale gas). The sentence says: "Kerogen is pyrolysed into a petroleum-like condensable shale oil and combustible shale gas (shale gas can also refer to gas occurring naturally in shales)." So, the sentence clearly talks about the shale gas as product of pyrolysis and to avoid confusion it gives in brackets the another meaning of shale gas. So, in this case both meanings of shale gas are given and "also" in the brackets is needed to avoid mixing these two different meanings. In the next sentence, I replaced "also" with "in addition" if you like this more. "Occuring is replaced with "that occurs".
    • The decomposition, surely.
      fixed.Beagel (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably remove "relatively".
      It is possible to say that "300 °C is a relatively low temperature", but saying that "300 °C is a low temperature"? I don't think so.Beagel (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There is a lot of oil shale pyrolysis and retorting technologies." Dear dear dear. And while we're here, a semicolon after "technologies" to flag that the next clause is an immediate expansion.
      reworded.Beagel (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is messy: "However, only a few dozen have been tested in a pilot plant (with capacity 1 to 10 tonnes of oil shale per hour) and less than ten technologies have been tested at a demonstration scale (40 to 400 tonnes per hour)"—Unsure, but do you mean this? "However, only a few dozen have been tested, in a pilot plant with a capacity of 1–10 tonnes of oil shale an hour, and fewer than ten technologies have been tested at a demonstration scale (40–400 tonnes an hour).
      There are different test levels. I have a feeling that your proposal makes it more confusing. Maybe we could use a serial comma before "and"?
  • "may be ... may be"—Remove the second one (ellipsis). Remove "used".
  • Stub, and it's poor style, I'm afraid, to start a clause with "also" (audit the use of this word throughout—get rid of most): "Also heat of the spent shale may be reused for the pyrolysis."

That's just over two pars. The standard of prose is significantly wanting. Please bring on board work-nerd collaborators (search edit summaries in edit-history pages of similar articles; teamwork is of the essence at WP). Tony (talk) 05:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Is that table under Classifications absolutely necessary? I find myself coming to a dead stop there every time I try to read the article. It is very technical and hard for someone like me to understand. Do you think hydrocarbons should be mentioned in the lead somewhere? Also, if petroleum and oil are the same thing, I think you should stick to using one word or the other. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My personal feeling is that the table helps to get a better overview of different technologies. Otherwise you may just lost in descriptions of different technologies. But if there is a support to remove this, I will accept this. Kerogen (as also shale oil and shale gas) is a hydrocarbon, and therefore hydrocarbons are probably worth of mentioning in the lead. Do you have any specific suggestion? I replaced crude oil with petroleum, except in cases of synthetic crude and heavy crude oil.Beagel (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It really helps to connect the dots for people like me. I was figuring things out by reading all the wikilinks, but I never did get beyond the table. I will skip the table and try again! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As far as a suggestion, I would say that at the earliest possible opportunity you could stress that what you are talking about is hydrocarbon extraction (if that is the case). We all know that hydrocarbons are important, but the other terms you use are unfamiliar. Another question: you frequently mention retorts and retorting, which is actually distillation? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added hydrocarbons in the first sentence (don't knew if this the right place for this). In chemistry retorting and distillation are same thing. However, the industry uses terminology "retorting" (and the industrial retort and laboratory retort are quite different although the principle is same).Beagel (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can see there is talented hand behind this article. It has a lot going for it, however, I doubt anyone will call it light reading. I don't see mistakes in the writing, but it is dense with industry-specific concepts and science. Questions: —This is part of a comment by Maclean25 (of 01:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
    • In Economics, "Some observers have compared shale-oil production unfavorably with other unconventional oil technologies..." - sounds like a Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. According to the reference there is no doubt that coal is more economical than oil shale. Are there observers that argue that oil shale is production is more favorable?
      As a rule, coal-to-liquid produce more oil than extraction of oil shale. At the same time, different oil shales vary significantly by their composition and carbon content, and depending technology, in some cases you could achieve an oil yield comparable with CTL production. So, the above statement is correct in general, but not in absolute scale. However, I removed possible weasel words, so hopefully it is acceptable right now.Beagel (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same with "Some commentators have expressed concerns over...", just switch to "There are concerns..." to avoid that passive voice.
      reworded.Beagel (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Environmental considerations section is somewhat lacking. While key words are hit upon, with the exception of water which is explained in the article, the key 'considerations' are not elaborated upon. What is missing is how does extraction create sulfur gas emissions (or other air pollution) and to what extent? ie. there's no flaring? Same with 'biological and recreational value of land', how and to what extent does extraction damage biological/recreational/agricultural value? -maclean 01:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      As this is a summary section, more information is provided in the Environmental impact of oil shale industry. I added also more information about land use and atmospheric emissions. However, it is impossible to say "to what extent" as different oil shales have different composition and properties (some of them have very low sulfur content, some of them have very high sulfur; same applies to carbon). It is depends also of used technology. For example, it is believed that in situ extraction doesn't have any other atmospheric emissions than only emissions created by burning fuels to generate a heat. At the same time these technologies have greater impact to the groundwater. Beagel (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be helpful to consult the list at WP:PRV to bring on board someone to help comb through the lingo and jargon. I've been wondering why more reviewers haven't engaged here, but looking at the article even as someone with a background in the oil industry, I'm seeing why reviewers are having a hard time with the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:55, 25 August 2008 [8].

Battle of Trenton

Nominator: Red4tribe (talk)
previous FAC (23:30, 19 July 2008)


I am nominating this article to become an FA again.Red4tribe (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments on images
  • Image:Battle-of-Trenton.jpg - Please add as much descriptive information to this file as possible. What is the map of? Where did it come from exactly? Did it come from the book to which the link takes us eventually? Do we know who the author is?
  • MOS:IMAGES advising staggering images so that they do not end up entirely on the left- or right-hand side of an article.

These issues should not take long to resolve. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the images and added cite templates to the references. Red4tribe (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this article is still in an unclosed peer review. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is now closed. Red4tribe (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'm baffled by "Douglas, Hatch p. 1152" and similar footnotes. I see the Hatch book, but what does Douglas mean? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Book search reveals that Douglas is the other author of the Hatch book. Clearly, all of the necessary information is not provided in the references section for this and other books.
An even more perplexing question: why is the Hatch book even cited at all? It appears to be a collection of tidbits about things that happened in US history on certain days, and yet it's used here for a single citation for Hessian troop activities the night of Washington's crossing! I suggest getting rid of this all other tertiary sources (e.g. the Elson book) and stick to the scholars writing specifically about this battle, of which there are no shortage for this topic. The Pulitzer Prize winning book by Fischer, which should be the definitive source for this article, is barely cited here. —Kevin Myers 14:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunetly, I do not have a copy of the Fischer book(and I have viewed my max pages on Amazon and Google). However, if you do, I would appreciate it if you could replace some of the other references, such as Hatch, with Fischer. On another note, the images are fixed. Red4tribe (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too was surprised that Fischer's (published 2004) Washington's Crossing was not referenced more. Especially since most of the article agreed with what is in Fischer's book, which I just finished reading the other day. However, I still think that this is an outstanding article on the crossing and the battle and have left a comment to that effect on the article's discussion page. I would like to help edit the article, but unfortunately I find my time taken up editing entomology-related articles and the ghastly TV series North and South versions of some of the Civil War articles. :-) Fasulo (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • support - the article is very good [OT] i see there is a current translation on it.wiki of this article, thanks to the anonymous user that is workin' :) [/OT]--Mojska 18:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I appreciate the work done here, but there are some issues.
  • Nominator says he doesn't have full access to Fischer's Washington's Crossing. This is a problem. Perhaps he can get ahold of one at his local library? Fischer makes some important arguments that need to be addressed in the article, such as:
  • He argues that the idea that George Washington's victory at Trenton revived the Revolution is a folk tale. Instead, says Fischer, the revival began earlier, with the publication of Thomas Paine's The American Crisis, and New Jersey's resistance to the harsh British and Hessian occupation. The article currently alludes to this with a mention of the otherwise unexplained "South Jersey Rising".
  • Fischer suggests that the Americans probably suffered more fatalities than the Hessians, but that these were from illness resulting from the harsh weather and went unrecorded. Fischer's casualty figures otherwise also disagree with those given in the article.
  • No mention is made in the article of the myth that the Hessians were too drunk to offer a proper resistance. This is a popular misconception, still often repeated, and should be mentioned (and discounted) in the article.
  • The claim that Frederick the Great praised Washington for the battle is sourced to a century-old general history. My guess is that the claim is apocryphal and thus not mentioned in modern histories. Need additional, modern sourcing here.
  • It would be nice if Edward Lengel's important 2005 book General George Washington was consulted for the article.

That's all I have right now. If the article does not get promoted this time around, you might try taking it through the WP:MILHIST system, getting a peer review and then certified as A-class, before resubmitting it here. Good luck! —Kevin Myers 16:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I just ordered General George Washington by Lengel last week, and recieved it two days ago. I will begin to cite that, and try to get my hands on the Fischer book sometime soon. The problem is with the casualties, that I have found so many different numbers, I decided to use the one that split it right down the middle. The American casualties are generally agreed upon, but not the Hessians. Examples.
  • 1776 by David McCullough says 21 Hessians killed, 90 wounded, 900 captured
  • General George Washington by Edward Lengel says 22 killed, 84 wounded, 893 captured
  • How America Fought Its Wars by Victor Brooks says 25 killed, 90 wounded and 920 captured, which is what is currently cited.
  • Guide to the Battles of the American Revolution by Theodore P. Savas And J. David Dameron disagrees with the Americans casualties as well, and is off quite a bit from what I normally see with the Hessians, which makes me wonder if it is accurate. It says 4 Americans killed and 8 wounded. It also says 40 Hessians killed, 66 wounded, and 918 captured.
  • For what its worth, the History Channel says 23 killed.

As you can see there is quite a bit of disagreement. Red4tribe (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is with the casualties, that I have found so many different numbers, I decided to use the one that split it right down the middle. This is problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there are various tallies for casualties, it should be noted as such. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's already done so. This is a resolved issue, I believe. —Kevin Myers 01:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fischer gives 23, 83, and 896. (p. 254) These are very close to McCullough and Lengel, which with Fischer are your most scholarly sources (the others are presumably tertiary sources whose authors did not dig through the primary sources). Casualty figures from almost all wars should be taken with a grain of salt, but these are unusually close to agreement. If I were you, I'd cite Lengel or Fischer, and then mention in your footnote that sources vary a bit on the exact numbers. —Kevin Myers 17:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cited Fischer there, and I also added some information from Lengel. Red4tribe (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy of the Fischer book. Red4tribe (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I've struck through some of my observations above; others remain. A couple more things:
  • Be sure to spell Fischer's name correctly.
  • You claim that many men drowned in the crossing. Check your source again.
  • A good copyedit is needed. Everytime I look at the article, I notice a few small errors.
—Kevin Myers 15:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good work overall. I've continued to strike through comments. There are still some issues:
  • "South Jersey Rising" is used as a proper noun with no further explanation. Maybe replace it with "resistance in New Jersey"?
  • The alleged Frederick the Great comment is in the first paragraph of the article, as if it's one of the most important facts readers should know about the battle, and yet it's cited to the least credible source in your references. Of the books by Stryker, Fischer, Lengel, and Ketchum, which ones mention this comment by Frederick?
  • In an offhand clause, you mention Fischer's argument that it's a myth that this battle revived the Revolution, and then dismiss it entirely with "Despite this argument, morale in the army and among the civilian population skyrocketed." And this is cited to an earlier, tertiary source. Are you suggesting that Fischer got it wrong?
  • The book by Stryker, for many years the standard source for this battle, is listed in "References" but is not cited in the notes. —Kevin Myers 14:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is fixed.-Red4tribe (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Moni3
  • I don't review military history articles often, so I think I'll read this one again before I decide to support or oppose. However, I found it easy to read and engaging, although I did find some very basic copy editing issues in it. I fixed a few of them.
  • The rumor that the Hessians were drunk the day after Christmas is quite widespread. I would feel much more comfortable if that part of the article is dispelled by more than one historian. The myth/story is evidence itself that histories are tainted with tales and points of view. Multiple points of view on this would be appropriate. Further, calling it a myth should be in the words of an historian, not the article itself.
  • Some of your citations are duplicates. Fisher p. 232, and Fisher p. 246, for example, should be ref name'd.
  • I'll check back in again on the article tomorrow. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 01:37, 25 August 2008 [9].

White Pines Forest State Park

Nominator(s): Marcusmax (talk)


This is a self-nom for FA status, I am the user who started this artice, however many top users in WP:Illinois bumped this up to GA status, and now I think it deserves a spot as a FA. -Marcusmax (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: nominator requested withdrawal here. Maralia (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This article is well written and referenced but it seems incredibly short for an FA and lacking some information that probably could be pretty easily found. For example, the history section is pretty good as are the activities and description sections, but the article could be improved with more info about the ecology, geology, and wildlife of the park. Also ecologic history would be good to and human use of the land before it became a park. For examples of state parks that are FA see Presque Isle State Park, Redwood National and State Parks, and the newest state park article to be featured Leonard Harrison State Park. I will be watching this and would love to support it when it's ready. Dincher (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these wonderful examples, had I known all that I see now I would not have nominated this one for FA at this time. However I plan to at least try to make a geology, and wildlife section in the coming hours. -Marcusmax (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant oppose

I have made 6 edits to this article and am third in contributions after User:IvoShandor (with 49, however he has retired from Wikipedia) and User:Kranar drogin (with 12, he is not very active lately). I have it on my watchlist and saw this. I have to agree with Dincher that it is not ready for FA. Comprehensiveness is a FA criterion but this is not yet comprehensive. An "Indian trail" that ran through the park and Sauk chief Black Hawk are mentioned and should be expanded on. The history does not mention the Civilian Conservation Corps or the park's inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, though they are briefly mentioned later in the article. Dolomite formations are mentioned, but there is no Geology section, the pines are mentioned but there is no Ecology or Flora and fauna section. I would love to see this as a FA, and hope it can be expanded in FAC, but fear the amount of work needed is too much. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS Another possibly useful model article would be Black Moshannon State Park (FA) which has a NRHP historic district with CCC-built cabins (and two other NRHP districts). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that the nominator has made one edit to the article (he started it - see this) and has not edited it since Nov. 2006 and has not replied here. The article has not had a peer review either. I will leave a note on User:Marcusmax's talk page asking if s/he intends to try and fix this in FAC. If not, it should be closed to let FAC resources be used elesewhere. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images

Strong Oppose

I checked one sentence at random, because I knew something about the subject, and it showed a lack of basic research and checking, and a very suspect "reference".
Birds include, the pine thrush, warblers, turkey, and winter-migratory birds. Everything in this sentence is incorrect. Why is there a comma after include? Pine thrush - a red link for a US bird suggests that it's wrong, no such bird. Pine Warbler? Pine Siskin? Pine Grosbeak? I don't know. warbler unlikely to be Old World or Australian, should be warbler. Turkey how do you fit a country into a state park-dreadful error? Winter-migratory birds no idea what this means - "birds that migrate in winter" is the most obvious reading, but nonsense. The wildlife section seems a bit short anyway, but just as well if this is the standard. Also, why is spam a reliable and multi-referenced source? How did this get through GA? jimfbleak (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previous sentence - Red Squirrel - I think not. jimfbleak (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The article is entirely lacking information on the geology and ecology of the park. The wikilinking errors pointed out above by Jim are astonishing, and they have persisted since their addition to the article over a year ago. There are additional problems with prose and formatting, disparities in the text (the cabins are described first as 'the 25 cabins' and later as '13 one-room cabins and 3 four-room cabins'), and unqualified statements (what is rare about Canadian Yew?). The pictures are lovely, but this one appears to have mismatched Author and Permission information. Significant work is needed on many aspects of this article. Maralia (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:Sceptre 21:06, 24 August 2008 [10].

The Trial of a Time Lord

Nominator:Sceptre (talk)

previous FAC (00:07, 25 June 2008)


Yes, I'm bringing this back to FAC again. I think the two-month gap and the peer review conducted in the interim have allowed me to improve the prose—the only objection, I think, to the article's status. It is shorter than my usual nominations (which are often around 30KB), but nevertheless, I believe it is comprehensive enough to be a featured article. Sceptre (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images

Oppose I'm saddened to see that there are still many silly errors in the article, ([11]) Although I am happy to copy-edit articles when I have the time and enthusiasm, I don't like this increasing tendency to bring candidates here that are not ready. One does not have to be as talented as Tony to spot these problems. Graham Colm Talk 20:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, if it's that bad... maybe I should withdraw it, keep working on the prose, and use peer review more. One of the main problems with PR is that it's not as active as it should be... but if, at the end of the day, it'll help, then I think that's the best course to take. Sceptre (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 09:38, 23 August 2008 [12].

WarCry (band)

Nominator(s):  Rockk3r Spit it Out!


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is very professional and I think it deserves to be a FA. It's well sourced with the citations for verification. It is the history of a power metal band, where appears the most important events done since the creation on 2001. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 21:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Very, very sketchy prose. Just a few examples from the lead:

  • "Despite being relatively new, they have become one of Spain's most successful and famous heavy metal acts," - this has three inline citations in a reference-free lead. Is it really that controversial?
  • "Founded when vocalist Víctor García and drummer Alberto Ardines were ejected from Avalanch." - I would expect better of a candidate than to have a fragment as the second sentence.
  • "Pablo García and Fernando Mon appeared just as guest guitarists on the debut album, but became full-time members on 2002 along with keyboardist Manuel Ramil and bassist Alvaro Jardón, leaving this last one at the end of 2003." - highly confusing sentence. Leaving what last one? Also, "just" -> "only".
  • "Ardines and Mon left on 2007" - Left on 2007?
  • "Ramil was expelled in early 2008, due to the distance between his home and the rest of the members." - Apostrophe after "members", and he was expelled for being too far away?
  • Enormous amount contractions and redundancies.

Frankly, this article couldn't pass GA with the current level of prose, unless a reviewer with extremely low standards reviewed it. I strongly recommend this FAC be withdrawn. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although I choose not to support or oppose candidates, I do have feedback that I hope is useful. On my initial scan through the article I corrected 17 misspelled words and more remain. Many sentences exhibit poor or incorrect grammar; awkward phrasing is common. Unfortunately, the article currently fails even the lesser Good Article criteria of well written, i.e. that "prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct". As is, the article is badly in need of cleanup before I would expect to see consensus support for Featured Article status. Consider withdrawing the nomination for now and enlisting the help of one or more experienced copyeditors to better present the information you have carefully collected. -- Michael Devore (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can support your own nomination if you are not a significant contributor; Rockk3r is the main contributor to this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you (Nousernamesleft) had read the whole article, would have understood that distance was the cause of Ramil being expelled. What do you suggest? He was kicked out?
"Founded when vocalist Víctor García and drummer Alberto Ardines were ejected from Avalanch." - I would expect better of a candidate than to have a fragment as the second sentence. What do you really mean?
It's a sentence fragment - it has no subject.-Wafulz (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Pablo García and Fernando Mon appeared just as guest guitarists on the debut album, but became full-time members on 2002 along with keyboardist Manuel Ramil and bassist Alvaro Jardón, leaving this last one at the end of 2003." - highly confusing sentence. Leaving what last one? I wrote leaving this last one referring of course to the last member mentioned "Jardon" not to repeat his name twice in the same sentence. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 02:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the article is not for you to understand it, it's for readers to understand it. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The grammar is very poor and confusing. I suggest you find someone willing to copyedit it. There are numerous basic grammar errors (contractions, sentence fragments, phrases like "an hoax", missing articles in sentences), tons of redundancy ("due to the fact that" instead of "because"), run-on sentences, confusing prose ("pointed on"). -Wafulz (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I was unable to evaluate the non-English sources. The links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://warcry.as/english/inicio.htm appears to be their official website, and an English version is available, so that should be used in place of Spanish. Many of the Spanish-language posts are forum posts; all non-English sources should be identified by adding the language icon ({{es icon}})) inside the ref tag, before the ref. I will re-check the Spanish-language sourcing once they are identified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citations need a lot of work and Wiki should never knowingly link to a copyright violation: [13]. Also, the article has incorrectly formatted dates throughout; it uses US-style dates rather than international style date formatting as used in Spain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images and sound files

  • Image:WarCry live at Viña Rock 2008.jpg - Is the uploader the same as the author of the image? If so, that should be made explicit in the image description.
  • All of the sound files need to include a reason why it is important to include that particular excerpt. There are quite a few, so we need very specific rationales here. Why do we need each and every clip? Since I don't know anything about this band or this type of music, I am going to need some help analyzing the strength of these claims.
  • I am not convinced that we need three fair use images of the band. I realize that the makeup of the band has changed over time, but three images is starting to become excessive. I would select either the earliest or the most recent image.
  • Image:Rafa Yugueros.jpg - Could we list the author of the image in the description instead of just "self-taken"?

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm so sorry guys that I made you all go through this. I agree with you, and don't worry I'll withdraw the article from the list of FAC, I'm feeling very embarrassed after reading the opinions of wikipedians who are actually way more professional than me. The article seemed perfect to me but it wasn't. I just want to ask you all a favor, and hope someone could be willing to help me... I would like to find copy editors to tell me what's wrong on the page and needs to be fixed up, to make it more professional, to make sure there's nothing wrong or any copy violations... well pretty much anything about the page, and then when the article meets the requirements to be a FA I'll put a second nomination. Sorry again and please if anyone knows someone who could help me I'd really apprecciate it.

PD: When I say someone to help me it doesn't mean that this person needs to fix the article, but just let me know what needs to be fixed and I myself will do it the correct way. Thanks. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 04:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the sourcing issues covered above should help you get started on that concern. As for the other parts of your request, someone else will have to answer, sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 04:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, yes I was guiding myself by the comments above, and still waiting for a little hlep :). Thanks anyway Rockk3r Spit it Out! 05:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)s.[reply]
Rock3r, I'll withdraw it now for you, and hope to see you back soon. One way to find help is to read and follow the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to locate peer review volunteers and invite them to a peer review to comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 09:16, 23 August 2008 [14].

The Principal and the Pauper

Nominator(s): Scorpion0422
previous FAC (22:29, 14 May 2008)


After some copyediting by Risker and some reworking of the sections, I think this page has improved since the previous FAC. Any concerns will be addressed by me or Cirt. -- Scorpion0422 04:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think this article is of a high level of quality but I was a significant contributor to it, particularly to the Reception section. I will try to help address any concerns that crop up. Thanks for taking a look, Cirt (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hidden comments from Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments

  • Fox vs Fox Network. Does it constitute overlinking when it is linked in the main section and the lead?
  • "The episode ended with a self-referential deus ex machina, which left viewers to either "reset" or accept the change." Could you expand this a little? I really don't understand it
    • The deus ex machina is when the real Skinner is sent out of town on a train, and the people of Springfield pretend that everything is back to normal. The ending gives the viewers the option to basically ignore everything that was just revealed in the episode. We do need to elaborate on this in the article (and I'm not sure if the current sentence even fits within the flow of its paragraph). Zagalejo^^^ 06:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I think something needs adding. How are viewers given an option to ignore what happened, for example? I haven't seen the episode so I can't even imagine it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The end scenes of the episode make it clear that its plot will have no bearing on future episodes. (For example, the character Judge Snyder says that no one will mention the name "Armin Tamzarian" under penalty of torture.) But, in truth, I'm not sure how many viewers were actually able to mentally reset. We should probably add some more information about the critics' response to the ending. Zagalejo^^^ 05:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and a little bit off."[4] vs "just lacked pizzazz".[7] Inconsistent period placement
  • Was "Golden era" capitalised in the original quote? Can we get a reference for Chris Turner's quotes, too?
  • "remains to this day among the weakest episodes in Simpsons history" Simpsons the family, or Simpsons the show? If it's the latter it should be itallicised
  • Over-linking on The Star-Ledger
  • ISO 8601 date for the {{cite episode}} template in reference 21 please.
  • The article seems to present too much of a U.S. view rather than a worldwide one. Can airdates and networks be provided for at least the other major English language countries such as Canada, UK, Australia and NZ?
    • I've tried finding some ratings info for other countries, but it's nearly impossible for a decade old episode. As well, we traditionally only mention the original US airing, since that's the country of origin. It should be noted that the reviews section includes comments from at least one Canadian and at least one Brit. -- Scorpion0422 19:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • When do new episodes typically air in Canada? About the same time as in the US, or weeks/months/years later? (I might have asked this before. If so, I don't remember the answer.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • New episodes usually air at the exact same time as they do in the States. -- Scorpion0422

Pretty good overall. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden comments from Zagalejo^^^ 18:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - is that all you can find on the production? I'm a bit wary when FACs for television episode articles are under 20KB, because they may not be comprehensive enough. See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive26#Comprehensive, when 200 (Stargate SG-1) was criticised for being only 2kb shorter. If you can only get that much with the source material you have, then I have no objection, but I feel that it must be a bit longer if possible. Sceptre (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, production info for specific episodes is usually limited to what is said in the DVD commentaries. And the commentary for "The Principal and the Pauper" mainly consists of people trying to defend or explain the episode. Any particular aspects of the production you'd like to learn more about? Zagalejo^^^ 18:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I doubt that production information is solely in the commentaries. Speaking as an episode article writer myself, I know that most information comes from them, but I do know that, if you look, there's a decent amount of source material. Have a look at SNPP; they might have links to where you can find such material. One thing I have noticed is that you only cite the season 9/10 book behind-the-scenes book once. Is that all you can find that is suitable for the article? Sceptre (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The season 9/10 book isn't a "behind the scenes" book; it's mostly episode recaps, with explanations of some of the allusions. Are you speaking as a "Simpsons episode article writer", or just as someone who writes television episode articles in general? If the former, where do you generally get your production information? Zagalejo^^^ 01:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, but you still haven't answered my question - is that the only information you can find about the production (I count outside references to count as part of the production; I normally discuss it with the writing). I'm primarily a Doctor Who episode writer. I get most of my production information from commentaries, the companion behind-the-scenes series, the official magazine, any books released about the series, and specialist sites which research the older episodes. I know that the Simpsons doesn't have a companion behind-the-scenes show, or an official magazine about production, but it has books about it and commentaries. I also think you might have a bit more luck if you searched for newspaper interviews (which are more abundant for US shows than UK shows) too. Sceptre (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not sure what you mean by, "I count outside references to count as part of the production; I normally discuss it with the writing." But, no, I haven't found any additional production information. Granted, I don't have access to as many online newspaper articles as I used to have, but in my experience, those articles never have much, beyond maybe a sentence or two here and there. Do understand that Dr. Who is live action, so its production is very different from that of The Simpsons.
              • At the moment, I'm still looking for some more Reception material. If I do find additional production information, I'll add it to the article, but I don't expect to find much. Zagalejo^^^ 01:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All my comments have been resolved. If the production section is as comprehensive as it can be right now, then I don't have a problem with it either, it still meets the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't know if this is standard practice but I think, just as we need page numbers for books, we need to get the times from the DVD commentaries (and an ISSN?). Not a reason to oppose but I think in the future this will be expected just as page numbers--especially for TV episodes where commentary is one of our best sources. gren グレン 06:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeler, Ken. (2006). Commentary for "The Principal and the Pauper", in The Simpsons: The Complete Ninth Season [DVD]. 20th Century Fox, [time?]. [ISSN?]
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 09:16, 23 August 2008 [16].

Acid2

Nominator(s): Remember the dot (talk)
previous FAC (00:07, 17 May 2008)


This article has grown quite a bit since its last nomination, and now includes quite a bit more explanation and prose. I think it may be ready to be listed as a featured article - what do you think? —Remember the dot (talk) 03:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — Two minor ideas for improvement: —This is part of a comment by Nihiltres (of 22:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
    1. The two images near the top of, respectively, Ian Hickson and the buggy test version, are quite close together and look a little awkward (independently of screen resolution). Is there any way that we can improve the layout with regard to this without sandwiching the content between two images?
    2. Section order might be improvable: why is the order "compliant apps, non-compliant apps, timeline of passing apps"? This seems awkward as it sandwiches the non-compliant apps between the compliant apps and the timeline of passing apps. I'd understand if this is not fixable however as other orders might be similarly awkward, especially given the tabular form of the timeline section.
      • The timeline is really long and I suspect most readers simply don't care about it. It's more of an appendix to the article; the "Compliant applications" and "Non-compliant applications" sections are much more interesting and relevant to the reader and so they are given first. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's most of my nitpicking; this is a good article. These concerns are minor and aesthetic and shouldn't, in my opinion, justify not listing this article as featured. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All my comments have been addressed. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 22:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Yohhans (talk · contribs)
    • Multiple wikilinks for the same term aren't necessary. Just a quick glance shows that CSS, HTML and Web Standards Project are linked multiple times.
      • I thought the rule of thumb was to link unfamiliar terms once per section because users might be jumping around. I don't think the article goes overboard with wikilinks, but if you see some that you think are truly excessive then by all means let's discuss it some more. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the vein of wikilinks, links to Smiley and fallback are not necessary. Neither are obscure enough to merit a link (nor do they contribute to the article).
    • Looking at the previous FAC, I see there were differences in opinion in regard to the article being too list-y. I think some lists are appropriate in certain places, and not in others. For instance, "Passing conditions" can (and should) be easily converted to prose. "Overview of standards tested" can also easily be converted to prose. Similarly, I do not think that the "Compliant applications" can (or should) be converted to prose. I think that it would do better as a table though.
    • This is because Opera Mini intentionally reformats web pages to try and make them more suitable for devices with small screens.[27][19][28] - Reorder references so that they are in numerical order. [27][19][28] --> [19][27][28] Same with here: Ian Hickson, now of Google, coded the actual test in collaboration with the Web Standards Project and the larger web community.[4][3][5][6]
    • The article mentions its predecessor Acid1, but not its successor, Acid3. Why?
    • For the caption of the picture of Hickson, it says he is the author. Yet, in the prose, it is stated that the test was developed by Lie with the help of Hickson. Something needs to be reworded.
    • Ian Hickson, now of Google, ... - awkward phrasing; how about "Ian Hickson, a current employee of Google, ...."
    • In July 2005, Chris Wilson, the Internet Explorer Platform Architect responded by calling Acid2 a "wish list" of features and said that while the test was important to Microsoft, Acid2 compliance was not a priority for Internet Explorer 7.[9] Microsoft later joined other browser makers and Internet Explorer 8 is expected to pass the test. - This is quite a jump. Is there a reason why Microsoft decided to follow the lead of Webkit, Gecko, et al.?
      • Well, Microsoft initially wasn't going to have Internet Explorer 8 pass by default. They were going to support the standards, but only if a proprietary HTTP header or <meta> tag was added to the page ([17], 19 minutes and 15 seconds through). Then Microsoft had a change of heart and decided to apply the more standards-compliant page handling by default ([18]). We can only guess why. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok. I was just curious. I was hoping maybe you had information on that front. Although I have my own theories.... I think the IE teams thought process went something like the following: "Pfft. Who cares about them and their standards compliance. We have usability! Ok, that's not true, but we're still number one! (two years later) Uh Oh... Guys... Safari and Firefox are stealing our market share! Maybe this standards compliance thing is actually pretty important." - 03:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Acid2 tests a variety of web standards related to HTML, the language in which web pages are written, and Cascading Style Sheets, the preferred way to specify the format, style, and layout of HTML - This is a rather chunky sentence. Either split it up or cut it down. I suggest removing the definitions of HTML and CSS as they are already linked in the article anyway.
    • In the "Overview of standards tested" virtually all of the italicized elements don't necessitate the use of italics. See: WP:Italics.
    • The eyes of the smiley face use alpha transparency, part of the 1996 Portable Network Graphics specification. --> ... alpha transparency which is part of the ...
    • At the time Acid2 was released alpha transparency was significant because Internet Explorer 6, then the latest version of Internet Explorer, did not support alpha-transparent PNG images though other web browsers did. Very long and cumbersome sentence. How about "This was a significant issue since Internet Explorer 6, the most popular web browser at the time (ref: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp), did not support alpha transparency."
    • The creators of Acid2 considered object element support important because it allows for content fallback; in other words, if the specified object fails to load then alternative (generally simpler, more reliable) content can be presented instead. Break this into two sentences. Lose the parenthetical expression. Wikilink "content fallback" and lose the italics.
    • There is no such thing as a "CSS table". Reword to "CSS formatting of tables" or something similar. Also, definitions of style properties of tables and CSS generated content aren't really relevant to the article. Remove the definitions and Wikilink the terms instead.
      • During the last FAC, an editor specifically requested that short explanations of all the web standards tested be added. I tend to agree - it doesn't hurt to add a couple sentences to introduce these topics to those not familiar with them. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. I can accept that rationale. In fact, I find myself often cursing authors for their lack of including basic information in an article simply because the term was linked. I just figured that had become standard practice. - Yohhans (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's all I have. Overall I'd say that it is a very well done article. As a developer, I really enjoyed the read.

Comments - I think this should have passed last time. It's really close now, just some very minor things;

  • I'd prefer it if the dates weren't wlinked (see recent changes to MOS:DATE). There's a script that easily does this if you'd like it run.
  • I think Acid3 should be mentioned in the lead (Acid1 is, after all).
  • "Ian Hickson, now of Google," - what relevance does his current employer have?

Yeah, it's almost there. —Giggy 02:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes Citations need extensive cleanup work, and reliability of sources used needs to be carefully reviewed from the last FAC, sample:

Quote from w3schools: "W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use Internet Explorer, since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers. These facts indicate that the browser figures above are not 100% realistic. Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet Explorer is used by at least 80% of the users." Also, pls review the color in the chart per WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Please review sourcing for the numerous unresolved concerns from the last FAC, cleanup citations, and copyedit for the next nomination (sample: data URIs: Yet another test ... ). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 09:16, 23 August 2008 [19].

The Other Woman (Lost)

Nominator(s): –thedemonhog talk • edits

Hi, this good article from the Lost WikiProject that belongs to a featured topic is about the sixth episode of the fourth season of the American television show Lost. Also what do you think of moving the article to The Other Woman and moving that to The Other Woman (disambiguation)? Compare the 1679 page views The Other Woman (Lost) received from July 2–12 with the 113 the TV movie The Other Woman (1995 film) got in the same time. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 14:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak OpposeNeutral—1a. The prose needs additional copy-editing. Here are examples:
    • Several paragraphs in the "Reception" section are blocky; they should be split.
    • "It was written by co-executive producer Drew Goddard and executive story editor Christina M. Kim and directed by occasional Lost director Eric Laneuville." The previous sentence also starts with "it"; try "the episode" for variety. Does "occasional Lost director" really add anything? I think it could be removed.
    • "Recent island arrivals Daniel Faraday (played by Jeremy Davies) and Charlotte Lewis (Rebecca Mader) leave the crash survivors' camp without notice for the Dharma Initiative electrical station known as the Tempest." Redundant words: "island", "crash" (already noted as the type of event they survived), and "played by" (the parenthesis are usually enough for this type of article). "Known as" to "called" is another possible change, but that's debatable.
    • "In flashbacks that depict events on the island, Juliet Burke (Elizabeth Mitchell) discovers that Ben Linus (Michael Emerson) thinks that she belongs to him." "Belongs to him" is somewhat vague, even for the lead.
    • For flow, you should restructure the first sentence so it's similar to that of "The Shape of Things to Come (Lost)".
    • As someone who has never seen (has no intention of ever seeing) Lost, the plot synopsis is a bit confusing. For example: "Goodwin is eventually murdered after his infiltration of the tail section survivors is discovered." ("infiltration of the tail section survivors"? Does this mean that he attacked people living in the tail section of the crashed airplane?) Why are they after the Tempest? Obviously you don't want to explain every little tidbit of backstory, but a few of the major plot points should have a bit of context so they make more sense to readers unfamiliar with the series.
    • "Inside the station, Juliet finds Daniel in a hazmat suit typing frantically at a computer terminal and asks him to terminate what he is doing." "Terminate what he is doing" is long-winded; try a slightly more formal variation of "stop".
    • "After a wrestle and a standoff, Daniel and Charlotte convince Juliet that they are not trying to kill anyone; they are trying to save the islanders by neutralizing the poisonous gas inert in case Ben decides to use it again." "Inert" is redundant; you could even remove "a wrestle and", as a standoff implies confrontation.
  • These are just a few examples. The prose isn't bad, but there are definitely "opportunities", as we say at Target. — Deckiller 21:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, if you can find someone to copy-edit the entire text and add a few clarifications to the plot summary, then I think the prose will be in decent shape. — Deckiller 15:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - Both copyrighted images fail WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to help me strengthen the rationale or are you saying that these images have no place on Wikipedia? –thedemonhog talk • edits 14:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they fail WP:NFCC then they have no place on WP, what is their purpose in the article? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Wikipedia is moving in a direction that is anti-copyrighted images. The acceptable "excuses" for including copyrighted images are growing smaller by the day; they'll probably have to be axed. — Deckiller 02:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont get the point of the new image, what is it there for? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per my previous suggestion in reviewing the NFCC below for this FAC, the image shows three things: one of the dramatic scenes explicitly cited in the plot, a demonstration of what the station looks like, and what the characters look like. I believe it to be sufficiently appropriate per NFC (as opposed to the previous image that just showed an overhead shot of the station and indeterminate pictures of characters, and no specific dramatic scene). --MASEM 12:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are correct that this image is a significant improvement on the previous as it does convey a lot more information, but I am still unconvinced it meets nfcc#8, however if I am alone in this position then I will withdraw my objection Fasach Nua (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can the picture in the infobox be replaced? Just say I was not a fan, all I would see would be a garage thingy, some mountains, and a tiny person. Can a better picture be found? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 12:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other image has been moved to the infobox. It is not very pretty, but it probably has the best chance for meeting NFCC. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that article has run afoul of WP:NFCC. Why, for example, are images of both the inside and outside of the Tempest necessary (NFCC#3A requires minimal use)? Rationales are heavy on nugatory boilerplate. Do we think so little of our readers that they can't visualize "a large metal building that would not normally be found in real life on a desert island"? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (and just a few)

  • Can you think of a better word/phrase than "sneak off"? I couldn't, but it does sound somewhat informal.
  • According to the article, The Constant was "widely regarded as one of the best episodes of the series" but there's only one ref to a BuddyTV review for this "wide regard". Perhaps stick a few more in there for some credibility.
  • I think I fixed it all, but there were some issues with the refs getting mixed up as they were all given the same name ("episode" and "podcast" were the two I caught out, when they were all referencing separate sources) so be careful of that here and in the future.
  • The article claims that the Tempest is ("apparently") alluded to in season 2's blast door map, but this is unsourced - the citation after it references episode 2x17 but doesn't address these claims.
  • The Production section also talks about Jack and Juliet's kiss, and "second kiss" is a piped link to Through the Looking Glass. You're often quite clever with your piped links, I've noticed, but wouldn't this instance be better with a citation to the episode instead as the said episode is their first kiss?
  • The 407 (ref 17) and 410 (ref 21) podcasts link directly to the .mp3 files, but 406 (ref 11) links to the main ABC podcast list.

That's about it for now; hope the suggestions were somewhat constructive :) —97198 talk 11:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough copy-edit. Is "slip out" any better than "sneak off"? I use the BuddyTV link because it includes the phrase "there are lots of people calling 'The Constant' the best Lost episode ever". A citation has been replaced for "Lockdown". The piped link has been replaced with a reference. I have changed the podcast link. [20] Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 12:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked with the link checker tool. Note I'm on the road the rest of this week, so replies may be delayed somewhat. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Fuselage post that is being cited is attributed to an actor on the show and his identity is "confirmed" in the site's FAQ. A couple more things to help its credibility: The forum is sponsored by an executive producer of the show and the actor posting runs a blog (i.e. he interacts with his fans on the Internet). Much of TV by the Numbers' information checks out on other websites and the site has been deemed reliable by The New York Times, as they have it in their sources list. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still unclear how tvbythenumbers is reliable or what the NY Times page demonstrates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Times link demonstrates that a news source says that it is reliable. The site also has a history of publishing information that can also be found on other reliable websites. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see the site listed on the NYT page under a section called "Blogroll"; I haven't located the text where they say that it is reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is listed in "The Sources" subsection, which implies that The NY Times uses it as a source, which means that they trust it (yeah, not the best link). –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the last month, The NY Times is quoting one of its editors, as are The NY Post, TV Week and the Fox Broadcasting Company, as well as the listed-in-Google News-websites Broadcasting Engineering, NewTeeVee and Contact Music. Sorry that I did not get those sooner. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought this up at the Reliable Sources noticeboard here. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Status? Have these sourcing queries been resolved, and are the images concerned above addressed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, not sure how those sourcing queries slipped through my watchlist. As for the images, there has been no resolution thus far. I believe that they meet the NFCC, but Fasach Nua disagrees. As for the initial oppose by Deckiller, he probably just needs to be notified on his talk page that the article has undergone a copy-edit. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you done that? Also, until images are resolved, it's an oppose. User:Masem is good with images; you could check with others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have left notes on Deckiller and Masem's talk pages. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Outside it's use and significance, the rationale is fine. However, the use of the image is questionable. Now I've seen the episode (once) so I'm thinking there's a better picture that 1) captures the look of the station/control room, 2) shows the character(s) better (you can barely make out Daniel there, nullifying one aspect of the rationale) and 3) possibly shows the dramatic conclusion to the scene (maybe with Daniel stopping the gas on time). If all three of these can be met, I see no problem with an image there, but right now the current picture is lacking. --MASEM 04:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not at my home computer so I do not have the episode with me, but after going through the screenshots at Lost-Media.com, I still think that that image best captures the look of the inside of the station (what about this?) The part about character identification has been removed. A conclusion of the dramatic conclusion would just be a picture of a computer screen, which is why I think that the current image is the best that we have got. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I suggest this image - it describes a scene that is explicitly in the plot, it gives enough impression of what the Station is like, and everything else I was trying to point out. --MASEM 03:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That image has been uploaded. Thanks for your help, –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks reasonably good now (though when the DVDs come out you might be able to get a better one), rationale is fine; images are good for this FAC. --MASEM 19:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In trying to determine if this 13.008 was a typo, I couldn't verify the text at the source:

"The Other Woman" was watched live or recorded and watched within six hours of broadcast by 13.008 million viewers in the United States,[1]

What is the boundary on spelling out vs. using digits for numbers? The lead has seventy-fifth and ninety-four, but later in the article we find numbers as digits. Why are most publishers on citations given after the article title, but for ABC Medianet, they're given before the article title? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; the citation has been replaced. Numbers are displayed as digits when there are decimals. When no author is given, as is often the case with press releases, the references mimic {{cite press release}}, but they are a bit different in order to make them more consistent with other references in the article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are the MOSNUM issues? –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the boundary at which you switch from spelling out numbers to use digits? Some are spelled out, some are digits. Is it greater than 9, greater than 10? All numbers spelled out? Whatever it is, should be consistent. See WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just reread the guidelines in that link and you are going to have to give me specific instances of inconsistencies within the article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:05, 23 August 2008 [21].

José Sarria

Nominator(s): Otto4711 (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe the significant expansion I've done has brought it up to FA standards. Otto4711 (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • Hi, Otto. First, give your potential reviewers a knockout reason that you've slaved over this article in your reason for nominating up there.
  • The lead is too long. It needs to be trimmed.
  • Done. I don't see how anything else can come out and still serve as an appropriate lead.
  • I did some copy editing of minor things. I saw a contraction and changed it. Go through and make sure there aren't any more.
  • I think you're going to run into prose problems. The writing is not compelling. It gives the reader an idea about Sarria's life, and somewhat of his importance in the gay community in Northern California, but it doesn't reach out and grab the reader to want to know more about him. Sarria was no doubt a colorful character, and that should come through in the article. I think the organization of the article can be changed around to draw the reader in more. Toward the end it's rather confusing about time, importance, and it gets quite dry.
Well, it's a matter of overall cohesiveness. An extraordinary article is unified by a theme, something about the person is remarkable. You have good information about Sarria's career in the Black Cat, then he ran for office (only because he was gay? Did he believe in something more? What were the results?) And his partner died and he cooked... If the San Fransisco Supervisors thought this guy was extraordinary, what's the unifying theme of his life? Restructure the death of his partner and the cooking thing, because that thumps hollow. It just seems that everything about him after 1964 is anticlimactic. --Moni3 (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Otto. I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I read Mayor of Castro Street in the interim, as well as another book with a chapter on Sarria. I'm glad I did because I'm going to Support on the condition that the last section is restructured to include a topic sentence for the section, and the sentence about Sarria's involvement in To Wong Foo is incorporated into the paragraph below it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of the word "aristrocratic" in the lead, particularly in relation to the description of his parents in the text, needs a citation and attribution (aristocratic according to whom?). Also ... The couple "were" not married ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is a slight lack of references. I'm not going to point them out because I'm unable to commit such time right now, but Im sure you know where they are. Some statements do not completely have backup from sources, please ensure you have references a tiny bit more consistently. And the lead is WAY TOO LONG! Added with the prose which, as already mentioned, is not in a 'brilliant' condition which entices the reader. Domiy (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references appear to me to be consistent; please advise as to which you believe are not. Also what do you believe is not fully backed by sourcing and enlighten me as to what sources are lacking because it looks well-sourced to me. Otto4711 (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • General responses - I feel like reviewers are focusing somewhat mechanically on the length of the lead rather than how effectively it serves as a summary of the article. Yes, it is substantial, but it must serve as a summary of the article as a whole. If you believe it is too long, what specific material do you believe needs to be removed to shorten it while still allowing it to serve as an appropriate summary?
  • "The prose isn't brilliant enough" does not offer any guidance as to what about the prose needs to be fixed. Since I wrote it, obviously I think it's good work, so simply saying it isn't doesn't help me improve it. Otto4711 (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Otto, I think the issue with the lead is not so much it's length (although it is long) but the level of detail. I think the structure is fine, but each paragraph could be trimmed. For example is it essential to follow step by step that the fact he was multilingual led him to tutoring which led him to a love affair which ended in the death of the other man. It seems like a lot of excess detail. Is it essential to know that the family he lived with was named "Millen" or even the names of his parents? If the lead is a kind of snapshot, couldn't these people be left out? Is it necessary to mention Jimmy Moore, when the point of this section seems to be that the morals charge ended his teaching ambitions and led him to drag. Perhaps, take another look at Judy Garland where the essentials of her incredibly complicated life are condensed into a solid 4 paragraph lead. This is what's needed here also - focus on the essentials, so that the same key point is made, but omit any extra details that don't focus strictly on the key point. Rossrs (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I reviewed this article for GA, but it certainly has grown since then! Although the lead's length is not an issue per WP:LEAD, I do think that it's far too detailed and tends toward the superfluous. Some suggestions to make it more succinct: —This is part of a comment by Yllosubmarine (of 14:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
  • "...from San Francisco..." and "Sarria was born in San Francisco..." is repetitive.
  • Removed the second instance.
  • It's not necessary to spend so much attention on his early life, including his parents' background; I found myself thinking "skip to José, already!"
  • Is "Sarria showed an affinity for languages, becoming fluent in four" necessary to understanding the topic? I understand that it serves as a link to his first relationship, but that can be summarized greatly, as well.
  • Reduced.
  • Following his discharge, he began studying to become a teacher and frequenting the Black Cat. -> "Following his discharge, he studied to become a teacher and began frequenting the Black Cat"?
  • There he met waiter Jimmy Moore and they became lovers. He covered Moore's shifts when Moore was unable to work and was hired as a cocktail waiter. Cut to the chase: he began working as a cocktail waiter.
  • Reduced.
  • He sang while delivering drinks and was soon performing three to four shows per night and a special Sunday afternoon show. TMI.
  • Since his initial claim to fame was perfoming at the Black Cat, I would think it has to be in the lead.
  • It was while working at the 1964 New York World's Fair that Sarria learned that Jimmy Moore had committed suicide. Minor.
  • Sarria describes Moore as the love of his life. I can't see how his death can be left out of the lead.
  • If you want to keep it in the lead, then Moore's importance needs to be made clear. Otherwise it seems, like I said, minor.

Suggestions for other areas of the article:

  • Maria sought out the protection of her mother's friend
  • It was on the ship to America that she met Julio Sarria.
  • Fixed.
  • Julio was from a large and well-to-do family in Nicaragua... "well-to-do" seems unprofessional to me; aristocratic?
  • See Sandy's comment re "aristocratic" above.
  • Julio courted her for some time, until Maria realized she was pregnant. José was born on December 12. To make this more explicit, how about: "Their son José was born..."?
  • Fixed.
  • Sarria's mother continued to work for the Jost family but it became increasingly difficult: "until it became..."?

...and that's as far as I got for now. I understand where the above reviewers are coming from in regards to the lack of "elegant" prose in the article, but it's difficult to explain. The article itself is good work, I agree, but sentence structure is sloppy in places and some word choices seem elementary when stronger, more professional words can be used instead. Some sentences can also be combined, condensed, reworked, etc.: "In his youth he studied ballet and tap dancing. He also studied singing", for example, can easily become "In his youth he studied ballet, tap dancing and singing". Perhaps a thorough copy-editor can help in this regard? María (habla conmigo) 14:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response - I have tightened the lead in response to comments here and I truly believe that it is solid. I have tweaked the prose as well and I think it's improved. I hope everyone who's looked at the article thus far will revisit it and leave further feedback. Otto4711 (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's relaible enough for what it's sourcing, the birth certificate issue. Other sources have relied on the glbtq biography.
  • Current ref 64 is lacking all bibliographical information. If you are referencing the book, it should be formatted like a book, not a web page.
  • The book pages have no numbers. I formatted it as I did so that those interested could review the page in question directly. The bibliographical information is included in the references section.
  • Current ref 74 (S. Graham) the link goes to the webpage for the Death Row juror page in the previous ref. Seems to be missing the correct link?
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked with the link checker tool. Note I'm on the road the rest of this week, so replies may be delayed somewhat. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 13:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the plaque being used as a source for information in the article? If so, the source needs to meet reliable source standards. If it's not being used as a souce for information, the link would be better placed in an external links section. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plaque is not being used as a source. I have added a source for the location of the library and moved the photo link to the external links section. I've also asked someone with a photo of the plaque on Flickr if he'll release rights to allow its inclusion. Otto4711 (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:05, 23 August 2008 [22].

Operation Brevity

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article status as it has been extensively worked on to get it up to A class standard and the minor quibbles mentioned during that review and during pervious peer reviews have mostly been ironed out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose—1a. Nice article; however, there are minor issues with the prose that should be dealt with. (Edit: italicized points are under discussion) Here are examples:
    • "Following their defeat the Italians were reinforced with the German Afrika Korps under the command of General Erwin Rommel." A comma after "defeat" would help.
    • "Going straight onto the offensive, Rommel drove the British and Commonwealth forces back across the border into Egypt, although he failed to take Tobruk, 100 miles (160 km) inside Libya." "Back" is redundant in this case. "Onto" can be replaced with "on".
    • "The commander-in-chief of the British Middle East Command; General Archibald Wavell, conceived Operation Brevity as a rapid blow against the weakened Axis front line forces in the area: Sollum–Capuzzo–Bardia." The semicolon should be replaced with a comma. You might want to replace "forces" with "bases" or something similar, since Sollum, Capuzzo, and Bardia are forts/cities. You might even want to list out the cities and forts for readability, but perhaps that's military format that I'm not familiar with.
    • "His primary objective was to gain more territory from which to launch Operation Battleaxe, the main offensive planned for June 1941, and inflict as many losses as possible on the opposing forces, while minimising his own." Since it's a long sentence with several clauses, you might want to insert a "to" before "inflict".
    • "A secondary objective was to exploit towards Tobruk as far as supplies would allow." This could be my own ignorance of the subject, but "exploit" doesn't seem right here; perhaps "penetrate", "press", or something similar?
    • "The operation was entrusted to Brigadier William Gott, who planned to advance with three columns; one along the coastal highway, a central column along the desert plateau above the highway, and the third out on the desert flank." You could use a colon instead of a semicolon here. "Out" is redundant.
    • In the last paragraph of the lead, Fort Capuzzo is linked again.
    • "The coastal column was held for most of the day at the first of its objectives; the foot of the Halfaya Pass,[1] and only succeeded in taking this position towards the evening." I already tweaked this sentence; hopefully it clarifies things a bit.
    • To tighten things up, you could replace "was withdrawn" to "withdrew" in those two cases in the third paragraph. I can understand the rationale for passive voice here (the generals gave the order to withdraw, not the actual forces), but I still feel "withdrew" makes the prose stronger.
    • In the second-to-last sentence of the lead, perhaps you could switch "called off" to "aborted"?
    • "Halfaya Pass, the only gain arising from the operation, was recaptured by a German counterattack eleven days later." "Arising" is redundant. I think "by" should be replaced with "during", as the German forces captured the pass, not the counterattack.
  • The lead is well constructed; these are minor quibbles, and the lead summarizes the battle without using excessive military jargon. However, there are a few minor issues here, and I think the entire article could benefit from a copy-edit. — Deckiller 03:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • The MilHist A-Class review threw up a couple of comments about the need for a better copyedit, and looking at the history of the article since, I don't think the nom has done himself any favours by not fully following up on this.
  • Having said that, and as the editor who has done much of the copyediting on this article prior to the ACR, I believe the deficiencies in prose are such that this article is very nearly there. It would be a shame, for the sake of maybe a day's worth of effort to consign this article to one of the 4,760 articles awaiting copyedit.
  • In particular, whilst I don't disagree with Deckiller's position, I do disagree with his rationale in places. Rather than bog this FAC down with what is essentially a nit-picking rebuttal of those points, I'll detail them on this FAC's discussion page.
  • I do agree, though, that the punctuation needs more work for this to be promoted.
  • Outside of the prose, I think there may be a problem with the use of Jack Crippen's drawing of Halfaya Pass. It is apparently licensed according to GFDL, which permits copies to be made for commercial purposes, yet the conditions of use as copied from the NZ govt archives URL and displayed on the image page explicitly state that the image cannot be sold. Further, the image page has a Non-free use media rationale for this article, which tends to contradict the GFDL license. --FactotEm (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You brought up a couple solid points, and I responded on the talkpage. — Deckiller 17:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We've both stated our cases now, and I'll leave it at that, in the hope that someone recognises that there is an FA nugget just waiting to be teased out here, and gets it through on this attempt. --FactotEm (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More work required on the prose. This is a ripping yarn, and I'm keen to see it promoted. However, it doesn't yet pass our requirement of "professional"-standard prose. This is just the lead; it indicates the need for fresh eyes to scrutinise the whole text.

  • "Following their defeat the Italians were reinforced with the German Afrika Korps under the command of General Erwin Rommel." Comma after "defeat" in a sentence this long. I see that my colleague Deckiller has asked for the same thing, but nothing was done about it. Optional commas are more likely in (1) longer sentences, and (2) more formal registers. Here, it makes the reading easier.
  • "front line forces"—hyphen please.
  • "in the area: Sollum–Capuzzo–Bardia"—the colon is ungrammatical. Why not remove it or make it "in the Sollum–Capuzzo–Bardia area"?
  • "to" before "inflict"—Deckiller's right: better to add this optional item, because the ellipsis relies on rather a long interval. I'd remove the comma before "while" for better flow.
  • I hate "exploit towards". If it's a military term, you might consider using "advance" instead so that non-experts don't go bumpety-bump on it. Are you trying to avoid the repetition of "advance", which occurs in the next sentence? Don't. Again, why do you ignore Deckiller's advice? (I do, however, agree with a few of your rebuttals overleaf.)
    • The advice that both you and Deckiller are giving is that, in order to reach FA quality, this article needs a copyedit from someone new to it. This is not being ignored. I don't believe that addressing specific examples provided in support of that advice is the response either of you are seeking. --FactotEm (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... three columns; one along the ..."—Definitely a colon here to introduce the three-item list. It's a drumroll, too, so is exactly the tone you want. Comma boundaries can follow a colon, no problem.
  • "The coastal column was held for most of the day at the first of its objectives, the foot of the Halfaya Pass,[1] and did not take this position until late afternoon." I found this difficult, and had to read it twice to get it; even now I'm unsure. They held it and then took the position? Huh?
  • You've used quite a few passives that are unobtrusive, but here's one that would be much better in the active: "Deeper penetrations were made by the centre and desert columns,...". In general, avoid a string of passives; in fact, use active unless there's a reason to use passive.
  • "but German counterattacks regained the fort"—slightly uncomfortable for some reason (the attacks were the means for people to regain the fort, yes?). Why not "but the Germans counterattacked and regained the fort".
  • "The centre column, threatened with being caught by German armour in open ground, was withdrawn to Halfaya Pass"—the passive ... we know that someone ordered them to withdraw, so why not the active (then you'll avoid two passives in a row). And "with being caught by" is very ungainly. Try "The centre column withdrew to Halfaya Pass to avoid the ?onslaught of German armour in open ground", or something like that?
  • "recaptured by a German counterattack"—not wrong, but consider "in" instead of "by". *You want US-style date format? No big deal, but I'm surprised. Tony (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like we agree on everything except for the "back" and "out" issues. If you see no reason to remove them, then I'll just stop pressing that point. — Deckiller 00:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC) [Sorry Deckiller, I should have been more direct; to me, both words do add meaning. Tony (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)][reply]
      • I havent had much time over the last few days to browse or work on the wiki so sorry about not being here to respond. The only comment i can not agree on here is the one regarding the wording around "exploit". This is the wording used by the Official History. When looking at the objectives the primary was to clear the areas mentioned of German forces, then and only if the force commited had not been too worn down would they advance on Tobruk. So the advance had not planned, it would be launched to exploit the situation as it unfolded.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:29, 22 August 2008 [23].

Apple

Nominator: User:Aua (talk)
previous FAC (00:08, 31 January 2008)


The article is comprehensive, well-sourced, well-illustrated and is a GA at the moment. All issues in raised in the previous FAC have been addressed.

Cheers! Λuα (Operibus anteire) 12:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments —This is part of a comment by Ealdgyth (of 13:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]

Done.
  • You don't need to put htm in as the format for the websites, it's assumed that it's htm/html. Only use the format field if the link is something other than html.
All the extra English and html parameters have been removed.
  • Likewise for the language parameter, it's assumed to be English so that doesn't need to be specified.
All the extra English and html parameters have been removed.
  • Current ref 4 (Pierre,-eric lauri et. al) needs a publisher.
All the missing publisher information has been added.
  • Current ref 6 (Sauer, J. D. ) is lacking a page number?
Done.
  • Decide on either last name first on the authors or first name first on the authors. Currently they are mixed.
The author's last name comes first, for coauthors, it's the opposite.
Right now, current refs 4 & 5 for starters are listed with "Kristin Churchill" and "William J. Bramledge" as authors. Should be "Churchill, Kristin" and "Bramledge, William J." if you're going with last name first for single authors (Which these are). Those are just two examples. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 11 (Wasson, R. Gordon...) is lacking a page number.
Done.
  • Either list the pages as (page x to x) or (x-x). Right now its mixed.
Done.
  • Current ref 15 (WebMuseum: Durer, Albrecht) is lacking all bibliographical information and a last access date.
All the missing publisher information has been added.
  • Current ref 16 (Macrone, Michael) is lacking all bibliographical information plus page numbers.
Done.
  • Current ref 17 is a link to wiktionary. Generally wiki's aren't considered reliable sources. Also it's just a plain url right now, with no bibliographical information.
Removed.
  • Current ref 19 (World apple situation) is lacking all bibliographical information
All the missing publisher information has been added.
  • Current ref 22 (Ferree, David Curtis et. al.) is lacking a page number.
Done.
Done.
All the missing publisher information has been added.
  • Is current ref 26 (H. Ramirez, GV Hoad et. al) supposed to be a book? If so, the authors shouldn't be in italics. Also, is this http://www.actahort.org/books/310/310_17.htm?
  • Current ref 27 (Controlled Atmosphere Storage) is lacking a publisher, etc.
All the missing publisher information has been added.
  • Current ref 32 - Wesley, R. you do not need to list the authors qualificiations after each author. Also lacking a publisher. And it's not a pdf.
Addressed second point (pdf)
  • Current ref 33 (How to deal with Scab) is lacking a publisher, and any other bibliographcial information.
All the missing publisher information has been added.
  • Current ref 35 (Gavin Evans) is a newspaper article and should be formatted as such, not as a website.
Addressed.
  • Current ref 39 is lacking all bibliographical information. (interview with Michael Polian)
Done.
  • Same for current ref 40 (Information about cancer)
Done.
  • Current ref 41 (Apples the British Medical Journal) Is lacking needed bibliographical information, such as publication date, author, etc.
All the missing publisher information has been added.
  • External links section has a plain numbered link, the link should be titled.
Addressed.
Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, a detailed comment indeed.
Well, when you have an article as visible (more than 3000 pages link to it, I think) and with as many sources and users editing it as this article, problems such as those are bound to fester here or there. I will fix them one by one once I get home tonight.
Thanks for your comments!
Cheers mate!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 13:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed some of the issues you raised above and will be done with them by tomorrow.
Cheers mate!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 20:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was trying not to break WP:TALK. Will relocated my comments.
Cheers mate!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 21:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I finished with them all :)
Cheers mate!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 09:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maralia I completed a sample edit mainly for MOS issues and reference formatting. Following is a summary of the issues I found:

  • Please use nonbreaking spaces between numerals and units of measure
  • References go after punctuation in most cases
  • Image captions do not get ending punctuation unless they are complete sentences
  • In references, specifying 'htm' or 'html' format is redundant; it's the presumed format
  • Same with language=English; not necessary
  • In several cases, the 'work' field was filled out with the author's job title (i.e. "work= NCAT Agriculture Specialist"). This field is for the name of any larger body of work to which the publication belongs.
  • Many of the references are missing publishers or other identifying information. I have inserted hidden comments with the text 'publisher needed', 'date needed' etc on most of them.
  • There are several references that consist merely of an external link; more identifying information is necessary.
  • I have inserted several hidden comments regarding text that didn't make sense; you can find these by searching on <!--.

I did not do a copyedit or read through the text fully; I'll try to get back to this if time permits. Maralia (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maralia for your helpful comments and help with the article; much appreciated!
I have finished addressing (hopefully) all the points you raised above and dealt with the hidden comments. If there is anything I have missed, please give me a pointer and I will deal with it.
Cheers mate!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 20:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images - There are far too many images in this article. They are sandwiching the text and they are piled on top of each other. See MOS:IMAGES and WP:PICTURE for advice on image placement.

I hope this helps! Awadewit (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Awadewit!
Will remove some images once we can sort out the good from the bad.
Image:Koeh-108.jpg- from Koehler's Medicinal Plants (1887), by Franz Eugen Köhler and edited by Gustav Pabst.
I reiterate - the complete publication information for this book needs to be added to image description page, including author and possibly illustrator. Awadewit (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Do you happen to have the birth and death dates for the author and illustrators? That would make this complete and no one would have to look that up. Awadewit (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sterappel dwarsdrsn.jpg- "Myself" refers to User:Rasbak, he mentions that on his user page
The image description page has to have all of this information, too. Awadewit (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Image:Carl Larsson Brita as Iduna.jpg-From the "title page for the Christmas edition of "Idun", 1901". If no further information is required, the image will be removed from the article.
We need the complete publication information for that issue. Awadewit (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Striking since it was removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Durer Adam and Eve.jpg- Left the user a message.
You could also try to find a source yourself - sometimes that is easiest Awadewit (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Image:Apples supermarket.jpg- This user is the publisher
This information has to be explicitly included on the image description page.Awadewit (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Image:Cyborglog-of-eating-old-apple-d360.jpg-- Confusing indeed, will be removed soon, although it appears from the URL that the user his/her-self took it.
I think that is the case, but the licensing is unclear. Awadewit (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tried as much as possible to fix it, if it is not enough, will simply remove it from the article. Now, removed.
I'm striking this since it has been removed. Awadewit (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Apple tree blossom.JPG- We can't! Another candidate for removal.
Try contacting the user. Awadewit (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Contacted user, albeit there is no reason to doubt him in the first place.
Image:Appletree.jpg- I can't see the problem here, the author is User:Mistman123.
Uploaders are not always authors. Are we sure that is the case here? If so, that information needs to be included in the "author" field. Awadewit (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done; removed.
I'm striking this since it has been removed. Awadewit (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Aphids1533.JPG - It would be assumed that the author is user:Pollinator from the license. However, it can be removed if need be.
Uploaders are not always authors. If we can be sure this is the case, we need to indicate on the image description that Pollinator is the author. Awadewit (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, fixed image info, and I left the uploader a message to be on the safe side.
Image:2005apple.PNG- SVG is used now. The link is broken indeed and no way to ask the user since they are blocked. It can be removed too or a new source to be found.
Why don't you try to find the source? Awadewit (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am striking this since it has been removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link broken, and could not find a source. Remove?
Let me look around for a source for a while. Awadewit (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers mate!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 20:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replied with done above.
Cheers mate!
Λuα (Operibus anteire)
This dispatch has some helpful information regarding free images. You might want to take a look at it. Awadewit (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate!
I have added the birth-death dates to Image:Koeh-108.jpg, with sources.
Since we are using illustrations, we need the birth and death dates of the illustrators, too. That is the what claim to PD rests on. Awadewit (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Carl Larsson Brita as Iduna.jpg, and Image:2005apple.PNG were removed from the article.
Cheers!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 11:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object —This is part of a comment by Nichalp (of 19:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]

  1. The article is poorly presented for starters. There are simply too many images on the page to begin with. Images should serve as an accompaniment to the text alongside rather than as galleries.
    Done, reduced number of images.
  2. Avoid left-placed images that displaces the sectional heading towards the right
    Done, no sectional headings are displaced towards the right now.
  3. A copyedit is badly required. The article lacks a flow, and too many grammatical errors.
  4. Link China to People's Republic of China
    Done
    I saw one more instance that is not fixed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Do give the imperial equivalents. Use {{convert}} to generate imperial equivalents of all metric values where possible.
    Done
  6. At least 55 million tonnes of apples were grown worldwide in 2005, but your source is dated 2004. Are there no updated figures available?
    Done, another source was used. Still looking for updated figures.
  7. Check 2/5ths vs 7%. Suggest the values be given in percentages so that it is easier to read
    Done
  8. $10 billion --> dab to US$ 10 billion
    I don't what you are trying to say here.
    Dollar ($) is ambiguous. Using USD or US$ makes it clearer.
  9. southwestern Russia region of Asia Minor -- I've never heard of any region of Russia lying in Asia Minor
    Done
  10. as well as in Argentina and in the United States since the arrival of Europeans --> trivia. Remove
    I would not consider it trivia, because it's about winter apples.
  11. You've mixed BC and CE. Two different dating styles. Suggest you stick to one, the BCE/CE would be preferable.
    Done
  12. National Fruit Collection --> Avoid linking internally.
    Done
  13. =Apple production= has a lot of listy content. Need to be converted to prose or a side table.
    A table is no better, since we already have two at the end of the article.
  14. I notice a lot of specific US/UK instances are mentioned in the text. Are they specifically notable in the larger context of the article? This is one example: As an example, the U.S. state of Washington made its reputation for apple growing on Red Delicious. --> Nothing of that sort is mentioned in the source you have provided. Another example: In the United States, more than 60% of all the apples sold commercially are grown in Washington state. Why single out statistics of a single country, that too one that supplies <8% of the apples.
    Done, removed first one, but kept the second since in the same section it also mentions a number of other countries too.
  15. Apples were brought to North America with colonists in the 1600s -> Why has Australia/New Zealand and South America been ignored a mention?
    Because there were no sources or information about them.
    Then I think you should remove North America and Argentina. Does not balance the article well.

Let me know on my talk once these issues are fixed and the article copyedited. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Finished replying to your comments, mate!
    Cheers!
    Λuα (Operibus anteire) 20:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The $10 billion

Oppose This is an interesting article but it is not ready for FA.

  • A big problem is that this:
The center of diversity of the genus Malus is the eastern Turkey, southwestern Russia region of Asia Minor. Apples were probably improved through selection over a period of thousands of years by early farmers. Alexander the Great is credited with finding dwarfed apples in Asia Minor in 300 BC; those he brought back to Greece may well have been the progenitors of dwarfing rootstocks. Apples were brought to North America with colonists in the 1600's, and the first apple orchard on this continent was said to be near Boston in 1625. From New England origins, apples moved west with pioneers, John Chapman (alias Johnny Appleseed) and missionaries during the 1700's and 1800's. In the 1900s, irrigation projects in Washington state began and allowed the development of the multi-billion dollar fruit industry, of which the apple is the leading species. which is from here, is too similar to this in the article:
The center of diversity of the genus Malus is the eastern Turkey. The apple tree was perhaps the earliest tree to be cultivated,[8] and its fruits have been improved through selection over thousands of years. Alexander the Great is credited with finding dwarfed apples in Asia Minor in 300 BC;[1] those he brought back to Greece might have been the progenitors of dwarfing rootstocks. Apples were brought to North America with colonists in the 1600s,[1] and the first apple orchard on the North American continent was said to be near Boston in 1625.
  • There is no mention of viruses or viroids under Pests and diseases.
  • There are too many images; the Yonkers one is redundant and the one with the bee does not show the act of pollination, it shows a bee next to a flower.
  • Resulting in a range of desired characteristics... is too vague to be meaningful, (and it should be desirable).
  • There is lots of redundancy as in ultimate size of tree.
  • There is poor logic as in the United States is the second leading producer where the preceding sentences are in the past tense, and refer to 2005.
  • World production should be World's productuion
  • in fact, the region - more redundancy here.
  • The work of Barrie Juniper et al. just needs a citation, not this: Recent DNA analysis by Barrie Juniper, Emeritus Fellow in the Department of Plant Sciences at Oxford University and others, has indicated, however, that the hybridization theory is probably false.
  • Some is rarely needed or helpful as in some recent breeding programmes.
  • And is the article in British or US English? We have programme here but center above.

I have read as far as History, but it is clear to me that the article still requires much work to bring it to FA; a good copy-edit would be a start. Graham Colm Talk 17:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:29, 22 August 2008 [24].

1998 Comfrey – St. Peter tornado outbreak

Nominator(s): WxGopher (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel like it meets FA critera, being comprehensive, well referenced and with proper formatting. It's currently listed as a GA and has undergone a peer review. I look forward to your comments! WxGopher (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Some things I noticed at first glance:
  • A strong area of low pressure combined with a warm front and favorable upper level dynamics combined to produce sixteen tornadoes over the region. "sixteen" → "16". I see this a couple more times in the article, so just keep in mind only single-digit numbers are spelled out.
  • Some dates are autoformatted, while others are not. Try to be consistent.
  • Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings.
  • I'm concerned about current ref 8, as, although it's cited to two individual facts, it links to the main NCDC storm reports page.
  • Current ref 32 should list the AP as the author, with the Minnesota Daily as the publisher.
  • Otherwise sources look good; links check out with the link checker.

Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all these issues, except for ref #8 (which is now 30). I did change one ref to a better page, but for the damage amounts listed by the NCDC for wind and hail, the only way I've found to get those is to do a lookup for those specific events events, there isn't a static URL. Is there a better way I should reference this? WxGopher (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of. It isn't a huge deal, so it should be fine as it is. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - prose is good in general, a few nitpicks:

  • "The 14 tornadoes recorded were the most to ever touch down in one day during the month of March. The F4 tornado was the strongest ever recorded in March" - two records for March in a row. Couldn't they somehow be combined?
  • "This event was named the top severe weather event..." - sudden topic change from the last sentence makes this sentence confusing.
  • "Eighty percent of the windows on the campus were shattered, and most of the major buildings on campus sustained at least some damage." - red flag: "some". This could be better worded as "and most of the major buildings on campus sustained damage."

There may possibly be more that I missed; I just searched for "red-flag" words and phrases in the main text and went over the lead. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, The best way I could think of to fix issue #2 was to rearrange the sentences (which probably should've been that way to begin with). Does that look better? WxGopher (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Please move the article to 1998 Comfrey – St. Peter tornado outbreak and correct the instances of the name in the article; the en dash should be spaced because the second item it connects (St. Peter) has a space. Right now, the dash appears to connect Comfrey with St., which is bad style.
  • That said, I am happy to see that en dashes enjoy increasing usage in Wikipedia; as late as last year this article would probably use a hyphen. Waltham, The Duke of 22:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever was done to the article name here, the talk page was left in disarray, and the FAC needs to be moved. This change needs to be done correctly and completely, without leaving redlinks everywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind: I'll just do it all myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And now the article and talk page have been moved back after I fixed the FAC to the new name. Now it needs an admin to sort it all out; I can no longer fix all the moves over redirects. Please work with an admin to get it right and get everything in the right place, which includes seven pieces: the FAC name itself, the peer review page, the GA page, the article, the article talk page, the article title on this FAC page, and the FAC listing at the WP:FAC page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch. Waltham, The Duke of 08:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, it looks like Woody fixed everything now. Thanks, Woody. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about creating the confusion there, and thanks for cleaning up after me! WxGopher (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support (full disclosure - I'm in the MN wikiproject with WXGopher)
    • "CAPE...were 2000 J/kg. " is this high? low?
    • could this be stated better? "As the tornado moved from Murray and into Cottonwood counties,..."
    • "the twister lifted back into the clouds" Does this actually happen or does it dissipate?
    • "a six-year-old boy was killed when his vehicle was overtaken by the tornado." - is there a better way to say this? I pictured a kid driving...
    • "The chapel spire, a campus landmark, was snapped in half. " is mentioned as damage. Can you see if it was repaired for aftermath?
  • Overall looks good. -Ravedave (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the CAPE, that is considered moderate. I've mentioned that and provided a ref.
- I re-worded this, does it look better now?
- Both can happen, a tornado can "skip" and come back down and touch land again, or it can dissipate. In this case, the ref here said that it lifted, so that's what I used in the article. I've tacked this ref onto this sentence as well.
- Re-worded, better?
- According this this page (hidden in the caption of the picture of the repaired chapel) the spire is new. Do you think this should be mentioned? WxGopher (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good. Regarding the spire, if it's worth mentioning in damage shouldn't it be worth mentioning in the aftermath? I guess the real question is 'is it worth mentioning in damage?' What about the other school structures that were destroyed? -Ravedave (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found a note about the spire being replaced and placed this in the aftermath section. WxGopher (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images

Oppose—Sorry to come along late. The writing needs a proper massage; can you find someone unfamiliar to do it, please? Here are random samples from the top, showing the need to go through the entire text thoroughly.

  • Have you read MoS on hyphenation? "upper level dynamics". Audit throughout for such double adjectives—there are tons. Seems to be a disease in meteorological articles. Where's you WikiProject? I feel like visiting to make a statement about it. That would save us a lot of trouble at FAC. Try these exercises.
  • "Thirteen of the tornadoes were caused by one parent supercell which traveled approximately 150 miles (241 km) across southern Minnesota during the afternoon hours." So how many parent supercells travelled thus? Five in all, of which you're talking about one? Without a comma preceding, your "which" expresses a subset of supercells—one of many. On this point, I agree with Chicago MOS: use "that" or ", which" to make it clear to yourself and your readers which one is intended. Consider adding "just" before "one", to drive home your meaning (if my assumption is correct).
  • "Over $235 million in damages was reported"—"damage" is not usually countable unless in the legal sense. I've seen certain engineering subfields use it, and I hate it.
  • The, not This outbreak; "this" is too strong a back-reference given what the reader well knows by now.
  • "The 14 tornadoes recorded were the most to ever touch down in one day during the month of March, the F4 tornado was the strongest ever recorded in March, and its 67-mile (108 km) path is the longest continuous-track tornado recorded in Minnesota during any month." Hmmm ... Do we need the first "recorded"? Weren't there 16? I'm totally confused. "the most ever to have touched down" would be the better tense. "was the longest".
  • Good scope and arc for the lead.
  • "the best chance of thunderstorm development was along"—along? Huh? Tony (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I am not as familiar on when to do hyphens vs. dashes, and when, as you are, so I'll try to address that in the next day or two. If you're looking to address a broad weather audience on the hyphen issue, I would suggest WP:Meteorology and WP:Tropical cyclones. I'll try to fix the issues you brought up, but I did have a couple questions...
  • The reason why I put "recorded" tornadoes was because when a tornado outbreak first occurs, there are "reported", and "official". Most of the time (more so in larger outbreaks) there number of reported tornadoes is much higher than what is eventually deemed official. I thought that by putting "recorded" in, that would specify that these are the tornadoes that for sure did happen, but if you think that confuses things too much, I'll remove it. Also there were 16 tornadoes in this outbreak, but 2 of them were in the state of Wisconsin. The 14 tornadoes in Minnesota are the ones that broke many records for Minnesota only.
That's a good reason to use "recorded"; but non-experts won't understand this important meaning. I guess it applies to all such articles, but somewhere it would be nice to point it out, in at least a few of them. A brief footnote? We are, after all, in the business of educating our readers. Tony (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For damages, I'm not sure what you mean by "legal", but this damage total is what the National Climatic Data Center has recorded for these tornadoes, so it's the official total the U.S. government uses. This number is what was based on government survey's, insurance claims, etc, after the event. Is this good enough or should I try to re-word it? WxGopher (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is sound American; Tony is being provincial again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't mind personal attacks, especially from Anderson, who has blanket permission to say whatever he likes about me. But are you sure US readers wouldn't balk at "you've done a lot of damages to my clothing"? (Uttered to the dry cleaning service.) And if the justification were to imply storm damage of a number of different types, it begs the question as to what they were. Tony (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Only fair, considering how many personal attacks Tony's made on others. But he also misses the differentiation: damage is material injury: houses destroyed, livestock killed, roads torn up and so forth; damages are the cost of it all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←So have you addressed the whole text, not just the issues I raised as examples? Tony (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:29, 22 August 2008 [25].

Crown Fountain

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (talk), Torsodog (talk)
previous FAC (00:05, 31 March 2008)


I have nominated this twice before and submitted it to WP:PR. User:Torsodog has also submitted this to WP:PR, which is how we met. We have attempted to addresss all actionable concerns from the prior FACs and PRs. Given that this has twice been through FAC and PR, it is difficult determine where to get further editorial assistance. Thus, I return here for further consideration. This is part of the Millennium Park Chicago WikiProject Featured Topic Drive. It is one of the few articles that was a WP:GA before we got 10 promoted in June and July. I could put a WP:LOCE tag on it, but do not recall that getting editorial assistance with any other article I have tried that with.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved, Calor (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Definitely a good start, but needs some work, namely a general copy-edit for basic grammar and conventions. As a side note, this is my first time reviewing an article in-depth, so if I'm wrong about policies or grammar and such, feel free to correct me.

In general the copy edit was good. My main concern is that community area is a key descriptor for locations in Chicago. For example read most of the descriptions on the Library of Congress images in their Chicago Daily News collection. I think following the descriptive patterns of the Library of Congress is probably a good encyclopedic method and I in general find these useful. Almost every community area has a very representative map at the top of its page, which really helps the reader understand where things are.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*The infobox. I don't think there should be three borders. David (Michelangelo) is a good sculpture article, with a simple but good infobox.

*You linked to Cascade, which is a disambig. Fix the link to point where it should.

*"The $17 million construction and design cost was largely funded by the Crown family, who donated $10 million and for whom the fountain is named." - Crown family probably shouldn't link to Lester Crown. Perhaps "Lester Crown and his family" or "The family of Lester Crown" (as I'm not sure how much of a role Lester played in all this).

*"The Goodman family (Goodman Theatre) was also a large contributor.[3]". - It looks kinda... bad. Perhaps "The Goodman family, known for [insert connection with Goodman Theatre here], was also also a large contributor.".

*"There is brief period between the each five-minute video during which the sculpture is not lit. As a result, at most 12 faces appear per hour." - Remove "the". 12 should be twelve, because it is less than 100. That sentence is choppy. Try "As a result, no more than twelve faces appear per hour.", or something similar. There are a few other occasions where the numbers should probably be words (26 parking spaces comes to mind). Find and fix those.

*"..between Madison and Monroe Streets." - May just be me, but "between Madison Street and Monroe Street" looks and sounds better.

*"It sits with a northward backdrop that not only includes some of the tallest buildings in Chicago, but also includes some of the tallest buildings in the world." - Reword to something like "Looking north, viewers see some of the tallest buildings both in Chicago and in the world, such as the Aon Center, One Prudential Plaza, Two Prudential Plaza, and the Smurfit-Stone Building". The sentence as it is sounds overwordy and like a two sentences tossed together (not to mention the overabundance of blue links).

*"Skyward viewers also see the eastern backdrop of Lake Michigan." - "Skyward" implies you're looking up at the sky toward Lake Michigan (I'm assuming you don't). Perhaps "When viewed from the sky, Lake Michigan can be seen to the east of Crown Fountain".

*"to bear the gravity load of the 50 feet (15.2 m) walls" - 50 foot high walls. And remove gravity. "To bear the load..." sounds great.

*"the illusion of flowing from mouth's of displayed subjects." - "the illusion of flowing from the mouths of displayed subjects".

*Make sure blocks of references are in numerical order. I saw at least one out of order.

*Make sure it's "Crown Fountain" and "the fountain". Not "Crown fountain" or "the Fountain".

*"Crown Fountain is reputed for its exemplary non-discriminatory barrier-free accessibility." - Commas would be good between the adjectives, although it sounds relatively alright as it is (not grammatically correct, however, I don't think).

*You got a bit off-topic with how LEDs work. "LEDs differ from standard light bulbs because they fit into an electrical circuit so that illumination results from the movement of electrons in the semiconductor material. A filament is unnecessary, so the bulbs never burn out and do not get too hot" can all be removed.

*What is ColorBlast 12? Link (if there's an article), rephrase, or briefly elaborate.

*"Concern over the spouting water potentially knocking people down made the design a legal, as well as physical, challenge.[16]". Interesting. Would be smoother as "...made the design both a legal and a physical challenge".

*"optimizing legibility of the display." - "Legibility" generally implies text, and as I understand, it is all pictures. Find a different word if possible. "Resolution", maybe? (Legibility occurs twice).

*"The challenge was solved by combining a T-bar grid to absorb weight, with about 150 "outriggers" or "tiebacks" inserted..." - Most people don't know what a T-bar grid is. Provide appropriate links if possible. Remove the comma after weight, and add commas after "outriggers" and "tiebacks", as tiebacks (I think) is an appositive, so it should be set off.

*"Electronic Theatre Controls (ETC) Emphasis control system" - Unless Emphasis is some sort of model name, it should be lower-case.

*"In both 2005 and 2006, almost the entire Millennium Park" - "...Almost all of..." sounds better.

*"On September 8, 2005, Toyota Motor Sales USA paid $800,000 to rent all venues in the park except Wrigley Square, Lurie Garden, McDonald's Cycle Center and Crown Fountain..." Dates don't need to be linked anymore. Remove link if you want (unless I'm incorrect regarding policy). Crown Fountain should be normal text, not italicized. Another date link in the following sentence. Do the same (or not, if you wish, or if I'm wrong).

*"However, Crown Fountain was one of the features that remained open to the public on this occasion too.[27]" - Comma before "too".

Things look good so far. Some stuff may have been fixed while I was writing this. Again, I may be wrong with some things. Correct me if I am. Good luck with this FAC. Calor (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As with the article on the BP Pedestrian bridge, I urge you to rethink the structure here. For instance, you have a section on "Artistry," and yet the first two paragraphs read, almost in their entirety:

    Crown Fountain, designed by Spanish artist Jaume Plensa, was unveiled during the July 16-18, 2004 grand opening celebrations for Millennium Park.[11] Plensa won the commission to design the fountains in a competitive process against Robert Venturi and Maya Lin.[6] The park was conceived in 1998 as the capstone of Grant Park, to celebrate the new millennium and to feature world-renowned architects, artists, designers, landscape architects, and urban planners.[10] Within Millennium Park, the fountain is located on the east side of Michigan Avenue across from the Chicago Landmark Historic Michigan Boulevard District, north of the Art Institute of Chicago and south of the McCormick Tribune Plaza and Ice Rink between Madison and Monroe Streets. It sits with a northward backdrop that not only includes some of the tallest buildings in Chicago, but also includes some of the tallest buildings in the world, especially the skyscrapers along Randolph Street: Aon Center, One Prudential Plaza, Two Prudential Plaza, and Smurfit-Stone Building. Viewers also see the eastern backdrop of Lake Michigan.

The $17 million construction and design cost was largely funded by the Crown family, who donated $10 million and for whom the fountain is named.[2][12] The Goodman family (Goodman Theatre) was also a large contributor.[3] The fountain's black granite reflecting pool measures 48 feet by 232 feet (15 m × 71 m) and has an approximate water depth of 0.25 inches (0.6 cm).[1] It includes two LED screens encapsulated in a glass brick superstructure, one at each end, measuring 50 feet by 23 feet by 16 feet (15.2 m × 7.0 m × 4.9 m).[1]

What does this have to do with "artistry"? (In fact, what does any of this section really have to do with "artistry"?) While we're at it, what does the following section have to do with "Architecture"? What, if any, is the thought behind the structure in this article? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent:) NB the more I think about this, the more the fountain should probably be considered a performance. Unfortunately, you need to track down the sources rather than do original research, of course. But you are making me think I need to get back to Chicago before long. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I assume what you mean is you want critical commentary on the work of art. I think my comments above about artistic themes will address this. I apologize for focussing on architectural and engineering concerns. For a work of art there were very interesting structural concerns that drew my attention.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In the so-called "Controversy" section, you just reinserted a long section that is not a controversy, and specifically not about the fountain. Why? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I added a sentence to explain the controversy (and note the article is sourced). The controversy is about the fact that toursist were limited to the fountain and a few other attractions in the park when the park (as the city's second largest tourist attraction) draws travelers from around the world to come see it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see no sign of the article authors seriously addressing the problems with this article; I see, rather, far too much defensiveness. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OBJECTION At this point your comments are about 24 hours old. My first impulse is to charge you with some form of disruptive editing where you come in demanding changes without discussion and agreement. There is no reason for one editor to demand changes without discussion and agreement. We are currently disagreeing on what the controversy is, let alone whether it should be included. I have been working my way through comments in order and skipped ahead to ask questions about your comments, which were at the end. I would like to request the opinion of User:Calor and User:Torsodog on the appropriateness of including the controversy about which features were available and which were unavailable in this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Object away. But as should be clear: while others either oppose or support straight away, I prefer simply to comment at first, until I have more of a sense of how the article looks to be shaping up. Then I make some kind of judgement. But like everyone else, I'm happy to change my mind if things change. This is not disruptive editing, in any shape or form. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • O.K. since your opposition is based on failure to address concerns. Could you please cap or strike comments so that I can tell what you consider unresolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I got your message about looking this over on the weekend. I think this is about the third or fourth FAC where you have decided to object and then when I fixed most of your issues, you decided not to respond for several days. This is getting annoying.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've had a look at this again, and have to continue to oppose. I'd love to be able to strike some comments. But no. There's been no real attention to structure, which has been my main point from the start. What's more, the prose has if anything got worse, rather than better. Two examples, almost at random: "The towers are 50 feet (15.2 m) tall and use complicated electronics to animate the digital videos of Chicago residents it displays throughout the year." (That's in the opening paragraph! Not only ugly, but also ungrammatical); "The Crowns acted more independently of Millennium Park officials than did other park feature sponsors." Moreover (and this is another way of looking at the question of structure), too many paragraphs are composed of sentences stitched together without very much in the way of clear logic. That's perhaps especially true of just about every paragraph in the "Artistry" section, for instance, which I just looked at in particular detail since I had problems with it before. BTW, about the Piensa book: the obvious bookstore to try would be the Art Institute's, surely, rather than Borders? Or, of course, a library. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 4 (Gross, Matt "Amid Architecutral ...) is lacking a publisher and last access date.
  • Current ref 5 (Kamin, Blair "Crown Fountain...) Is lacking publisher
  • Current ref 7 "Steinhauer, Jennifer "Nation Sweats.." Is lacking a last access date and publisher.
  • Publisher on Current ref 9 (Nance, Kevin ...) Isn't News Bank but the original newspaper (Sun-Times)
  • This one http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/2007/08/park-walk-par-1.html is STILL unaddressed after the last FAC. What makes this a reliable source?
    • This person seems to be more than a blogger. This person seems to be some sort of writer and author. Is this a WP:RS?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the author to qualify as a RS we'd need to know why they would be a RS. Preferably we'd know that they were a noted, published expert on architecture and/or physics. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I concede that this is not like sourcing from Gary Becker's blog, but I noted the following on her web page: "I also post three times a week at Twisted Physics, hosted by Discovery News." These blogs seem to be credible in that sense.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reference 29, the one in question, is only cited after the fact that fins were added to protect the LEDs from direct sunlight. Any person can probably notice that (although it may violate WP:OR). The fact itself, while interesting, is not crucial to understanding the design and structure of Crown Fountain. If this dispute remains unsettled, we can always simply remove the sentence. Calor (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • For what it's worth, I say cut the blog. What's important is not the person, but the place of publication. For instance, I write academic articles, and also write a blog. Though of course I personally am of the opinion that my blog contains numerous pearls of wisdom (heh), it's still not a reliable source; my peer-reviewed articles are. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ealdgyth pointed us to the latest thoughts on WP:RS. I see the following text
                • Websites with the following attributes (Is a blog) should be questioned (not automatically removed).
                • If a site is written by a noted expert who has been independently published by reliable sources in the field, or is hosted by a college or university institute concerned with the field, it may be reliable, depending on the text cited or whether there should be other, more reliable (for example, peer-reviewed) sources available.
              • With these two points in mind we should question this, evaluate the cited text, and determine whether other more reliable (peer-reviewed) sources should be used. The text "LEDs fit into an electrical circuit, causing illumination by the movement of electrons in the semiconductor material and making a filament unnecessary, so the bulbs never burn out and do not get too hot. Fins were added to the screens to keep direct sunlight from hitting the LEDs." is WP:ATT to this source. The first of these two sentences may be easily sourced in a physics or electronics book. It also may go unchallenged in the context of this section of the article. The second is a claim specific to the architecture of this fountain. I am not a physicist and do not know by looking at the fountain that fins were added as User:Calor suggest. In fact, I find the point interesting, the source seems semi-credible (I'd say a 7-7.5 out of 10). What are we suppose to question here? We are dealing with a blog that is written for the online enterprise of the Discovery Channel. In terms, blogging that is one of the higher forms of blogging. I cite blogs from Newsweek, Time, Chicago Tribune when no alternate source is available. In the context of this article this single fact is not a lynchpin to the encyclopedic value of the article. In fact, the encyclopedic value would be reduced only slightly by its omission. However, looking at this claim in this article, the context from which it was drawn in the source article, and the relationship between the source article and a trusted source, I would say that if this is the only claim in the article that has a less than bulletproof RS, we should keep it. Looking at the nearby paragraphs in the source article and taking a quick visit to http://blogs.discovery.com/twisted_physics/ I think the source is O.K. I would question an article built upon this source as its primary source. I think the article is better with this claim in it. I.E., if we could source this to a Nobel Prize-winning Physicist, it would be a boost to the article. If FAC has a no blogs policy I would cut it. However, if there is some sort of good blogs/bad blogs decision to be made, I would call this a good blog and vote to keep.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The first sentence (about the design of LEDs) can easily be verified by some external source if the nitpickers want it. Otherwise, it's largely a no-factor. As for the fins, I was under the impression that small, individual fins could be seen when standing a foot away from the fountain. Evidently, I am wrong. Not a first. The article is definitely better with that sentence included. It's interesting, and helps the reader visualize the step-by-step deigning and construction of the fountain. I'll search for another, more reliable source of this fact. If I can't find one... well, the blog(ger)'s credentials aren't that bad... Calor (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What's the status on this blog? I'm still not convinced that this blog is reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is the name of the fountain supposed to be italicized? These books -- [26], [27], [28] don't use italics for Crown Fountain (but they do use them for Cloud Gate). I'm guessing the difference is that Cloud Gate's title is meant to convey something about the piece, while Crown Fountain is simply named for the people who paid for it. Zagalejo^^^ 02:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:ITALICS#Italic_type, names of works of visual arts are suppose to be italicized. I believe this is a work of visual art and that this is the name. Opinions welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Visual art notes that 3-D works of art are called plastic arts, and implies the two are separate terms. However, plastic arts says that plastic arts, such as sculptures (like Crown Fountain), are under the umbrella of visual arts. Go figure. Calor (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Pulitzer Prize-winning Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin
  2. Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture critic Blair Kamin
  3. Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin
  4. Architecture critic Blair Kamin
Comments welcome. Please state your preference.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, any of these are fine by me, except the first, which is too long. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes, it is over the top. Is he the one quoted in Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)? I think it would balance the article to have some critics who were not Chicago boasters and who were more objective. I know you think I am trying to derail your articles, but that is not true. I just think you can do better. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may notice that the Millennium Park articles are all heavily sourced by Newsbank articles. I have access to all Illinois newspapers at Newsbank. I generally check for Time, Newsweek, New York Times and U.S. News & World Report. If these sources don't have critical commentary, I am relagated to Illinois newspapers. Of course, it is not like these are my articles. This is WP. Anyone who has access to other better sources is free to contribute. Unless I can turn up something with a google search or from one of the aforementioned sources, I don't know how to "do better."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are "stretching" the impact, if only local sources and nothing outside that can be found. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I argue that any Chicago person/place or thing is notable if it is written about in four separate New York Times articles, so notability is not a concern and I don't think anyone here is raising WP:N issues. The issue here is whether the critic should have extensive introduction with each first appearance in an article. Thanks for your help on that issue. This fountain would pass notability by a mile at WP:AFD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely over the top. If I had to choose, I would prefer the third choice, "Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin". Calor (talk)
I would select this one also, if forced to choose. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed this to the requested alternative.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Take the first sentence;

I would suggest something along the lines of:

  • Crown Fountain is an interactive public fountain and video sculpture featured in Millennium Park in the Chicago Loop area of Chicago, Illinois.
  • Having the community area link detracts from the Chicago Loop link - a much more relevant link. Who cares about Chicago community areas in comparison. And you know that you do not need United States to be linked. A person can click on Illinois to find that out, if they want.
    • I don't see any sculptures at WP:FA except Freedom Monument, which includes its country. As I look at FA Parks (I can't easily eyeball park features by name), they all seem to mention country name. Here is how the first few begin:
      • Death Valley National Park is a mostly arid United States National Park located east of the Sierra Nevada mountain range in southern Inyo County and northern San Bernardino County in California with a small extension into southwestern Nye County and extreme southern Esmeralda County in Nevada.
      • Chaco Culture National Historical Park is a United States National Historical Park and a UNESCO World Heritage Site hosting the densest and most exceptional concentration of pueblos in the American Southwest.
        • Promoted in February 2007 - old school FA values.
      • Gilwell Park is a camp site and activity centre for Scouting groups, as well as a training and conference centre for Scout Leaders. The 44 hectare (109 acre) site is in Sewardstonebury, Epping Forest, close to Chingford, London.
        • This only mentions its location near a neighborhood in London in the second line.
      • Everglades National Park is a national park in the U.S. state of Florida.
        • A new FA, it mentions the United States, but does not link to it.
    • Thus, I think to be consistent with prevailing policy at FA, United States is suppose to be in the first sentence or two of the lead. Country is linked more often than not in these articles. Since this is the prelude to a hopeful WP:FT in which the park and several of its features are described in a parallel way, we should probably go by what other parks are doing at FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am hesitant to delink community area. Does anyone outside Chicago know what the Community areas of Chicago are? It is not like a state, county, country or other familiar municipal designation. I am also hesitant to chop the term community area to area. We don't chop national park to park or mountain range to range because in each case the shortened form sound slangy. It seems only the Library of Congress, which uses the community areas consistently to describe places in Chicago, knows what they are. I think the rest of the international readers need to know what they are. Thus, I think it should be included and linked. Within the Loop article they could figure it out I guess, which is a possible reason to exclude it. However, no one knows what this one is, which is why it is linked. Further discussion welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to know that much more about Chicago. I read the community area article and it is boring. If I want to know more about Chicago I will read the Chicago article. I think it is the relentless salesmanship regarding Chicago that pulls these articles of yours down. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Salesmanship" seems to be an argument without thought. Since when does a person trying to boast about Chicago use community area in his argument. I have seen a lot of Chicago boosterism in my eight years in Chicago and community area is not a topic of relevance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether Community areas of Chicago is an exciting article. (If it were it might be considered salesmanship:) The point is not whether we teach them about Chicago. The purpose of community area in articles on WP is to teach people the location of things. Clearly, the Loop gives more information about where the park is than Chicago because it is one of 77 officially recognized subdivisions of the city. As an aside, I kind of wish other cities I like to create articles for used a similar system instead of neighborhoods with vague boundaries. The question is does saying Loop convey this information. If I say California, I do not need to say U.S. State California, because people know what it is. International readers do not know community area. Thus, my argument for its inclusion and linkage.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just suggestions. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Architects and city residents have praised the fountain for its contribution to Millennium Park in terms of artistic presence and entertainment value."
It's those "extra words" that make it sound hokey: "entertainment value" sounds so PR. Isn't the park just plain entertaining? And if you could get rid of phrases like "in terms of" it would be better. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better. The fountain sounds like a genuine work of art in its own right, regardless of where it is located. Concentrate on the characteristics of the fountain. If it interacts with Chicago residents, then it would be intriguing to know how, and to what effect. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fountain continues to be an inanimate object to my knowledge. Thus, it would be the people who interact with the fountain. They do so by splashing and sliding in the reflecting pool, fighting for position under the spout, and placing themselves under the cascade. It is the receiver (not the doer) of interaction as I understand the critical commentary. Do you want further explanation of this in the article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC
Well, yeah. I thought I read somewhere that it splashes water on people in a way that seems arbitrary and therefore they take personally. So, in my mind, it seems as if people relate to the fountain personally, even though it is inanimate. Does that make sense? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. the spouting is not arbitrary. It is like clockwork. It is all in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see the last pair of images on the left? That shows two of the types of interaction. Fountains spouting water is not interactivity. Most fountains spout water. The interactivity is the people trying to get wet in different ways. I'll try to expound and rearrange the text to explain this better.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is the new interactivity explanation with rearranged and expanded text?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • StrongOppose I peer reviewed this article and checked one reference at random, a New York Times article. I noted a real problem in the PR with the ref being used in a way that did not match what the article claimed. When I saw it was at FAC, I rechecked the use of that reference, which is "Amid Architectural Glories, Piles of Cheap Fun" from the Frugal Traveler's trip to Chicago published on November 4, 2007. The article is about Chicago in general and there is only one sentence in it about the fountain, which I quote: "At the Crown Fountain, kids of all ages screamed and scampered about under jets of water squirting from two tall oblong towers covered in L.E.D. screens that displayed the faces of ordinary Chicagoans." It is current reference 7 here, and is used three times. The three uses are given next - I quote all text after the previous ref and include the ref(s) cited:
  1. The fountain is a public play area and allows people an escape from summer heat. During the summer, children come to the fountain to frolick in the fountain's water.[7]
  2. The fountain is well known for the way its visitors splash and slide in the reflecting pool, jostle for position under the water spout and place themselves under the cascade.[7][23]
  3. The interactive participants are usually children playing in the stream from the water spout or under the cascade.[7]

While these are fairly mundane statements, the article cited does not back them up - it makes no mention of summer heat, the reflecting pool, the cascade, and it says "kids of all ages" not "participants are usually children". I also note these problem uses are after I pointed out a different problem use in the peer review, and one reason I looked at this again was because I found a similar misuse of a ref by the same author in another peer review earlier tonight. FAs are supposed to be our best work, but three misuses of the same quote in one article after a PR notice makes me fear the misuse of refs is not limited to this one instance. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct I accidentally swapped the refs there. You note that I show two statements backed up by one ref and a third backed by the same ref as well as another. The ref that should have been put on all three statements was put on one and the ref that should have been put on one was put on all three. I have fixed the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It is quite odd that each time I use this article to ref something it seems to be a problem. I know I fixed its use from the PR. Good thing you are watching.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply, I need to sit down and read the new ref and read the places where it is cited. I also need to read the article carefully again and plan to check some more refs. I am fairly busy so this may take me a day. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I struck the above as it has been fixed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference check by Ruhrfisch - I checked several internet accessible refs at random. Here are the results:

    • Ref 1 is fine in all uses.
    • Ref 2d says the glass bricks were made in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania, but the article says Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Other uses are fine.
      • Do a search on Pleasant in the article and you will immediately get to the following quote: "L.E. Smith Glass Co., Mt. Pleasant, PA, produced 22,000 5- by 10- by 2-inch blocks that resemble glass tiles or bricks."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, here is the quote in the article itself: The glass was custom made at a factory in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and fitted into small sections of the frame. The glass is white glass rather than the usual green glass that results from iron impurities. Each block is 5 inches by 10 inches by 2 inches (13 cm × 25 cm × 5.1 cm) with glass thin enough to avoid image distortion, with one out of the six faces of the block polished; the other five surfaces are textured.[2] When you look at ref 2, it does not say Pittsburgh. All I was doing was checking refs, specifically ref 2. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 4a and Ref 5a are used for this Architects and city residents have praised the fountain's artistic and entertaining contribution to Millennium Park.[4][5] but neither review mentions (other) architects' opinions (perhaps the reviewers are themselves architects?) and I do not see any mention of general residents' reactions (director of the park is quoted in one). Other uses of 4 and 5 are OK
    • Current ref 7b and current ref 26 are still iffy. The article here goes into far more detail than the refs do (article: "The fountain is well known for the way its visitors splash and slide in the reflecting pool, jostle for position under the water spout and place themselves under the cascade.[7][26]") This is in contrast to ref 7's only relevant sentence " At Millennium Park in downtown Chicago, dozens of children splashed and jumped in the Crown Fountain, where water shoots out of two 50-foot-high glass block towers." and ref 26's only sentence on the fountain (this was discussed above, it is the former ref 7): "At the Crown Fountain, kids of all ages screamed and scampered about under jets of water squirting from two tall oblong towers ..."

I need to do other things - I checked six refs and five of them had some issues. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • If we have pictures showing kids standing under the cascading water and do we need the article to say they stand under the water. If the article says they are scampering about and the water shoots in one location, they are scampering about in the rest of the reflecting pool. I think you are objecting to my familiarity with the park and ability to explain things in detail that may not be in explicit print. The kids are scampering. They must be scampering in the reflecting pool because the water only shoots in one location. You have to give me credit for two more refs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments from Ruhrfisch I still have some concerns about the article.

  1. I agree with jbmurray that the section headers do not seem to describe their content well. For example, the first four paragraphs of "Artistry" seem more like "Operation" to me, and the paragraph comparing it to other Chicago fountains seems more like it belongs in the Critical Reception section.#* I have moved the fountains. That was a good suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have also moved the fifth paragraph that did not belong with the video sculpture operations. I think I will have to spend more time with the rearranging. The quick move of a whole paragraph to critical review may have been not clearly thought out. I am not sure if the whole para belongs there. I am in a hurry for now. I will get back to it more tonight or tomorrow. I am going to spend some time viewing the fountain at night tonight.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This seems better, but I find it odd that the Construction and Engineering is one of the last sections - I would think it would be one of the first. Also parts of paragraphs seem out of place, for example Grant Park is considered to be "Chicago's Front Yard".[24][25] Millennium Park was conceived in 1998 as the capstone of Grant Park, to celebrate the new millennium and to feature world-renowned architects, artists, designers, landscape architects, and urban planners.[11] in the Unveiling section seems like part of an introduction to the whole article (after the lead). I also find it odd that Lake Michigan is not even mentioned in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about something like this for sections: 1 Concept and Design (with current sections 1 Selection of artist and 2 Artistic design, plus the bit on explaining Millennium Park I pointed out earlier); 2 Construction and engineering (with current sections 6 Construction and engineering and perhaps 3 Video production); 3 Dedication and operation (with 4 Unveiling and 5 Operation and 5.1 Video sculpture and 5.2 Fountain) 4) Controversies (although the first controversy might be better in the Concept and Design section) and last 5) Critical reception (now 8 Critical review). Just an idea - this is NOT an actionable request, but how I would try it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The "Contoversy" section (should it be "Controversies"?) needs the date to provide context for the "Crown Fountain was the most controversial of all the park features." paragraph. It seems to be in reverse chronological order too - the security camera flap seems to have happened after the height flap, but is described first.
  3. This sentence bothers me for several reasons: Looking north from the fountain, viewers see some of the tallest buildings both in Chicago and in the world, such as the Aon Center, One Prudential Plaza, Two Prudential Plaza, and Smurfit-Stone Building. First it needs a ref (extraoridinary claim). Second, the tallest these buildings (Aon Center) is only the 16th tallest building in the world. Third, it is clear from the skiyline photo in the articles for all of these that most of the named buildings are not even the tallest in Chicago.
    • They are all listed in the tallest buildings in Chicago. I have rephrased. How necessary is a ref when the link takes you to to the list, which is well cited. I do not know if there is a unified list of tallest buildings. WP:Skyscraper makes a list with a fully cited height for each building to create the lists.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are two problems. First the sentence now reads Looking north from the fountain, viewers see three of the thirty tallest buildings in the United States (Aon Center, Two Prudential Plaza, and One Prudential Plaza). The problem is one Prudential Plaza is not even on the list of 100 plus tallest buildings in the US. If tallest buildings in Chicago is meant (per your comment above) it is also not in the top 30 there (it is at number 34). An article should stand on its own - needed links should not be in another article. I think extraordinary claims require references and these can be taken from the list (what are three more refs when you already have 53?). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I accidentally went by the list with Pinnacle height, but consider it a valid list to reference. I have adjusted the text to make the point clearer.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem is that in terms of WP:RS, the references are of low caliber for a FAC. The refs may be considered reliable just for height of buildings that are decades old. Many people reference a lot of the claims from Emporis and Skyscraper and they are shot down. Maybe building height will stand based on these refs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • If there are no reliable sources, does this specific phrase belong in a FA? Also what about the Sears Tower and John Hancock buidlings - aren't they visible from the fountain too? I have no trouble with saying something like "The skyline of Chicago, with many of the tallest buildings in the United States, serves as a backdrop for the fountain" - I would think it would be fairly easy to find a RS that says Chicago's skyline has many of the tallest building in the US. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think based on the latest policy, which pays more attention to which facts are WP:ATT to which sources rather than the general reliability of the source, these are WP:RS for building height and I have found a source about Chicago's skyline. Also the buildings mentioned are on Randolph Street, the northern border of the park. The buildings you mention are far away from the park.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FA requires professional prose - this is not there. It could be from edits during FAC, but sentences like The control room covers 26 parking spaces in the underground parking garage, which costs the city $100,000 in terms of the opportunity cost of lost revenue.[19] are unclear (the cost is per year) and there are many places where the prose needs to be polished. I would ask for help from a fresh set of eyes.
    • There is another editor (User:Mattisse) providing eyes and I have fixed this example.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find the prose has not improved and has even gotten worse - Jaume is spelled James in one place, there are odd typos and many of the sentences are just porrly written. For example (one of many): In addition to the interior access for technical repairs, Crown Fountain is reputed for its exemplary, non-discriminatory, barrier-free accessibility because its interactivity is not limited to the able-bodied.[3][11] reputed is a word, but it is usually applied to people (Hiss was reputed to be a spy), not works of art. I think "has a reputation for" is meant instead, but if that is true, does the fountain really have a reputation for interior access for internal repairs in the general public? I highly doubt it. Finally, what does the last phrase "because its interactivity is not limited to the able-bodied" mean or add to the sentence? non-discriminatory and barrier-free seem to already have covered access for all. When I think of something being interactive, I think it means the object responds to the input of user(s). From all that I read here, this fountain would squirt water out every five or so minutes and cascade water the rest of the time even if no one came to see it. How is this interactive? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. New concern - I realize I suggested moving the information about Grant Park, etc., but I do not like it in the lead for several reasons. First off for the size by readable prose (27 kb), WP:LEAD says this should have 2-3 lead paragraphs, not 4. I also like the lead to be a summary of the whole article and not to have anything major that is just in the lead (but almost all of the fourth paragraph is only in the lead). Finally, the lead should focus on the subject of the article and not go into too much extraneous detail, but the capstone status sentence seems far too detailed for the lead (OK elsewhere, though needs to be cleaned up a bit). I would not have a problem with this paragraph being in the Concept and design section, before the Selection of artist subsection. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished a copyedit as best I could and struck my comment above. I left some comments on the article talk page and a few in the article as hidden comments. I am not ready to support as I have not seen that Sandy Georgia is OK with the MOS issues and I am concerned about the image / fair use / NFCC issues too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I like the portions you added about the artist and the artistry; these additions remove my objections above regarding this. Two small requests. 1.) I think you should add something in the video filming section that the subjects had to be filmed "puckering". You don't mention the puckering until almost the end. Having seen youtube videos of the fountain, I think the puckering and the water flowing out is fascinating; it must have taken some skill to film. 2.) I don't like the following sentence because it appears to have an agenda behind it: "The next day the cameras were removed, despite the city's claims that they were harmless." I think the sentence would be improved if you removed the second half: "despite the city's claims that they were harmless." Otherwise, I will support the article, pending the reference check by User:Ruhrfisch. (I have quibbles about some of the links as noted above but that will not stop my support.) —Mattisse (Talk) 15:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Youtube would be great but I think it is forbidden for copy right reasons. Youtube makes it look like performance art. I agree with the editor above who questions your Controversy section. Also, as I say above, you seem to have an agenda in it (seem to be pushing a political point) that seems out of context for the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was unaware that the controversy section was still at issue given that I have removed the controversial paragraph. I don't understand politics well enough to know what point I seem to be pushing, but would gladly rework any contentious statements. I have edited the harmless phrase you took issue with earlier and added expanded material to explain its relevance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing the "harmless" phrase. Do all people in Chicago suspect the city is out to get them? On another issue, do you have a photo of the towers at night (not the faces but the sides that apparently light up in different colors? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only do I not have a picture, but also I do not recall seeing the fountain at night with such lights. I will scour flickr.com and see what I come up with.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
360 images are at flickr under a search of "Crown Fountain" and night. None of them are currently licensed appropriately for use in WP. I will put in some requests.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. There are basically three types of night photos that would meet your request.
Type 1 shows the dualism by taking the photo from behind one with the face of the other visible
Type 2 shows it from the side in a way that captures both the face and the color
Type 3 is the majority, which is from the back straight on so that only the colored back is visible

Which type(s) do you want me to put in licensing requests for?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. They are all beautiful. I would go for category 1, with second choice category 3 because they show the criss-cross structure in addition to the beautiful color. Maybe, this one as first choice: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7450381@N05/2445704023/ but these are beautiful too: http://www.flickr.com/photos/flaneur/2218699621/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinoy_sa_iowa/619049873/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/realmccoy0/235380468/ —Mattisse (Talk) 21:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will send about 10 type 1 requests. Hopefully, someone will be willing to change their licensing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If worse comes to worse and no one replies by Saturday, I will try to take them with my Canon PowerShot TX1, which is not going to get us the best pic, but will be better than nothing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep me updated on the image situation. I would also be willing to grab some night shots or even try to catch the fountain when it is showing the river/waterfall video. --TorsodogTalk 21:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7450381@N05/2445704023/ has been change appropriately.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary - My objects above can be summarized as follows (copied from TonyTheTiger's page):
  • The prose needs a thorough copy edit to streamline it and make it more elegant and worthy of an FAC
  • The article needs to be more focused and tightly organized on the fountain as a work of art and information relevant to this added. For example, whose idea was having the "subjects" (Chicago residents) chosen for videos, etc. What was the artist's role in this and does it have a history in his past work? At first mention of the artist, it should include that he was Spanish, not some sections later. Also, there is a link to Universal design, but how the fountain fulfills the elements of this are not explained.
  • Related to the above, relevant wikilinks, for example, to public art are not there and there are irrelevant links, for example to Community areas of Chicago that serve to distract the reader in my mind.
  • Support - my objections have been largely satisfied. This article comprehensively covers a fascinating work of public art. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw support - sections have been mixed up and do not keep to topic. For example, the first thing that hits my eye is that right in the middle of Selection of artist is a paragraph about construction of the fountain which belongs with other information on construction. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - What does this sentence mean in reference to Crown Fountain: "Plensa's objective was to create a universal fountain of the 21st century for the world."?? Maybe the sentence could just be removed. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cited or not, the sentence does not make sense to me. What does it mean? —Mattisse (Talk) 19:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the quote: 'he wanted to create a new kind of fountain. "The Crown Fountain is not just a foutain for Chicago," Plensa insisted, "but a foutain fo the entire world," a fountain for the twenty-first century. He endearvored to creaate something with a certain universailty about it.'--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You copyedited the text to read "Plensa's objective was to create a socially relevant, interactive fountain for the 21st century." instead of the original "Plensa's objective was to create a universal fountain of the 21st century for the world." Now that you have the original secondary source feel free to comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fountain is classified as a work of visual art. --TorsodogTalk 18:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Somewhere above there are complaints about the organization with which I agree, by User:Ruhrfisch. Also, complaints about the prose. (And User:Jbmurray too, as I can't tell who said what.) Further, I see you just added a big section. From my point of view Dedication and Operation do not go together. You have almost nothing to say about the dedication (just the Unveiling). Operation, from my point of view could be part of the engineering and design. Operation would be the day-to-day operational issues. Whereas, under Operation you are discussing the fountain as it was designed to operate, not as the city workmen operate or maintain the fountain. I do not see why Video sculpture and Fountain are separated. I'm not sure if "video sculpture" is a real term. I have never hear it. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking up "Video sculpture" on Google, I get videos of sculpture and of sculptors talking of sculpting. Therefore, I do not think it is a correct term in this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is both in critical reviews. Check the refs. One has the phrase in its title. However, the city downplays this for the reason recently added to the article that some view the video sculpture as a big jumbotron. It would be like proclaiming the Times Square screen a treasured object of visual art. It is the low-brow perspective of the work and downplayed as much as possible.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of google it is sparsely mentioned in WP:RS. However, one of the sources is extremely reliable: http://www.uiowa.edu/jmc/alumni/index.html This is one of the professors who oversaw the shooting. He is a RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Video sculpture" would seem to be a term in use, as NY MoMA has acquired one.[29] The term is used in Britannica[30] and here it is in The Independent.[31] Ty 05:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snippets from Google Scholar are not good WP:RS because they are taken out of context so it is impossible to know what is meant; the britannica source comes up as a flash advert; the third source, again, it is impossible to know what is meant - a video on a TV set? Please come up with a reliable definition from a reputable source about what the term means, not just that it is used in passing. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first google search result for "what is a video sculpture" is http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/leonardo/v034/34.1dictionary.html. This defines a video sculpture as:
Video Sculpture--Video installation involving one or more TVs. The spectator moves among the TVs or stands in front of them. A video sculpture formed of several TVs may broadcast a single program or may simultaneously broadcast different interconnected sequences on several channels. There are many ways in which the TVs can be arranged. Televisions can be on the ground, with the screen facing the viewer or the wall; suspended from the ceiling; aligned and stacked to make a wall; or even randomly stacked on top of each other. In some cases only the cabinet is displayed. In others, the television cabinet is emptied of its contents and displayed with something else inside. (A sub-category of video installation, distinct from trap device, video environment, audio-video environment and video painting.)
Hope this clears up all the confusion. --TorsodogTalk 17:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's always surprising to see a FAC get this far along without attention to basic formatting and cleanup: see my edit summaries. On a quick glance, I found misidentified publishers, issues with WP:DASH, WP:NBSP, WP:ALLCAPS, WP:ITALICS on journals periodicals newspapers, inconsistent page numbers (p. or pp. on plural, for example?), failure to use named refs (see WP:FN), WP:OVERLINKing (example, public), and a copyediting error in the lead ( ... and use Light-emitting diodes ... no caps on Light). I don't find justification for italics on an architectural object; consensus needs to be developed on that; what other sources or style guides put fountains in italics? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I would be willing to help you, Tony, but I usually don't understand what SandyGeorgia is saying and constantly misunderstand her, so I would make it worse and cause harm if I tried to help out here. Jaume Plensa is not an architect though, and all his other art works are referred to in italics; that was discussed extensively above by others, so I would stick with the italics IMO —Mattisse (Talk) 22:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fountain's name is written in italics not because it is a fountain, but because it is a video sculpture, which is a form of visual art. --TorsodogTalk 22:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Plensa is an artist. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So do I - it is clearly not a building, which is what architects do. Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style (not yet ratified by Congress) would support I think. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The extra input and guideline helps :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused. Half the fountains I see are italicized and half are not. Are fountains suppose to be italicized as works of visual art?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the policy discussion below about images because this fountain is a work of art or this sculpture is a work of art?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that is the argument presented by one or two editors: I don't see consensus at WP:ITALICS, and I'm not sure if we should set precedent or determine consensus on this at FAC (unclear). (Mattisse, I've given links to all the appropriate guideline pages, and included them in my edit summaries with examples, so its best to take the guideline's word for it, not mine :-) Alternately, you all can call in User:Epbr123, but as many times as TonyTheTiger has been to FAC, it's surprising to restate stable MoS information or that Epbr123 should need to do this work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note, there is a WP:MOSDATE breach in the lead, article should be checked throughout: "Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes or articles ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried in the past to understand those links you give, and your cryptic orders, so as to help out in an article, which I would dearly love to do, and have just been punished for trying. I know enough not to do it again, especially after the recent ndash, nbsp incident. No thanks. User:Epbr123 made a change, quoting the MoS, and it turned out he was wrong. I asked on the MoS talk page and there was no agreement. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That conversation is here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Mattisse's concern above, the guideline and a sample edit on each (alternately, you can step back through the article diffs to find the samples), these are samples only, the entire article should be checked for more of same:

I hope this helps; in the future, by stepping back through the diffs, you can see that I give the guideline along with a sample edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the only examples above that make any sense are the ones I already know. Some do not show any difference that I can see - not clear what you are attempting to demonstrate. A couple seem to contradict each other. And since there is no place to ask questions and get an answer that applies to MoS its a good thing I have opted out! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's WT:MOS or the talk page here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above on the Epbr123 case (my latest exaplain of trying to find out what the heck MoS means), WT:MOS is useless, and the talk page here looks like more of the above. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at these issues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TTT; please leave a note when you're done. WP:NBSP has been loosened up again, so apply common sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left a number of inline queries. I still found missing WP:NBSPs, confusion about the boundary between spelling out and using digits on numbers (see WP:MOSNUM), questions on hyphenation (unsure, someone should check). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything at WP:MOSNUM regarding the x-ft-tall vs x-ft tall issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just reworded to avoid the whole issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will be doing a copyedit of the prose in the next day or so. I assume the MOS issues have been addressed and will not systematically check those. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done with a copyedit, see above. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited for language and assumed all MOS issues were resolved. I can try to do something tomorrow about these other issues. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure on some of the hyphenation, but it looks like convert templates were used without regard to correct hyphenation, so that the conversions should have been handled manually. Without hyphens, there were a couple of sentences that lost me. I also thought WP:NBSP had been dealt with, but still found times (am and pm) without them, so there may be others, and boundary issues on the numbers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as convert hyphens go, I tried to use adj=on where appropriate. As I mentioned above, I am unfamiliar with a x-ft-tall vs x-ft tall convention.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will let Tony deal with the rest of the copyedits. You are welcome. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just reworded to avoid the whole issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The article currently has 19 images, 7 of which are fair use. Supposing the number of fair use images was dropped to 3 (keep the infobox image 1 as it shows the fountain and image closeup and the water spout hitting someone, perhaps the middle pucker image of the 3 image sequence 4 as it shows a pucker without spouting water, shows more people and gives an idea of the impressive skyline to the north, and keep the night image 6 as it shows a smile, and the appearance at night, and the lit glass block tower). There would still be 15 images in the article, and some of the images that are now tiny could then be shown larger so more detail could be seen, for example Fair Use images 4 and 6 or LED bricks or kids playing. Even if only two fair use images were allowed (1 and 6 would be my choices) there would still be 14 images. Perhaps most importantly this could be featured and end our suffering ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Analysis by counting makes no sense to me. I see two issues. I have posted them on the talk page at WP:WPVA. Basically, I don't think anyone who understands art well would say the article would be as good without the sequence of images. I may be wrong. I am not sure about the other issue. I am trying to get an understanding of User:elcobbola's fair use standards and have requested a list of all modern art and artist that has passed at FAC since he has been involved in the image evaluations so I can understand what type of modern art articles meet his interpretation of fair use standards.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have tried moving the series into the infobox in place of the most expendable image. However, I think something is lost with this exchange. I may revert.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • After a night of rest, I decided the article could do without a second image of the water spouting and of the dualism.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the former lead image Image:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG is the one fair use photo I would keep if only one were allowed and would also use it as the lead (infobox) image. It shows it is a fountain, it shows people "interacting" with the fountain and the scale of the work, it shows the face / LED screen, and it shows the urban setting. The current lead image does not show the whole tower (cuts off the top), does not show water (at least obviously) or the surrounding buildings, and while it does show people for scale, it is not as clear how they are "interacting" with the fountain. I am not a fair use expert, but I thought three images seemed defensible under WP:NFCC, which is why I did the numbers above. I also expressed my preference for images - man, woman, child; face, pucker, spew; close up, night, setting - I thought the three I picked showed the most variety, though I am sure others could be picked. Once the fair use issue is resolved I will support. I doubt that the current version with 6 fair use images meets NFCC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you prefer the former main image to Image:20080410 Crown Fountain Spouting.jpg? I'll look through your other preferences again and comment later. I am out and only have about a half hour of online time right now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • While the new image is very nice, I still like the former lead image better. The old one shows more of the fountain and it is clearer that the water is hitting the kids. I do like the new image - nice color / lighting, great background, but the old photo is better of the fountain itself. My thought was that 2 or 3 fair use images was acceptable, but much more was probably not. If anyone more knowledgable about fair use and WP:NFCC wants to weigh in, please do so. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I greatly appreciate your critical eye on the images and have reverted. You did not object to the other image removal so it remains out. I will look more closely at the images over the next few hours.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have looked at the images you discussed. You prefer one of the two dualism night time photos. When Matisse suggested I add one I sent flickrmails to almost ten photographers. Two responded immediately and a third did so later. After requesting that three people change the licensing on their images, I felt so guilty I included both immediate respondents. After sending them letters of thanks for being so kind as to change the licensing just for us, I don't want to choose between the two and am remiss to do so for that reason. I continue to feel strongly about including the entire sequence for instructive reasons. That gets us to five quick images. I am going to watch a movie and get back online in about two hours and look at the last two of the seven FUs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • O.K. The only image that neither you or I defends strongly is 2. I kind of think it is important to have an image that depicts the fountain on a scale that helps the reader understand what it is like at night. This is not a duplicate of the other night view and because it is at night I think it gives a crisper view of the "video sculpture". Any thought? Also I repeat my query above about the removed dualism photo that was not deamed FU.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I started from the assumption that if 7 fair use images were unacceptable, then 4 or 5 or 6 would be unacceptable too. I assumed 2 was OK and that 3 would be OK if they were sufficiently different. Then I tried to pick the best three images that showed different aspects of the fountain, which is how I came up with my list. I really like the three image sequence, but not as the only three fair use images. I do not know if it would be acceptable as one collage (i.e. one image with the three pasted together instead of three separate images). I do like 2 as a photo and agree it gives the scale well, but I like the dualism night shot better and assume fair use will only allow one night shot. As for the removed daytime non FU dualism shot, I like it too, but don't really miss it as long as there is another shot of both towers (prefer the night shot). IF a different night shot were used, perhaps the non FU dualism shot could be put back in. As for the Flickr users who changed their licenses, you could always write them and thanks them and point to this page and say you tried but the fair use policy only allows so many photos. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • There is nothing in NFCC that advises a count although one might interpret minimal usage to be supportive of such an evaluation technique. I interpret it more as a statement to analyze each image and say which are necessary to retain the encyclopedic value of the article. I could easily fight for a four sequence image showing the cascading water after the spouting. I think a collage would be worse in the sense that duplication would include all three images and necessitate a proliferation of multiple images. Also, keep in mind that whereas fair use usually is to protect the right of the artist to profit from his work, in this case we are dealing with public art that is free to see and free to photograph. Showing examplary imagery may increase interest in the work and the artist rather than provide a free alternative to something that the public would otherwise pay for.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • As Tony said, I am also tired of arguing over this article. I will just quote Elcobbola How are seven fair use images (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) compliant with minimal use (NFCC#3A) and a significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8)? For example, why is 2 needed when both 6 and 7 have night view? How is the night view a significant contribution above and beyond a day view? Why are all three stages of puckering and spouting needed? Do we think so little of our readers that they can't envision this action? The puckering and spouting images are day view; how, then, is the "solo" day view image in the infobox supported by NFCC#3A? The images, further, are not low resolution (NFCC#3B) and should not have the CC/GFDL tags. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC). I read this as saying two images would be OK for fair use and perhaps three if they could be justified (which I have tried to do). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • In answer to your question, I have beefed up all the FURS except for the lone night shot. I have to reread the text and re-evaluate whether a good FUR rational is in the current text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I have reread the text and the lone night shot does not explain anything currently in the text of the article. It is however, the clearest picture of what the sculpture looks like at night. I will try beefing up the FUR to say it provides a clear picture of the subject of the article at night. I hope beefing up the FURs is sufficient for the image concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) It appears to me that the three most recent modern art FAs are Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion (May 2007), Triptych, May–June 1973 (Aug 2007), and André Kertész (Oct 2007). They have collages that enable them to keep their FU counts at two or three. Do you know how to make a collage of the three image sequence and the two nighttime photos? Collages of these would take me to four FURs, which is certainly more reasonable than seven if they are counting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have offered to make a collage of the three image sequence that shows the face puckering and spouting water for TonyTheTiger. Would this be considered one image for fair use / NFCC purposes? If so I will make it, if not I will not bother. I defer to your understanding and thank you in advance, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made it and uploaded it Image:Crown Fountain collage.JPG. My understanding is that this would be used in place of three separate images in the Crown Fountain article. I will delete it if you think it is not justifiable. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been the subject of some debate. Consider, for instance, an article about German auto makers. Ignoring the criterion of significance for a moment, let's say the author wanted "to comply" with minimal usage by consolidating the logos of BMW, Opel and Porsche into one image. In this case, the letter of the policy is followed, but the spirit is violated as the article would still contain the three copyrighted works (i.e. copyrighted material hasn't really been minimized). The question for the fountain, then, is whether this is still an issue given that the three images of are of the same copyrighted work. While I recognize that there may exist reasonable argument to the contrary, I think, in this case, that I still side with opinion that this doesn't cut the proverbial NFCC mustard. There is, further, the question of why we would need Image:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG if the article has the compilation; both show the fountain in daylight from a functionally equivalent angle. Why are both needed? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this discussion be on the FAC page. Note the three most recent modern art FAs are Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion (May 2007), Triptych, May–June 1973 (Aug 2007), and André Kertész (Oct 2007). The first two use collages of a logical series that go together just as this collage does. I think you understand that three collages of different company logos are a different thing than a collage of a series. However, if you do not or if this does not matter then the first two of these has seven FU images just like Crown Fountain. I will copy this to the FAC discussion for transparency.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Above Discussion copied from User_talk:Elcobbola#Crown_Fountain_FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply If you have been following the discussion above Image:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG has been defended in the article based on artistic merit. Please reread the artistic elements that this image adds to the article as described above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A copyrighted work is a copyrighted work is a copyrighted work. The constant mention of mechanical image counts indicates a genuine failure to understand the intention of NFCC and the questions I have posed related thereto. Further, what other articles do or have done is absolutely irrelevant. I, as I see is the case with several other reviewers, am tired of bickering on this subject. I'll try to approach it this way: my oppose stands until Image:CrownFountain.jpg and the collage (i.e. the images therein) are removed, as I can foresee no reasonable explanation of how they would pass NFCC#3A and NFCC#8. I do not intend to revisit the FAC; you are welcome to move relevant comments. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the collage. Thanks for your time and expertise. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I copied the above two items here from Elcobbola's talk page. This is my 29th edit to this FAC - for comparison, as nominator I just had an FAC pass where I only made 27 edits (and I replied to almost every post). Here is my bottom line: no more than TWO fair use images and I will support. They should be as different as possible and show as many features of the fountain as possible. Of the images currently in the article, here are my strong preferences. First one should be a day time photo showing a face, the water spout, and people in the waterspout (I prefer the current lead image, the third of the collage would be OK). Second one should be a night time photo, showing both toweres. Again my preference is the two towers shot that is not obscured by trees and has some tall buildings in the background. The other two towers shot is partly obscured, and the single face at night just does not show enough new things to be the second fair use photo. I do not want to see more elaborate FURS for seven images. I want two FAir Use images, period. I also think some of the current images that are tiny (two per frame) could be made regular thumb size to show more of their detail (the LED bricks shot, the nozzle shot, the kids playing shots). I will make one more edit to this page, that is it (hopefully it will be to support, but that is up to you) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the last two featured articles about modern works of art have seven fair use images (counting each copyrighted work in a collage separately), why are you issuing a demand that this one have two. Are you making some sort of point that unless I follow an unreasonable demand you won't support. The sequence will remain in the article you feel it contributes to the understanding of the article sufficiently to be included. If you think a count is the way to do this what does the number two come from given the last two FA works of art had seven? Elcobbola has chosen to object for non numerical reasons based on image specific concerns. I will remove Image:CrownFountain.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Well this is my last edit here. I hoped it would be a support, but it will just stay at comment. Congratulations, you've driven another reviewer away. Here I will waste yet more time with some final points.

  1. This FAC is about this article. It is not about "the last two featured articles about modern works of art". Focus on this and what people here have already said (in some cases many times).
  2. Please read WP:NFCC. It makes no mention of numbers of images. As I pointed out above, even if you only have two or three Fair use images, the article will still have a dozen or so total images, which is a lot.
  3. What may very well be justified for one article may not be so for another. Again, this FAC is about Crown Fountain the article, period, full stop, end of story. How does it comply with the WP:MOS? How does it meet WP:WIAFA? Does it follow WP:NFCC and all other relevant and applicable policies and guidelines? No more, no less.
  4. I have made repeated suggestions about images which you have mostly ignored. I felt that explicitly stating what it would take to get me to support would be useful. Let me again refer you to the NFCC, specifically:
    • 3a Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. How does having two very similar night shots meet this requirement? I indicated which of the two night shots I thought was better. Similarly, what do four daytime shots add individually? I indicated which of the daytime shots I thought was better.
    8 Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. I agree with Elcobbola's comment long ago above - what does a three sequence image of the face smiling, puckering, and spouting water add that to the reader's understanding that the written description and the current infobox image do not? Perhaps a video clip would be acceptable for this, but I do not know. Alternatively, if the three image daytime sequence is used, how does the current daytime infobox shot add any new information? As you know I think the current infobox shot is the one fair use photo I would keep if only one were allowed.
  5. As I commented on User:Torsodog's talk page yesterday (after my next to last edit above), I think a panoramic photo from the side could be a useful addition to the article and would probably be an allowable third image (as it would show the whole work from a perspective not currently in the article). See User_talk:Torsodog#Crown_Fountain_photo.

I was going to close with some advice, but then I realized you don't follow what people say here with carrot of an FA star dangling in front of you, so what good would advice do? I do think this article needs a map of Millennium Park that could be used in all the related articles. I think it needs at least a few sentences on history: how the park was a railroad yard for years, then became available to the city of Chicago, and turned from an original idea of a parking garage with grass on the roof into this. My understanding is that since I am not currently an oppose, I can just walk away, which I will do now. Good luck. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. (ec) Tony, please take very seriously the points that my colleague Elcobbola makes about non-free images. The last thing you want is for the NFC police to come along and delete them ham-fistedly while you're on vacation. And we do want to support WP's pillar concerning the free reproducibility of our articles; that means a yet tougher approach to FU justification than is provided in US statutory and common law. — Tony1 04:27, August 17, 2008 — continues after insertion below
  • Again, I'm disappointed to see a defensive attitude towards our reviewers' expert comments, rather than a willingness to work with them to bring the nomination up to the point it should have been at when nominated. It's not a fix-it service here; you're sucking in our professional reviewing resources that could be allocated more fairly across the FAC list. There's jbmurray, professor of English at an august institution, having to huff and puff about a macro-design matter ... — Tony1 04:27, August 17, 2008 — continues after insertion below
  • However, the result is finally good. The prose is mostly up to standard. Your own photos are excellent contributions. Here are a few pointers in a spot-check of the prose, half-way down.
  • "Some" is always an alarm-bell word for me, like "any", "various" and "numerous". "Getting the water to the spout took some ingenuity."
  • "On each block, one of the six faces is polished, while the other five surfaces are textured."—Avoid "while" as a connector (like "with"), where simultaneity is not at issue. Just "and" without the comma will do.
    • "and" is fine, but I think I prefer "but". The comma is required for grammatical propriety to properly conjoin the two independent phrases.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, "but" is not OK: "but" indicates a contradiction or reversal or detraction from what has just been written. This is not the case. A comma is optional here (A and B), and my advice is not to use one in such a short sentence. I don't know or care about some rule you've got about conjoining whoseewhatsit. This is my last posting at this nomination page. Like jbmurray, I can't be bothered fighting you. Tony (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would then look like they were each missing a tooth"—"as though"
  • Another noun plus -ing urchin: "Concern over the spouting water potentially knocking people down made the design both a legal and a physical challenge." Ungainly, and so easy to fix. Don't like "potentially", either. "The risk that the spouting water would knock people down was a legal and physical design challenge." Tony (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC) PS See this analysis of the six problems in this sentence. Tony (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Your link under Critical reception, High-concept, only relates to films, not fountains. Further, the San Francisco Chronical article given as a reference, does not mention "high-concept". —Mattisse (Talk) 19:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Response to your comment above:' I'm not surprised that jbmurray is unavailable now. It's exasperating to provide an expert opinion, only to be repeatedly rebuffed. For example, I'm not going to fight you on the comma imbroglio above—I just can't be bothered; if you think you know better, fine, that one is no big deal. But the problem is that not only that (1) these huge nomination pages result, sucking in our valuable resources, but (2) it might look to a third party that you're trying to game the system by beating the reviewers down so they lose hope, go away, and leave your nomination to be promoted. I don't believe that you're doing this consciously, but it does end up being the effect in part.
Next time, is it too much to ask that you present a nomination in much better shape and aim to keep the page as short as possible? ... like, by working with us instead of bickering? Tony (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coment I've purposely avoided this discussion, because I figured it would be another timesink. But just to chime in with regards to the "comma imbroglio": TonyTheTiger is following common American usage here. Without the comma, many English teachers would considered the statement a run-on sentence. (See Elements of Style I.4, for example.) I realize that things are different overseas, but since we're writing about an American fountain, I think Tiger's comma use is fine. Zagalejo^^^ 03:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not try to submit crappy contentious nominees. All I can say is that next on deck is Cloud Gate. I apologize if you think it is crappy and/or contentious.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:03, 20 August 2008 [46].

Pather Panchali (film)

Nominator(s): Dwaipayan (talk)


Pather Panchali (Song of the Little Road) is the debut film of Satyajit Ray, and the first film of the Apu Trilogy. The article is one of the core articles of WikiProject Films.

The article has undergone film peer review and a successful GA nomination. I believe it meets all the FA criteria. Dwaipayan (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments

Reply to Juliancolton
  • The dead link has been replaced by an alive link. The page was moved to the new URL. Thanks for catching it.
  • Screen (magazine) (website) is an Indian film weekly published by the The Indian Express (website) newspaper group. It is notable and widely circulated film magazine in India. So it should be considered as a reliable source.
  • The Internet Encyclopedia of Cinematographers link, although seemed an RS, has now been replaced with a book reference (Ettedgui, Peter (1999), Cinematography: Screencraft, Focal Press, ISBN 0240803825) which discusses cinematographer Subrata Mitra's craft, alongside the crafts of other noted cinematographers of the world.
  • The title for the ref mentioned has been written in small case now.
  • Thanks for the comments. Please review. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Kensplanet
1. In Production#Novel, there's no need to repeat [2] again and again. Only an apppended [2] will do.

The novel Pather Panchali by Bibhutibhushan Bandopadhyay is a classic bildungsroman in Bengali literature.[2] It first appeared as a serial in a periodical in 1928,[2] and was later published as a book in 1929.[2] To a great extent, it was based on the author's own early life.[2]

It should be

The novel Pather Panchali by Bibhutibhushan Bandopadhyay is a classic bildungsroman in Bengali literature. It first appeared as a serial in a periodical in 1928, and was later published as a book in 1929. To a great extent, it was based on the author's own early life.[2]

2. REF2 cites these sentences The novel Pather Panchali by Bibhutibhushan Bandopadhyay is a classic bildungsroman in Bengali literature.It first appeared as a serial in a periodical in 1928,> and was later published as a book in 1929. To a great extent, it was based on the author's own early life.
I have found the book on Google Books having the same ISBN (http://books.google.com/books?id=u9jdfLG8FwIC&pg=PA71&vq=Pather+Panchali&dq=Satyajit+Ray:+The+Inner+Eye:+The+Biography+of+a+Master+Film-Maker&source=gbs_search_s&sig=ACfU3U3Sydm-hhZ6rnGo4MQzX-6hpFhtWw#PPA74,M1)

Can you clarify how does it source the unstriked claims?

3. Same deal with the sentence Satyajit Ray read the novel for the first time in 1943, when he was doing the illustrations for a new edition,[15] and started to think about the possibility of making a script around 1947–48.[15] as in 1. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 10:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Kensplanet
  • Ok, moving that ref supercript to the end of the paragraph. However, someone may ask for the citation of individual clauses/sentence fragments of the paragraph, that's why the superscripts were used multiple times.
  • The novel Pather Panchali by Bibhutibhushan Bandopadhyay is a classic bildungsroman in Bengali literature. For what do you need a reference in this sentence? To qualify "classic" (that has been stated in the Robinson book), to qualify "bildungsroman"? (that can be cited from a different reference, in fact, I am providing it soon), or, to qualify something else?
  • and was later published as a book in 1929. Fine, if you want a ref for that, I am providing that, stat!
  • Okk, again , will move the multiple superscripts to a single one at the end of the pertinent section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - overall it looks very good, much as it seemed when it left PR. (Although I must admit being slightly disappointed not to see this at A-class review... :)) Looking back over your references in more detail, however, I feel as if there is a great deal of worthy material which has been omitted. Most notably, with regards to the production of the film, the circumstances of which were far from average and therefore probably demand more exceptional detail. Another point - the Ettedgui book's section on Mitra has some interesting content about storyboards and crew environment, as well as some excellent behind-the-scenes photos and drawings which may be appropriate to the article. Since Ray did the storyboards himself, this may merit some mention. I also found a discrepancy - Mitra says that production was 4 years long and was halted for 18 months, while Robinson says less than three years, and halted about a year. Is there any reason that might explain this? If not, I'm inclined to favor Robinson, since he clearly has done the research and Mitra's memory may have been flawed in the four decades between production and the interview, but since he was there, it may merit some investigation, since perhaps they mean different things. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, many details had to be excluded in order to maintain summary style :( It was tough to decide what is worthy and what is not, and I tried to mention those in extreme gist - as much as I could. Anyway, I shall again go through the pertinent sections of the books once, and see if something more can be added.
Ok, I shall try to kinda investigate that (the duration and the break), although it seems, as you have pointed out, Robinson is a better source.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I'm trying to say is that this wasn't a typical production where they entered a soundstage and shot from X date to Y date - this was a protracted shoot, fraught with problems, incidents, and anecdotes, and it went on to become perhaps the most influential and important Indian film ever. Given these facts, the enlarged bibliography they tend to create, and the lack of a contemporary trivia-driven PR machine which typically has a low signal-to-noise ratio with regard to encyclopedia article prospects, I think we can afford to use our sources more liberally, especially the scholarly, well-researched, and in-depth ones. In short, given the current poverty of detail, I'd encourage you to indulge. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okk, got you. Will try, definitely.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the first few paragraphs. "Some commentators" is a peacock term. Needs to be removed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nichalp for pointing out this fault which somehow we missed earlier! Reworded, to remove "some commentators".--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overall this is an excellent article and has come a long way in the last few months. My only complaint would be that there appears to be some repetition in the critical reception and legacy sections in which the "one of the most stunning first films in movie history" seems to be over emphasised and unneccesarily repeated. I'm not sure whether something could be merged and whether a legacy section is all that necessary as it generally falls under reception. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree some quotes, and the mention of the film by different magazines in the all-time lists can be moved from "Legacy" to "Critical Reception and Awards" (I'd rather make the section title "Reception and Awards" in that case, how's that?), removal of the "Legacy" section altogether would not be good, I guess. The Apu Trilogy is better explained in "legacy", and also, the further journey of Ray fits better in Legacy. Moreover, the impact of the film on Indian film scenario, and, the whatever world impact it had, need to be in Legacy too, rather than Reception. What do you think?--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree that keeping the Legacy section is fully justified with a film that has an exceptional place of influence and importance in the history of world cinema. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree I was more concerned about the repetition of several quotes. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no repetition of quotes. Well, you can say some quotes in "Legacy" section are thematically similar to those in reception section. We can move such quotes from legacy to reception. However, I don't see any repetition. Can you please explain, if I am missing something?--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek critic, Jack Kroll, reviewed the film as "one of the most stunning first films in movie history in the reception section .and Philip French of The Observer has described Pather Panchali as "one of the greatest pictures ever made" in the legacy seems to be pretty much giving me the same piece of information twice. If you are to keep the two sections which is probably advisable, I just feel is needs to be altered slightly in the recption section tso it doesn't appear to cover old ground in the legacy section. Perhaps remove or replace a quote or two. As long as the reader gets the impression that a critic has considered it one of the greatest films of all time without having to read that another thinks this later on in the article. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Will move/remove soon. Please allow 2-3 days (sudden pressure of work, unable to do major edits). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really that same though? One is saying it's one of the greatest debut films ever, and the other is saying that it's one of the greatest films, period, ever. I do see why this is being raised, and maybe it's just a question of context and paraphrasing vs. quoting, but I don't think that these are equivalent statements, although they are both exceptional praise which place the film's greatness beyond their own era. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm one could argue both ways I agree, but I guess it is a matter of interpretation. If however you are to discuss it being the greatest film in whatever context I believe this should be together and not mentioned again. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update Tried to group thematically similar quotes, as pointed out by Blofeld, in Reception section. Please see. and I am extremely sorry for this inordinate delay in response :( Too much real life work pressure. Could not do some reading from the main source books, so could not address Giro's concern yet :( Sorry.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images All three images have appropriate rationales (I changed the train one slightly to provide a direct article link - not absolutely necessary but helpful). However, I'm concerned on their use within the article - these can be fixed, but not trivial: (the title card image is fine).
    • Image:Apu Pather1.jpg talks about this "Wide open eyes" motif through the trilogy, but it is not mentioned in this article at all. But when I flip to the image's rationale, I see that the rationale for its use in "Culture of India" spells out that this is one of the most poignant and most famous scenes from the film. If this is the case, either this aspect, or the "wide open eyes" motif needs to be discussed to support the use of the picture. This likely can be done in the Legacy section.
    • Image:Patherpanchali 1.png talks about a 'discovery of train' scene but there is no mention of this directly in the text -- is this the scene right before they find their dead aunt? There needs to be a better tie in as to what this image represents in terms of the plot. Or if this is like the above image, a famous scene from the movie, it needs to be attached to some text that states that.
  • Both I think are fixable but need it to be before this can go on to FA. --MASEM 13:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a.

  • "However, other similar translations of the title have also been used, such as"—Why "also"? Why, for that matter, "However"?
  • Same deal here: "He earns a meagre living as a priest, but dreams of a better career by writing scholarly plays and poetry"—why "but"? That word means that you're detracting from or contradicting what has just been said. You need "and". Please audit throughout for these false contrasts.
  • "he even cannot muster the courage"—Nope; "he cannot even muster the courage".
  • Grammar doesn't work: "although his family is in dire need of money towards household expenses"

Now, I've read enough to tell that this needs high-level copy-editing. Too much of the language is not natural, and not grammatical. There are problems of logical flow. Please buzz me when it's ready; or you could withdraw, fix it, and renominate. Tony (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:39, 17 August 2008 [47].

Alan Shearer

Nominator(s): - Toon05


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've improved the article substantially in the past few weeks, taking it from B-class to GA, and adding a ridiculous large amount of citations, rewriting most of the article to conform to guidelines and begging people for photos. After undergoing a Peer Review and the subsequent improvements, I hope it is just about ready to become a Featured Article. Thanks! - Toon05 17:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There has been a lot of good work on this article over the past month or so but it is still not yet even close to FA standard. The main basic issues are the prose, the stub sections such as "Early years" and "Style of play" and nothing about his life outside football.

I will give this a proper review when I have the time. BUC (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the "Early years" section, I would point to another footballer FA, Thierry Henry, whose "Early years" section is 1 sentence longer - there's not much more to say to be honest. Thierry Henry also passed without information about his personal life, and again, it's not very colourful. I welcome any changes you can make to the prose though (and the rest of the article), as having been through Peer Review, and asking specifically about that aspect, there wasn't the feedback requred to do much improvement - excepting copyediting etc. - Toon05 18:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inexperienced in taking articles to FA, and there is a lack of other editors to the article at the moment - if you can improve the article, then please do! - Toon05 18:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added some material to the "Early years" section, but I'm loathe to add more just to make it look longer - it's about the same length as Thierry Henry now. The same for "Style of Play" - I think it covers everything, lengthening would just be to make it look longer, but if you can think of anything that's missing from it, please mention it or even add it in. :) - Toon05 13:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I merged two of the paragraphs of the lead; they covered essentially the same topic, and I'm not sure why they were seperate in the first place. I may take a look at the article later. Generally, I just list out examples of concerns, but since you say you're inexperienced at the FAC process, I'll probably just correct most of the concerns myself. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I appreciate your taking the time. - Toon05 01:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded some bits in the lead and corrected some things. I'm not an expert in football, so you'll have to forgive me if I made a silly mistake. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Image:AlanShearerBanner.jpg, fails WP:NFCC#8 Fasach Nua (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, should be removed. Nousernamesleft (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed it, then tagged the image as orphaned free use. It'll be deleted in seven days unless someone can find a use for it. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MickMacNee has re-added the image, and I agree with him - the image goes very far in demonstrating the standing Shearer has in the city; I don't think it can be adequately conveyed without it. I've added a bit to reflect this within the text. - Toon05 16:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - his standing within a city isn't sufficiently important to warrant a fair use image. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hrrmm, well I'm not particularly familiar with the whole FU scene, so I'll defer to your experience. I'm not going to edit war with Mick over this one, so I'll let you take it to his talk page. :) - Toon05 23:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not go to such lengths over a single image; the fair use guidelines are fairly loose and allow a lot of space in interpretation, so I won't bother if you'd like to keep it. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - fails NFCC#8 and FAC#3, inappropriate use of images Fasach Nua (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh... ok, I've taken the image out. - Toon05 19:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored it. Given Fasach Nua's reputation as an over-zealous applier of NFCC#8, which in itself is a highly disupted policy point open to interpretation, I would advise you to seek other opinions if you agree it should be removed (rather than taking Fasach's word on it). Per WP:BRD, I reverted the original removal, therefore repeated removal requires discussion first, once it's removal was reverted once. To do otherwise is edit warring, which is a behaviour Fasach has two Request for commments open about him at this point. The reference to FAC#3 is irrelevant, as it merely stems from the view that it fails NFCC#8, which it doesn't. MickMacNee (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) Whatever, I'm not going to war over it. I've emailed the club in an attempt to get the permission to use the photo, or details of the copyright holder. - Toon05 20:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably note that BRD is just an essay though, not policy or guideline. I do agree that this image is significant however. - Toon05 20:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I dont know if this is a simple mistake or a result of little knowledge, but as soon as I started reading the article I was quite upset and shocked even. The first 2 sentences caught my attention:

Alan Shearer OBE (born 13 August 1970) is a former footballer who played as a striker in the English Premier League for the England national team. Known during his playing career as being a classic English centre forward, he is now a television pundit for the BBC.

Bad wording and lack of initial content! WHERE was he born? This should always be mentioned in the brackets with the D.O.B. He played as a striker in the English premier league with the England national team? On top of bad wording, this statement doesnt make sense! The English national team is not a participant in the English premiere league, notice the words Premier and League! He played for Newcastle united in the EPL!

The first few sentences should give away as much as they can about the subject, there's no point on saving it for later. Give the reader an immediate idea about the subject. A more appropriate opening would be:

Alan Shearer (born etc etc etc) is a former English footballer who spent/played his career as a striker for Newcastle United in the English premiere league and the England national team. Remembered for his classical (possible POV) style of centre forward play, he now plies/serves his career as a football pundit for BBC.

Mind you thats a very quick idea of a possibility. Feel free to dissect it if you wish, but its much more appropriate than the current holding one. Domiy (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment While I entirely agree with Domiy's comments above, I decided to look through some FA's of fellow sportsmen. I looked at Thierry Henry and Paul Collingwood. I saw neither had the place of birth in the top line. Therefore, I went through the Today's Featured Article archives of July and August to see a biography that did. There wasn't a single Featured Article that followed the above reccomendation. These included (and let's not forget, these are not simply Featured Articles, they are deemed good enough to be given centre-stage on Wikipedia's Main Page): Joseph Francis Shea, William Gibson, Jay Chou, Thomas Playford IV, Winfield Scott Hancock, André Kertész, Yao Ming (which is worth looking at, considering how inferior it is compared to Alan Shearer's article, yet Yao Ming got FA status), Matthew Brettingham, William Wilberforce, Anna May Wong, Roy Welensky, and finally Edward VIII of the United Kingdom.

Therefore, it is preferable, but clearly not essential, by the standards set by those articles. Nevertheless, I will add in this detail and do what I can with the article a little later. South-East7™Talk/Contribs 12:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(E/C) Hey Domiy, thanks for the comments -
  • firstly I think Nousernamesleft accidentally removed the "and" from between "League" and "with" (due to the self-confessed lack of football knowledge) when reviewing for this FAC (above) and I missed it, I've fixed it now :)
  • Oh and he played for Blackburn and Southampton too, so I decided to leave out a club name instead of listing all three in the first para, as it's covered later in the lede.
  • I've added the place of birth into the brackets!
I think that takes care of most of your points... feel free to point anything else out. - Toon05 13:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That I did, apologies. To be frank, I've never heard of any requirement or even suggestion that the subject of an article's place of birth be placed within the DOB brackets - I've seen featured articles in which it's not even mentioned in the lead. I'm not sure why you seem to think otherwise, seeing as Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph says nothing about it. Nousernamesleft (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I actually removed it a while back after reading something about too much info in the brackets... but I can't seem to find it now. I have seen it before in lede - I don't think it's a big deal either way. - Toon05 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Place of birth shouldn't be in the brackets per WP:DATE. Peanut4 (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's where I read it, thanks for taking it out. - Toon05 20:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - 1a. Sorry, but at this time the prose needs improvements. These examples are all from the lead and Early life section, so there are probably more issues later.

  • The second England national football team link in the lead isn't needed. Please remove it.
  • "finishing as the tournament's top scorer with five goals." Which tournament? The Champions League or Euro 1996? Assuming it's Euro 1996, say "finishing as the latter tournament's top scorer with five goals."
  • "A world-record $15 million (can't figure out how to create pound sign, so don't worry about that) move to Newcastle United, his boyhood heroes, followed..." "his boyhood heroes" needs rewording.
  • "in fact, Shearer was one of the most prolific goalscorers in English football." At the time, or of all-time? It wouldn't hurt to give more details, assuming they are properly cited in the body.
  • "Shearer was linked with managerial positions at his former clubs, however, he currently works in media with the BBC." Perhaps change the first comma to a semi-colon.
  • First sentence of Early years: "Born in Gosforth, Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1970 to Alan and Anne Shearer, Shearer's was a working-class family." Entire sentence needs restructuring. I would try "Shearer was born in Gosforth, Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1970 to Alan and Anne Shearer, and raised in a working-class family." The working-class family part can be improved, but this would be better. Normally I wouldn't mind seeing his first name repeated in a family sectoin, but I fear it could be confusing, as he is named after his father.
  • "he originally playing in midfield" Don't you mean played?
  • "It was playing for the Wallsend club that he was scouted by Southampton F.C.'s scout Jack Hixon..." Another grammar error. It should be "It was while playing for...". Also a redundancy with scouted and scout.
  • "a time he would later refer to as "the making of me"" All quotes need a citation.

You're obviously a Newcastle United fan, meaning you have great memories of Shearer and want to see this reach FA, but it needs further copy-editing. Unlike SE7, I don't believe this is as good as Yao Ming's article yet, but it can be with more work. I wish you all the best here. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Giants, I've tried to address the issues you've pointed out, I've changed the sixth point to "Shearer was born in Gosforth, Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1970 to working-class parents Alan and Anne Shearer," sounds better to me. I'll take another look at the rest of the article and try to fix it up. - Toon05 00:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let anyone know, all the faults found by Giants, as listed above, are now corrected. South-East7™Talk/Contribs 12:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also done some rephrasing of the rest of his career section to try and combat similar issues. - Toon05 16:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 12:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked with the link checker tool. Note I'm on the road the rest of this week, so replies may be delayed somewhat. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ealdgyth, thanks for taking the time. Firstly englandstats.com is very highly regarded at WP:FOOTY, linked to here - it's probably the most complete collection of national team stats anywhere on the web. I have replaced all instances of englandcaps.com and soccerlens.com with BBC reports, FA.com and a UNICEF primary source, hopefully that should take care of the concerns. - Toon05 00:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also fixed the info in the citations now. - Toon05 16:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Normal   0         false   false   false                             MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
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 13:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well since that source probably wasn't reliable, I've (painstakingly) replaced all of the references to englandstats.com with reliable ones. I've also reworded it all a bit. Hope this takes care of your concerns! - Toon05 22:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by User:Dweller
  • I have tagged the article for citations needed on a couple of claims.
  • Multiple problems with "Despite coming off the back of a disappointing Euro 1992 campaign with England in which the team failed to progress beyond the group stages, Blackburn Rovers offered Southampton £3.6 million for Shearer." Says who, it was disappointing? Unclear if the campaign was disappointing for England, or Shearer's performance was poor (or both). No citation for any of it. What's the causal link between the first and second half of the sentence that prompts the "despite"? (I think I understand it, but it should be clear)

NB I have no problem with the early years section - his pre-fame story isn't really too interesting. There's enough there, IMHO. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dweller. The claims you added {{citation needed}} tags to are actually sourced within the reference at the end of the paragraph. I'll try to find another source if you'd like, since it's self-referencing to his autobiography. I've rephrased the sentence to say: "Despite making just one goalless appearance as England failed to progress past the Euro 1992 group stages that summer,[4] Shearer was soon subject to a British transfer record-breaking £3.3million bid from Blackburn Rovers.[5]", with [4] and [5] (obviously) indicating added references. Hopefully this makes clear the link and sentence in general. I'd be happy to hear anything you suggest if it's not clear :) - Toon05 16:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Personal life Ok, with regard to comments in this FAC, I've added a Personal life section to the article. It contains basic info about his family, marriage etc., if anyone can find any more info, feel free to point me to it, but there has never been much publicity for his private life (and this is taken from his autobiography). - Toon05 22:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:16, 16 August 2008 [48].

My Musical

Nominator(s): MakE shout!


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it's really complete, includes all needed sources and passes the criteria, plus it's one of the show's highlights. MakE shout! 08:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

does that matter? Fasach Nua (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course it does. "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination." per WP:FAC. Gary King (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That list is based in articles ratings and awards.--MakE shout! 09:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It not clear where that arose from, how are ratings and awards combined to derive notability? Fasach Nua (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Their notability is ultimately derived from the Wikipedia standard. There was a merge discussion several months ago; those in the navbox were excepted from the merge proposal. Sceptre (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The TV.com and IMDb ratings should be removed. Internet user polls do not provide any accurate indication of fan reaction. Also, the final paragraph of the Reception section, is not only unsourced, but it makes no sense. "Scrubs lost in three categories (winners were Ugly Betty, Saturday Night Live and the presentation of the 79th Annual Academy Awards in categories "Outstanding Directing For A Comedy Series", "Outstanding Original Music And Lyrics" and "Outstanding Music Direction", respectively)." This seems to be missing several words, because it doesn't read well to me. Also, "Academy Awards"? I think this has been confused with the Emmys. Also, reference 8 needs to be properly formatted. Gran2 10:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Have made these changes, i think the confusion you have over academy awards/emmyys is that scrubs lost an emmy which was won by an academy awards show--Jac16888 (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I'm traveling, so responses may be delayed a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: nominator had never edited the article, hasn't responded to input here, issues include reliable sources, images, MoS and content. The tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 can be used to locate volunteers, as well as to invite editors providing feedback here, to work on article improvements through a peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:16, 16 August 2008 [49].

Pipe organ

Nominator(s): Cor anglais 16, WikiProject PipeOrgan
previous FAC


Nominated by me on behalf of WikiProject PipeOrgan after rigorous copyediting and sourcing. The article is in much better shape than it was before the previous FAC nomination. —Cor anglais 16 23:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image adjustments needed throughout, see WP:MOS#Images regarding left-aligned images under section headings and the very large forced image sizes used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have overhauled all of the images, to what I believe complies with the MOS - unless you can find any others that you wish to clarify further. (By the way Sandy, I'm not sure it was the right tonal/tonality link but couldn't find a better one so removed it and restructured the sentence to use 'sound' instead.) –MDCollins (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (from WP member) There are a couple of red links that need addressing. I suggest the organ builder can be 'stubbed'. As Organ (voicing) is quite a big job, maybe remove it until it has been created? Also the Romantic development needs some references, I've added a "fact" tag in there.–MDCollins (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Misunderstanding about redlinks, which are not undesirable, and should be included whenever the topic meets notability and warrants an article. Separately, if that article hasn't been written, this article has to explain and define terms (and I noticed a lot of undefined jargon, suggesting that an uninvolved editor might want to check jargon). Redlinks are not a valid opposition, and should not be eliminated just because the stub hasn't been written, but this article needs to define terms anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification - I've obviously misunderstood that somewhere along the line.–MDCollins (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I'm traveling, so responses may be delayed a bit. I was unable to check the reliability of the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Significant chunks of uncited material, including whole paragraphs, e.g.:

Organ pipes are made from either wood or metal and produce sound when wind is directed through them. Because one pipe produces a single pitch, more pipes are necessary to allow the organ to sound at different pitches. The longer a pipe is, the lower its resulting pitch will be. The volume of the sound produced by a pipe depends on the pressure of the wind flowing to the pipe and how the pipe is voiced (adjusted by the builder to produce the desired tone and volume). Thus, a pipe's volume cannot be changed directly while playing.

Without a citation, who's to say that organ pipes aren't made from ceramic? Or plastic? Says who, the longer it is, the lower the sound? These may all be True Facts, but to be a Featured Article, information needs to be Verified using RS, otherwise, who's to say that any statement is accurate? We need to avoid all taint of OR. --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would say that this is Ok, because this paragraph is just a summary of another article that is listed with a main article template. However, organ pipe doesn't provide any sources either so it doesn't help. Therefore you have to either provide sources for the statements in the summary paragraph, or fix the main article so that it is properly sourced. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I just listed an exemplar; the article's riddled with lack of citation, and regardless of how any main or daughter article is cited, claims in the FAC should all be cited (too). --Dweller (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I agree that it is always necessary to have inline citations for a short summary paragaraph since using the main article template implies that the information is a summary of (and therefore came from) the main article, and I think the following text from WP:SUMMARY implies there is room for editorial judgement. "There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point. The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." I think the idea is sort of like the idea behind WP:LEADCITE. However the point is moot for this example since the main article is not well sourced (or sourced at all), and I agree with you that that this is a general problem for this article as a whole. The "console" subsection has exactly the same issue. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (WP member): I have sourced the paragraph referred. I'll start working on the rest of the unsourced statements. —Cor anglais 16 21:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I'll try and sort them out too. Currently marking them with [citation needed] for a minute.–MDCollins (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question (to Dweller?) - do introductory paragraphs need references (that will appear later)? For example, this paragraph at the beginning of the construction section, introducing the section:

A pipe organ contains one or more sets of pipes, a wind system, and one or more keyboards. The pipes produce sound when pressurized air produced by the wind system is driven through them. An "action" connects the keyboards to the pipes. Stops allow the organist to control which ranks of pipes sound at a given time. The organist operates the stops and the keyboards from the console.

–MDCollins (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—I opposed last time, and find that the prose and factual content of the article are still not up to scratch. Let's look just at the lead.

  • I wonder whether "European" might be snuck in before the bolded "pipe organ" at the opening. Somehow, it needs to be culturally grounded.
    • While it might be true to say that the pipe organ is predominately a European (or Western) instrument, I'm not so sure about putting it so prominently in the lead. What about all of the organs in the US, China, Japan, Australia, South Africa... It developed in Europe, yes, but has spread far wider. Could maybe make the link to European classical music more prominent?
  • "Modern organs usually include one or more keyboards playable by the hands and one keyboard playable by the feet." Didn't organs include these components long ago?
    • Too true, the development is explained later. Reworded.
      • Comment (from WP member) In this context I wonder if the photos are a little misleading - they're all of quite large and impressive organs. Should we also show a smaller, more typical instrument? Barnabypage (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each keyboard controls a certain number of pipes."—might confuse unless you introduce the notion of "ranks" here. "... controls a fixed number of ranks (a rank is a set of pipes of a certain tone quality covering the full pitch-range of the keyboard or pedalboard)." Or some such?
    • Done.
  • "immediately after the key is struck"—"a"
    • Done.
  • "The origins of the pipe organ can be traced back to Ancient Greece in the third century BC.[3] The wind supply was originally created with water pressure. Since the sixth or seventh century AD, bellows have been used.[3]" Join the first two sentence via a semicolon, and add "for this purpose" after "used".
    • Done.
  • "Pipe organs are found in churches and synagogues, as well as secular town halls and arts buildings, where they are used for the performance of classical music." Unclear whether the "where" clause applies to all four items or just the last two. I'd do this: "Pipe organs are typically found in churches, synagogues, and large public buildings such as town halls,...". Does "classical" refer to the classical period or to art music more generally? I think pipe organs can be and are used to performance popular music too in these venues.
    • Done.
  • "spanning a period of more than 400 years"—can three words be removed?
    • Done.

I share Dweller's concerns about the verification issues. Now, this article is well worth bringing up to standard, and I'm sorry to be a mom again about it. Can we garner help from the Wiki music community more generally? Search edit summaries of edit history pages in similar articles to locate the right word-nerds. Tony (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (from WP member): I'm not particularly good with style, and unfortunately I don't know much about organ construction, so my comments are mostly content-related and concern the last two sections of the article. Sorry! Here goes:

From "History and development":

  • Shouldn't it be mentioned that it is still a mystery to everyone as to how the organ actually got into the church? (I quote Grove Online: "One of the great unsolved puzzles of music history is how and why the organ came to be almost exclusively a church instrument in western Europe from about 900 to about 1200.")
  • We mention Schnitger and Silbermann, naturally, but what about earlier organ builders? I confess I don't know much about the topic; I just know there were whole families of them, as well as individual builders, and some of them were quite important for the development of the instrument. Surely at least a couple deserve a mention? Stephan Kaschendorf and Hans Tugi are the ones I know about, but there must be many more. Try searching for "Traxdorf" in the Google Books copy of Douglas Earl Bush's and Richard Kassel's "The Organ: An Encyclopedia" - a page will come up with a whole list of German families.
  • Also, there's a problem with continuity: Schnitger and Silbermann are mentioned as simply "Baroque", while they are late Baroque masters; and they are followed by "Different national styles of organ building began to develop,.." - but national styles began to develop long before Schnitger and Silbermann were born! It seems that the article follows an "introductory paragraph first, actual content next" pattern, but I believe it is very confusing.
  • "In France, organs were designed to accompany the liturgy." - wasn't this the case elsewhere as well? And I don't believe the paragraph correctly sums up the French style of organ building: the emphasis should be on the presence of loud, distinct "solo" stops, the common case of a four-manual instrument in which, however, two manuals were simply easy ways to access two or three common stops, etc.

The entire "Repertoire" section, I believe, suffers from a lack of focus. I understand that it is not easy (to put it mildly!) to present a coherent image in a brief section. But really, it jumps all over the place: first "Before the Baroque era..", then "Pre-Renaissance", then the German "Early Baroque" quickly evolves into German Baroque without warning ("Early Baroque organ music in Germany was [blah]. Towards the end of the Baroque era.." - whatever happened during the Baroque era, then? I know when Bohm and Pachelbel lived, but the casual reader doesn't and will assume.. well, who knows what they'll assume!). The paragraph that begins with "In France, organ music developed during the Baroque era.." is mostly about Baroque, yet ends with a sentence about 19th century English music... which is followed by a discussion of Classical era organ music. Yikes! Plus, here are some questionable passages:

  • "The organ's secular repertoire includes.." - this list kind of looks "complete" to me, while of course it isn't. Perhaps an addition of "among other genres" or "and other, less popular genres" would work.
  • "There is also an extensive repertoire from the Netherlands, England, and the United States." - Um, either get it cited or remove altogether. For one thing, I can't think of any influential US organ composer; England had but a few (and I can't think of any important ones, either; certainly not an extensive repertoire?); and the Netherlands had Sweelinck, of course, but who else? Peeter Cornet is immensely important but his surviving output comprises about a dozen pieces. Even if you count Kerckhoven and later composers, I wouldn't really call it "extensive repertoire". Perhaps mentioning Spain and Italy would work better.
  • "For this reason, much of the organ's repertoire through the Renaissance period is the same as that of the harpsichord." - er, um, not really. The whole passage implies that music written specifically for organ was rare, which is absolutely not true. One of the most important sources of keyboard music of the era is The Buxheimer Orgelbuch (1470). It consists, as the title implies, exclusively of organ music - some 250 pieces. Arnolt Schlick, Paul Hofhaimer and Hans Buchner (early 16th century) all wrote liturgical organ music (the former even executed a 10-voice work, inventing some convoluted kind of pedal technique). The list of composers who did the same could go on forever: the two Cavazzonis and the two Gabrielis, Merulo, Valente, Rodio, Redford, Preston, Tallis.. and finally, there is a huge amount of anonymous liturgical organ music from the 16th century. So no, there was an extensive repertoire.
  • And by the way, I believe that at least some of these composers, like Schlick and Redford, should definitely be mentioned; otherwise there's a lack of balance: we mention more composers for Romantic and Modern eras (both notable for lack of extensive organ repertoire!) than we do for the era when the organ was one of the most important instruments. At least mention Schlick/Redford in the Renaissance paragraph, for Germany and England respectively.
  • "the chorale partita.[69] This genre was developed by Georg Böhm, Johann Pachelbel, and Dieterich Buxtehude." - again, not really. Böhm wrote a lot of partitas, but Pachelbel only wrote about 7 (in all probability they are early pieces), and Buxtehude didn't write any. Plus, its not like "partita" and "chorale" merged; "chorale partita" is just a term for a set of variations based on a chorale.
  • "The organ music of Johann Sebastian Bach fused characteristics of every national tradition and historical style" - while you'd find this statement in a lot of sources, it is not really true. For instance, Bach didn't write anything French influenced - he couldn't, because German organs were so different from French ones. (Yeah, I know, many believe that dotted rhythms are French influence. But dotted rhythms were not the main characteristic of French organ music.) As far as I remember, Bach didn't know anything about Sweelinck or other Netherlandish composers, nor did he know anything about Spanish composers; finally, the South German school was not much of an influence on his work. You could say that Bach drew on a number of traditions and created an individual style which cannot be categorized as belonging into one of the national schools.. but not that the style encompassed all national schools.
  • "organ music developed during the Baroque era through the music of Jean Titelouze, François Couperin, and Nicolas de Grigny." - the "through" here implies that these three represent successive stages in the development of organ music in France, but in reality this isn't the case, of course. It would be much better to say that French organ music started with the strict polyphony of Jean Titelouze, and progressed, through the work of Louis Couperin and Guillaume-Gabriel Nivers, to a colorful, distinct style exemplified by François Couperin, and Nicolas de Grigny.
  • Finally, perhaps you'd want to mention the blues organ, exemplified by Fats Waller, for instance. I don't know much about the topic, though; so maybe Waller isn't the right suggestion.

That's all for now. I thought the article was very nice in terms of how much it manages to explain; and the images work beautifully. However, the text definitely needs some copy-editing from someone who is good at it (An example: "The organs of northern Germany also had more divisions, and independent pedal divisions became increasingly common.[51] The divisions of the organ.. ouch, too many divisions! :) Now, I understand that this is probably rather difficult to fix, but it also is - really! - very tiring to read). The lack of citations has already been mentioned by others; I can't help here, sorry. --Jashiin (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jashiin - certainly a lot of comments to take on board. We must remember that the repertoire section was intended to be only a summary, the main article being at organ repertoire (yes, I know that article needs a lot of work). I've got two music degrees and am a regular performer, and I struggled to recall some of the names you've mentioned, so you obviously know more about it than some of us. Would you consider helping? I think the summary on this article only has room for some of the more notable persons, and those relevant to the general reader, without it seeming like a list of names. There is an imbalance to the amount of composers mentions, but this is because they are the more prominent (rightly or wrongly, your top division of Bachs and Buxtehudes, Viernes and Widors will always be more notable/popular than lower-league Titelouze, Schlick, Tugi). I think the repertoire article could do with an overhaul at some point to allow this article to remain a basic summary.
That said, the factual inaccuracies do need fixing (the partita issue you mentioned being one of them). I have some recollections about Bach being influenced by the French, I'll try and dig them out. But the idea that he took on board ideas from every organ tradition is probably wrong, yes.
Thanks for the comments, I (we) will see what we can do. Again, if you feel you can help, especially from your areas of expertise, it would be gratefully received. –MDCollins (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll try to find time today or tomorrow to work on the repertoire section; as for organ builders, I'm afraid someone else is needed, as I know very little of them - just that they existed and certain families/individuals were very prominent and important. I'll look in a couple of places, but can't offer any substantial content.. As for French influence in Bach - yes, he did write a French Ouverture, he was most definitely aware of French chamber/orchestral music (but that is not relevant here), and he did use an ostinato by André Raison for his passacaglia, etc. - its just that, as you correctly put it, he did not summarize everything. --Jashiin (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A thank you from me as well for your insightful comments, especially those on the Repertoire section. However, as the author of the phrase regarding Bach fusing characteristics of every style, I would push for the retention of the general sentiment, though the sentence itself does appear to be inaccurate on the whole. Bach was influenced one way or another by almost every national style (though you correctly mention that Spanish influence doesn't appear, nor does English influence), especially the French style (the Pièce d'Orgue, BWV 572 is unquestionably based on the petit/grand plein jeu type ((the first section's quick scalar passages followed by the middle section's five voices, white-note motion, alla breve meter, and emphasis on harmonic motion as opposed to melodic motion)), and its harmonic language bears striking resemblance to that used by Boyvin and Grigny; the augmented ninth chord in m. 125 is characteristically French classical) and the Italian style (Italian concerto, yes, but more importantly, the Vivaldi transcriptions ((in which he "corrected" some of Vivaldi's uneven phrase structures)) and "fortspinnung" pieces like the Prelude and Fugue in D major, BWV 532). Sweelinck's figurative techniques are the basis for Scheidt's Tablatura nova, which ushered in the north German style of chorale-based composition: while Bach wasn't directly influenced by Sweelinck, his music is the culmination of the growth of that style. And I would argue that the south German style was a direct influence on Bach, especially in the chorale preludes. AT ANY RATE, Bach's music represents a synthesis of the predominant modern styles (everyone basically aspired to write in the Italian style or the French style), and he managed to master the historical styles as well, though he was not exactly a melting pot, if that makes sense. Thanks again for your helpful comments and for your offer to shape up the repertoire section. I will attempt to source anything and everything that needs it, but this is proving difficult, as I'm about to write below. —Cor anglais 16 00:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning sources for the Repertoire section, anything before 1700 is no problem for me to source, I've got plenty of material on that. Concerning Bach, I understand the situation, I just wish to avoid giving a false impression, without going into unnecessary detail. Could we just replace "every national tradition and historical style" with what you just wrote - "the predominant modern styles"? Again, saying "every" may confuse someone who, later on, will read about Bach and find no mention of the English and Spanish school they have read about in this article. --Jashiin (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; sounds good to me. —Cor anglais 16 15:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (from WP member): I have been trying to respond to citation requests on this review (I think it's great that people are finally getting on us to do this; the peer review did a little, but you don't seem to get a real intensive focus on the little things there like you do in FAC). I have been working primarily out of the Cambridge Companion, the Harvard Dictionary of Music, Grove, and now the Gleason organ method book. Some things simply don't appear to be cited anywhere: for example, the definition of "stop knob" and "rocker tab", their function, and how they activate electrical circuits when pressed/pulled, or also the presence of Roman numerals on mixture stop labels. Simply put, nobody seems to be writing about these things because they're the kind of information that passes from teacher to student (in the case of the Roman numerals) or that you simply figure out when you sit down at an organ (pushing a rocker tab activates a stop). So, I'm having trouble citing these things: if Gleason, who starts at the absolute beginning of organ technique, doesn't mention what a Roman numeral on a stop knob indicates, who does? I'm not trying to find excuses to get the article to pass, far from it! I just want to know if anyone has any idea where to find a reliable reference (preferably in print) for these basic sorts of things. —Cor anglais 16 01:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The examples you've mentioned are classic examples of what are unquestionable facts, which are known by every organist, or can be obviously discovered by anyone who sits at the instrument. However, they appear here as if they are unreliable, or even original research, because nobody bothers to write about them. This is part of the reason why some of the dubious links (mentioned further above) are being used, because they appear to be the only ones (especially the glossaries of basic organ terminology). More in depth studies of the organ/organ building (for example the Cambridge Companion to the Organ) overlook these trivial points. It's annoying that we may have to remove some of these, purely for being the first encyclopaedia that bothers to write about them! That said, we'll keep looking.–MDCollins (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning Roman numerals, I tried searching over Google Books and it does bring up a few places from which, I believe, one can salvage a half-decent reference. No? --Jashiin (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WP term for this is Subject-specific common knowledge which, contrary to what many reviewers who should know better believe, does not need to be cited. Johnbod (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know about this policy before, but it seems to make a lot of sense. Note the qualifier that the knowledge must be possessed by laypersons: this would indicate that the way a stop knob or rocker tab operates an electric circuit is common knowledge, but that the Roman numeral indications on mixture labels are not. —Cor anglais 16 15:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly - the policy text implies that the ones who need to know include the somewhat enigmatic category of 'laypersons familiar with the topic', which might well be covered by what is known to "every organist, or can be obviously discovered by anyone who sits at the instrument" (from above). Personally I would not call for a ref on the Roman numerals, though are there not how-to books that cover this? Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jashiin's Google Books search did indeed turn up a fine reference for Roman numerals, and I have used it to replace the current reference, which is less official. However, I would argue that, per Wikipedia:When to cite, citing something like this (and some other things in the article as well) likely is not necessary. All challengeable facts should be cited, but not every single sentence is challengeable. Citing every sentence is a bit too much. —Cor anglais 16 01:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now Many good points by others above. I think the article is nearly there, but needs a liitle more. Whilst many of the "fact" tags should just be removed per my comment just above, the article does need some more citations. One example:"In England, existing pipe organs were destroyed during the English Reformation of the sixteenth century and the Commonwealth period"
  • "The console is either built into the organ case, or "detached".[citation needed] " Does not need a citation, imo, but that only electrically controlled consoles can be detatched should be added, however obvious (and in fact said in the "Action" section I see).
  • "With the notable exception of Johann Sebastian Bach, few composers who have contributed extensively to the organ repertoire are well-known except for their organ music" - Handel, Couperin, Messiaen? It might be better to say, pre-piano, that the division is between keyboard & non-keyboard composers.
  • Regardless of its accuracy "The organ music of Johann Sebastian Bach fused characteristics of every national tradition and historical style in his large-scale preludes and fugues and chorale-based works" seems inadequate as a single sentence in which to sum up Bach's contribution.
  • "Organ music was seldom written in the Classical era, as composers preferred the piano with its ability to create dynamics" Hmm. The true pianoforte was hardly available to Classical composers. It surely has more to do with more people having keyboards at home, spending less time in church, the increased market for printed scores for amateurs & so on. The harpsicord already had the organ licked, no? More on the social context of organ performances would be welcome - when did recitals in churches begin?
  • The mighty Wurlitzer & its competitors surely deserve a paragraph? Popular organ music & the electronic organ are mentioned in the lead, but not followed up.
  • Something should surely be said about the accompaniment of hymn-singing since, if not very exciting for the organist, that is what most of the pipe-organs in the world were primarily built for. In general, the spread of organs, obviously a huge & complex topic, is not much mentioned. When did having an organ become the natural choice for a new church of any size? Did all the post Great-Fire London churches have them from the start, for example?
  • In the same vein, a mention of the placement of organs in churches, old & new, might be made.

Johnbod (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Something should surely be said about the accompaniment of hymn-singing since, if not very exciting for the organist, that is what most of the pipe-organs in the world were primarily built for. Well, they were also for improvisation in the Catholic liturgy. This became quite important, and is specially mentioned in a document from the Congregation of Rites from 1967 called Musicam Sacram (67). This document follows on from Vatican II, which itself singled out the instrument in Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963): In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument, and one that adds a wonderful splendour to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man's mind to God and to heavenly things. (120) My knowledge of this aspect starts from a fragment of a television series Derek Bailey made on improvisation, in which he features Naji Hakim. It's available on UbuWeb (On the Edge, 30 mins. into part 1 of the series), both Bailey and Hakim have one or two interesting things to say on the history and practice, and it's a must for pipe organ nerds everywhere. 86.44.17.5 (talk) 06:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: there are a significant number of issues to be worked out still, including reliable sources, citations, prose and content. The tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 can be used to locate volunteers, as well as to invite editors providing feedback here, to work on article improvements through a peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:16, 16 August 2008 [50].

Vladimir Putin

Nominator(s): Bugnot (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because this is a very well-written article that I believe clearly satisfies all the criteria of a Featured-Article. It's about the former President and current Prime Minister of the largest country in the world, a person about whom readers and researchers alike would want to know more about. It's also lucidly written, discussed and edited, very well-referenced with nearly 300 references to its credit! Please provide your support or opinions freely. Thanks for your support. Bugnot (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All the images check out fine, except for Image:Vladimir Putin Time Man of the Year.jpg, which needs non-free use rationale for the Vladimir Putin article. Also, the section about him being a billionaire, IMO, doesn't belong as a sub-heading under the presidency section, but rather in the personal life section somewhere. Make sure blocks of references are in numerical order. I saw at least a half dozen unordered. What's the point of the "Prime Ministry (2008-Present)" section. It's empty, with no sub-headings. Do something so it isn't dead space. Third bullet in the anecdote section: "fishing trip" is an external link, and makes the sentence look extremely ugly. Delink it (and add a reference if necessary). Same with personal wealth section. It is stated that the shares of some company are 5.36 per share. That's nice, but it's cited with another ugly external link. Again, somehow make it into a proper reference. The article is fairly well-written. Also, please put Putin's russian name (which is in the article's lead) in the "Alternative Names" field in the persondata box at the bottom. I don't think it's required, but it would make me happy and can only serve to improve the article. Calor (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • References need formatting per WP:CITE/ES
  • There's a citation needed tag
  • several dead links

Gary King (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's a well-written article and contains detailed information about an important person.--Bugnot (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck support from nominator. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unstruck; the nominator is not a significant contributor to the article. (The nominator also didn't follow WP:FAC instructions about notifying significant contributors.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Sources need some serious formating, and I won't bother looking through the sources for reliablitiy until they are fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: per WP:FAC instructions, nominator hasn't responded to input here and didn't consult significant contributors, issues include reliable sources, images, MoS issues and content. The tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 can be used to locate volunteers, as well as to invite editors providing feedback here, to work on article improvements through a peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:16, 16 August 2008 [51].

Sale, Greater Manchester

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk)
previous FAC


This article has failed three FACs, but that was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. It's been over a year since the last nomination and in that time the article has greatly changed. The scope of the article has broadened to become comprehensive and the prose has improved. I believe that now it satisfies the FA criteria. Thanks in advance for any input. Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How's this as a solution: I've replaced that image with this one. It's not ideal, but it's the best I could manage. Nev1 (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, you could always crop the CoA, but images are all free and properly licenced, so I'm happy with that Fasach Nua (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could, but I don't think the image is of good enough quality for that to be done. I intend to take a better photo, but first I need a better camera, and sadly that won't happen for a couple of weeks. Nev1 (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by epicAdam

Lead:

  • "possibly dating from the Anglo-Saxon period" provide an approximate date, perhaps?
  • "which led to Sale's growth as a commuter town and an influx of middle class residents." second half of that phrase is awkward. If you took out the first piece, it would read "which led to Sale's growth as an influx of middle class residents."
  • "It is served by three stations along the Manchester Metrolink and there is access to motorways. There is a strong middle class presence in the town." not sure this is needed in the lead
  • "Sale Sharks, a Premiership rugby union club, was founded in Sale but the team is based in Stockport. Sale Harriers Manchester Athletics Club also began in Sale but later moved to Wythenshawe." At least for the lead, you may wish to stick with things that are still in the town.

History

  • "Sale and Ashton upon Mersey – although not formally merged until 1930 – have a closely related history due to their proximity to each other; Ashton upon Mersey was originally a separate settlement but is now an area of the town of Sale." Not only is this awkwardly phrased, I can't figure out why it's in the "early history" section.
  • The sentence is supposed to explain why Ashton upon Mersey is mentioned in an article about Sale. I think this needs to be done, but do you have any suggestions how to make it work? Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention is already made quite clearly in the lead and is mentioned further down in the text so I'm not sure why this sentence here is even needed. If you think readers might be confused by the mention of Ashton upon Mersey later in the text, a simple appositive or parenthetical can fix that. "A 4th century Roman hoard of 46 coins was discovered in Ashton upon Mersey (a town now part of Sale)" or something to the effect. I don't really think it's necessary, but you can add it for clarity. -epicAdam (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like that, done. Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 18th century, it was though that Ashton upon Mersey might be the site of a Roman station next to the River Mersey called Fines Miaimae & Flaviae; however, this was based on the De Situ Britanniae, a manuscript forged by Charles Bertram, and there is no evidence to suggest a station existed there.[4]" Why is this important, then?
  • "James Massey was fined £52 for supporting the Royalists during the English Civil War." How does this relate to the town itself? Was it drawn into the war?
  • "Modern" may not be the right name for the subheading, since the information here dates back to 1765. In fact, you may want to consider whether the subheadings are really necessary.
  • One definition of modern history is everything since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, as applied here. I'm not convinced the history section is long engouh to need to be subdivided so I may remove them. Nev1 (talk)
  • Indeed. That is a very expansive definition of "modern history"; however, if subsection headers are used, then I would prefer them to be more specific than such vague terms like "old" and "modern". More to the point, I do think the subsection headers should be removed anyway. -epicAdam (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A result of enclosure was that people who had used the land as pasture were left without a source of income and had to look for work elsewhere such as in the city or work houses.[22] Records of poor relief in the town start in 1808, coinciding with a period of poverty in the region.[23] In the early-19th century, the township of Sale has poorhouses where paupers could stay rent free; this reflected the poor state of the local economy.[24]" Poor phrasing here. It doesn't flow together. What is a "period of poverty"?
  • Rephrased, now reads "A result of enclosure was that people who had used the land as pasture were left without a source of income and had to look for work elsewhere such as in the city or work houses.[21] The region experience an economic depression during the early-19th century and record of poor relief in the town start in 1808." Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a "council house"?

Governance

  • "Historically, Sale was a township in the Cheshire parish of Ashton upon Mersey. The township adopted the Local Government Act 1858 in November 1866, and Sale Local Board was formed to govern the town at the beginning of 1867.[37] Under the Local Government Act 1888 Sale became a district of the administrative county of Cheshire.

The Local Government Act 1894 reconstituted the Local Board's area as Sale Urban District. The remainder of the parish of Ashton upon Mersey became an urban district in 1895.[38] In 1930 a county review order merged Ashton upon Mersey into Sale UD[39] [38] In 1935 the new, larger Sale UD was ganted a charter of incorporation and became a municipal borough.[38] The Local Government Act 1972 abolished all municipal boroughs, and Sale became part of the newly created Metropolitan Borough of Trafford in Greater Manchester in 1974.[32] [38]"

  • Yikes. This is confusing to any reader. Really, the important pieces are that the town of Ashton upon Mersey was eventually merged into Sale and that the Local Government Act of 1972 places Sale in the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford in Greater Manchester. Is there any way to tighten this up to reflect that?
It's been trimmed, with many of the technical terms being removed. The information has not been lost, but has been removed to the Municipal Borough of Sale article. Thanks to Lozleader for his help and suggestions. Nev1 (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

  • "he mean temperature is slightly above the UK average," which is? "while the annual rainfall and average hours of sunshine are slightly below the UK average." which is?
  • "49.1 persons per hectare," You may want to convert this into the more familiar person/sq mi and person/km2.
  • Done

Demography

  • "As recorded in the hearth tax returns of 1664, the township of Sale had a population of about 365.[58] Parish registers show that the area experienced a steadily growing population during the 17th century, increasing during the 18th century, influenced by the Industrial Revolution. Although Sale's population greatly increased, it did so less rapidly than that of Altrincham, Bowdon, or Stretford." Umm... 1664: 365 people... 1801: 819. No offense, but I don't believe any of that information is supported by the fact that the town's population grew by only 450 people over 135 years.

Economy

  • "The arable farming would have been enough for the local populace to live on, but the cattle would have been sold to the ruling classes." Is this really necessary? This information has very little relevance to Sale's current economy.
  • In the interests of depth and comprehensiveness I thought a note on the historic economy of Sale might be useful, although this may be going into too much information. Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While weaving was common in Sale during the late 17th and early 18th century, the numbers employed had fallen to 4% in 1851." You mean, the percentage of those employed in weaving, right?
  • "Along with the rest of the region, Sale suffered from poverty in the early-19th century;" What does this mean?
  • This is partially taken care of with the changes made above about the economic decline, but "suffered from poverty" is such a generalized statement. It tells us nothing about who (surely not everybody was impoverished), what (how is "poverty" defined in the 19th century? Were people starving? Homeless? What was the rate of unemployment?), why (partially described above, but there had to be a reason for the poverty). -epicAdam (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sale has a much higher percentage of adults with a diploma or degree than Greater Manchester as a whole. 26.7% of Sale residents aged 16–74 had an educational qualification such as first degree, higher degree, qualified teacher status, qualified medical doctor, qualified dentist, qualified nurse, midwife, health visitor, etc. compared to 20% nationwide.[63][56]" This information belongs in demographics.
  • Is there any other information about where people are employed? I can't believe that a shopping mall and two supermarkets are the main economic engine of an entire town, especially since 84% of the population does not work in retail.

Culture

  • "The band is currently ranked in the 4th Section of the brass band movement." For those unfamiliar with the "brass band movement", this information is meaningless.
  • Why are the Sale professional sports teams not located in Sale? Do they still use "Sale" in their team names even if they've moved?
  • "The first school was built in Sale in 1667; it was probably used into the 18th century." There's a lot of this "probably" going on in the article (seven times, actually). Besides the information about ancient peoples at the start of the history section, information should be stated as fact. I mean, the school house either operated until the 19th century or it didn't; not exactly sure why it's a "probably". The same goes for the other instances when "probably" is used to approximate dates.
  • Quite right, unfortunately records are not always as complete as they could be. Probably means there's a good chance the date stated is right, but it may be slightly out. I have tried to limit the use of probably, but some things cannot be changed: there is no more specific information available. Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's best, then, to just say "approximately" and provide an explanation for the lack of information, if warranted. If there are only records of school attendance up to the 19th century, then say that. But using words like "probably" just make it sound as if the article is incomplete or that the prose is deficient. -epicAdam (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "OFSTED" Don't use acronyms that haven't been introduced prior. Even though people in the UK may know what this is, most others do not.

Religion

  • This should be a subsection within demographics. The information about the churches themselves should go under landmarks.
  • There is enough information about religion for it to be more than a subsection. Surely the information about the churches is most relevant under the religion section? Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:UKCITY, religion goes under demographics. As for the churches, I would think that the churches would be listed buildings regardless of whether they actually had any congregants. The reason they're highlighted, I imagine, is because they are historical landmarks, not necessarily their function. -epicAdam (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "however there was no such priory in the town as the location of all 11 religious houses in Cheshire at the time of the Dissolution of the Monasteries and no religious order owned any land in the township." tighten and provide dates for Henry VIII's reformation

Pictures I have to say that I don't really like some of the pictures used to illustrate the article and the captions need some work.

  • The 1777 map is very difficult to read and the caption doesn't provide any information as to what we're supposed to be looking at.
  • Arms of Sale Town Hall. The caption says "Arms of the former Sale Municipal Borough Council", which already know just by looking at it. The caption could say something like "The Sale Town Hall was used until 1974." or something that provides a bit more information.
  • The Square Shopping Centre is not a great picture. (1) The picture itself could violate copyright because the photo is really just an image of a logo; (2) the image does nothing to illustrate the article; and (3) the caption doesn't provide any more information.
  • Sale Waterside: again, needs a better caption
  • Sale Metrolink station: see above

Sources

  • Ref 37 is broken London Gazette: no. 41196, page 24. Also, the reference needs to be formatted properly (with at least a title of the article).
  • Ref 38 (Youngs book) needs page numbers.
  • Ref 45 (Bayliss book) needs page numbers.
  • Ref 81: what makes Zettai.net a reliable source?
  • Ref 108: don't use google maps as a source. In fact, providing location information like that often doesn't need a citation (unless, of course, the location is controversial or contested).
  • They are a sports "Management Consultancy and Marketing Agency" and "represents Britain’s most successful track and field stars", it's their job to be reliable. Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I think this is a very good article, but is definitely in need of a more extensive peer review first before it can qualify for FA status. Besides what I have listed above, there are just too many instances of awkward phrasing and details of dubious importance to be considered "brilliant" prose. I hope, however, to see this article come up again in the future. Best always, epicAdam (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by User:Dweller

Multiple trivial copy issues, indicative of article needing (another?) third party copyedit, including:

  • "Notable people" section runs risk of POV and/or lack of comprehensiveness, unless you're planning to define "notable" and include everyone that falls into that definition. Do other recent FAs of towns include similar sections?
  • The most recent one was Neilston five months ago, although there are others before that such as Stretford. I agree that 'notable people' sections are a prickly issue, and is often a go to place for vandals. That said, I don't think that in its current state it's POV. The people mentioned satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people), the question is the vadilidity of thei conection with the town. WP:UKCITIES recommends "a note on any notable births in the settlement" and "a note on any notable residents in the settlement". Nev1 (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Fair enough. Though I'd also query whether it's possible for such a section to fulfil WP:WIAFA on comprehensiveness for a city like London, it's hardly fair to wave that against you if you're following consensus. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • History subsections would be more encyclopedically retitled Ancient and Medieval from Early and Middle Ages

  • 1260 reference to "Asthon upon Mersey" should really be in quotes, or with a "[sic]" or both
I think this can still be misconstrued as a typo. --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A copy edit by Malleus Fatuorum has moved the sentence "Ashton upon Mersey is first mentioned in 1260" away from the bit about the first mention of Sale so there should be no confusion now. Nev1 (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Synagogue fleetingly referred to, with no reference and no information.
Could be because of security considerations. I'll see if I can help out at all. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be called Sale & District Hebrew Congregation, an Ashkenazi Orthodox Synagogue, nominally under the affiliation of the Office of the Chief Rabbi, according to ([54]) --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit more from the site you provided. Nev1 (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be astonished if the 1.4% of population that's Muslim (c.1000 people unless my maths is faulty as usual) hasn't developed at least one mosque
MY mouth is agape. I'm sure that'll be changing in the next year or two! :-) --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A wikilink in the geography section for those wanting more info on the general climate would be useful.
  • I'd be astonished if the mean rainfall for Sale (and to a lesser degree) mean temperature were below the English average, so those stats (unless I'm wrong) are somewhat misleading. Lancashire's woes in the Pro40 competition this year show that the cliches about rain in that part of the world are not baseless!
Maybe I'm missing something, but those still look like UK, rather than English averages. The Atlantic coast of Scotland can do an awful lot of skewing when it comes to rain! --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[slaps forehead] Of course! The stats have been sorted, and Sale now feels like a wetter greyer place. Oh well. Nev1 (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sale Sharks information about whether it is or isn't in Sale is contradictory or confusing at best. "The rugby union side Sale F.C. has been based in Sale since 1861 and at its present Heywood Road ground since 1905." implies it is in Sale, when it's clearly not. Or is it? See what I mean?
Did you miss this one? --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that these are a random collection, not an exhaustive list, and intended to show that it needs third party attention. A great start and really not far off - good luck bringing it up to scratch. --Dweller (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know once the article's had a 3rd party c-e as I'd like to think I can come back and Support. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:41, 16 August 2008 [57].

Luan Da

Nominator(s): Nousernamesleft (talk)


This article is short. Very short. It has only 10 inline citations and only four distinct references. Despite all this, I believe it's comprehensive and well-written - both a primary source (which may be the only one) and several secondary sources exist, which provide ample material for such an obscure figure. Self-nom. Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you have any approximate birth/death date & place info.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I do not. I doubt that birth/death date could be found (obviously, he was killed during Wudi's reign, and was born before Wudi's reign and after the founding of the Han Dynasty, but those are extremely vague specifications), but perhaps I could find his province (or even city) of origin. I'll have a look. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised that his province of origin was already in the article. Oops. I'll add that to the first sentence. Some other minor interesting material from a fifth source has also been found; I'll add it. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Approximate birth and death dates (century - 3rd century AD or decade - 220s AD) would be better than nothing, IMO. See Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Dates_of_birth_and_death.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've simply added the years of Emperor Wu's reign. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the sources appear to be British or American, aside from the primary source itself. Is it possible there is additional information in Chinese sources? Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt that more than two primary sources exist, I can't get the second one (though it's mentioned; it's the Shih-ji, and I have a source that quotes it) and one out of two doesn't seem so bad. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strike the following: Whiskeydog (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I could not support this in its current form. I don't agree with the nominator that it is well written. There are some odd sentence constructions, including overly short sentences that don't give one a feeling of confidence in the writing.[reply]
  • "the emperor"--What emperor (who)? This is in the lead--situate the article.
  • "rose to a point in which"--odd phrasing
  • "such practices were popular"--no clear referent
  • "Whenever they attempted"--no clear referent. Well, it becomes clear later in the sentence, but the surrounding text doesn't support this type of sentence construction.
  • "The emperor Luan Da would eventually be employed by had killed"--odd phrasing. This is a perfect example of how considering the word "that" (or "whom", in this case) optional ruins a reader's ability to parse a sentence. Better yet, rewrite the sentence.

I don't find the article compelling at all, and I'm not sure if this is because the availability of sources limits the article, or the secondary material in the article hasn't been contextualized (explained) enough, or because the writing has little flow. I hope you will consider this criticism to be constructive. Whiskeydog (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very constructive. I'm always grateful to prose reviewers. I'll try to clean up the article to your liking, either later today or tomorrow. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the prose. Better? Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. I took the liberty of making some further copyedits, and you can now consider me "neutral". Whiskeydog (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Eno ref a book or a journal article or what? Usually quotation marks mean a journal title, but italics mean a book title. Any chance of an ISBN if it's a book? And is it Eno or Enos?
  • Please, there should be an author of some sort for the Cambridge Shorter Science... and according to World Cat, there is: http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=9780521315609&qt=owc_search. Please include.
  • Once that's included, please alphabetize your bibliography?
Otherwise links checked out with the link checker tool. Sources looked okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "from the state of state of Yue" - emphasis mine...
  • "He gained the favor of the emperor..." - can you name the emperor here (the first time he's alluded to)?
  • "The practice, and as a result, Luan Da, later, however, fell from favor, - painful overuse of commas - very hard to make any sense of it.
  • "(which, according to Chinese historian Mark Edward Lewis, consists of the Qin and Han Dynasties)" - if he's a credible source, then just state what it consists of (ie. don't name him).
  • "who had studied with the same teacher as Luan Da" - I'm not familiar with the Chinese convention for naming people, but I take it they don't have surnames...?

Yeah, the prose is OK but could do with a bit of work still. —Giggy 01:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed. For the last one: Chinese do have surnames nowadays, but common folk (i.e. not aristocracy/nobility) in that time didn't. Luan Da came from rural/peasant/common origins (the slave bit in the article). 'Nuff said. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that makes sense. It's been a while since I studied Chinese, so I don't remember the specifics (despite having done it for 7 years...). Support as the rest seems fine. —Giggy 06:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:39, 16 August 2008 [58].

Tornadoes in the United States

Nominator(s): RedThunder


I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I have looked over the article and believe it meets criteria. Copy edit may be needed, but I'm not sure after reading it over again. RedThunder 00:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Needs a major copyedit. Some examples, just in the lead.
  • The United States has many more tornadoes than any other country, seeing about four times the activity estimated in all of Europe. Remove "many", as it is POVish. Also, change "seeing" to "receiving".
  • The United Kingdom also has a very high tornado density (more than 33 tornadoes reported annually),[5] but most are small and result in minor damage. Remove "very", also POVish.
  • Remove some of the references from the lead.
  • The United States is also the country hit by the most violent tornadoes, rated EF4 and EF5 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale. Very confusing. It sounds like all tornadoes in the U.S. are EF4 and EF5.
  • The central parts of Tornado Alley, experience the most activity, with about five tornadoes per latitude-longitude radius (or a circle about 50 miles (80 km) wide) per year. Remove the first comma.
  • Since autumn and spring are transitional periods (warm to cool and vice versa) there are more chances of cooler air meeting with warmer air, resulting in thunderstorms. "Since" → "Because". Also, remove the "(warm to cool and vice versa)", as most people know the difference between autumn and spring.
  • But favorable conditions can occur at any time of the year. Stubby sentence. Try not to begin a sentence with the word "but".
  • They can also occur at mostly any time of day. "Mostly any time of the day" needs to be worded better.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Needs an enormous copyedit, preferably several, as Julian notes above. Also, the Harvard-style references need to be formatted using {{Harvnb}}, not {{Harv}} - the latter adds parentheses around them. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - one other thing. The lead is supposed to summarize the article in full; the lead of this article both misses out on major points from the article and introduces material not stated in the rest of the article. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You've used a tertiary encyclopedia source to source a tertiary encyclopedia source. Surely there are better sources for information?
  • Link checker tool is showing that a link is dead.
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I'm traveling, so responses may be delayed a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—and I had mentioned a wish for more Tornado FAs yesterday. I'll skim through the first few paragraphs and see how the prose holds up. — Deckiller 07:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—significant copy-edit needed, as others have mentioned above. I could list examples, but that would be redundant. Copy-editing can be difficult in these situations, because many sets of fresh eyes are required; plus, the first person to copy-edit almost always takes heat and wrongly appears incompetent, because he or she is only breaking the ice. Improvements of this type come in waves, and wave editing requires strategic distance and/or many people. I'd say you should start with three copy-editors, have them revisit the article after three days, and then have one or two people touch up. — Deckiller 07:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference and image checks - I'd have to do this eventually, so here I go.

  • 404 - [59]
  • You cite so many things to Britannica - a tertiary encyclopedia relying so heavily on another one is not good.
  • All other links check out fine.
  • Image:Tornado with DOW.jpg appears to have an incorrect source.
  • All other images are fine.

Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments; I'm unsure about the comprehensiveness of this article. There doesn't appear to be anything on damages or costs, and adding that would either require restructuring the article somewhat, or adding a little of it to each section. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:39, 16 August 2008 [60].

The Lion King

Nominator(s): DrNegative (talk)
previous FAC


I believe this article, after many failed nominations, is ready to make featured article status. This article very recently went through a Peer review and a good copyedit to improve its quality. Please let me know if there are any errors, and I will correct them as soon as possible. Also, feel free to help!

Thanks, DrNegative (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose OK, so this is my favourite film ever, so I'm not going to be easy to please; but I still don't think this article is FA quality yet. That said, I'll help out where I can. — Rmrfstar 17:13, August 9, 2008 — continues after insertion below
  • Lede
  • A lede should summarise the whole article, plot, production, etc.
  • Plot summary - say something about Scar, the death of Simba's father, and maybe even the hyenas "taking over the Pride land".
  • Discuss the style, the music, etc. here.
  • ==Plot==
  • ==Musical==
  • Proper summary style requires more than a sentence here. The "short paragraph" mentioned in peer review should actually be a paragraph. In addition to a summary of The Lion King (musical); there should specifically be a summary of the differences between the musical and the film.
  • Source what material is there.
  • ==Controversies==
  • "Disney's official stance is that any resemblance is coincidental, and directors Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff stated that they were well into the development process before the Kimba similarity was identified." - source, please?

The rest of the article is not too bad. Still, the "lede", "plot summary", and "muscial" sections need serious work. Do you want to say anything the alleged easter eggs besides the "SEX"? Some monkeys pull a Mickey Mouse out of Zazu?'s ear during "I just can't wait to be king". See here.-- Rmrfstar (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I re-worked the lede a bit; but I still think there needs to be a paragraph in it dealing with the artistic qualities of the film. Also, the Broadway adaptation should be mentioned there. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of "Production" comes out of nowhere. I ask myself, reading this, why did the story need "revamping"? This question needs to be answered.
  • NPOV is a big issue. I've had to alter a few phrases like "Story head, Brenda Chapman, gave insight to the challenge of the story". Does the writing of every single original script mentioned in Wikipedia deserve to be called "challenging"? I actually commented out this entire paragraph, because most of it has nothing to do with The Lion King but rather writing films in general. The only thing worthwhile in this paragraph was the factoid that in the original conception Simba hangs around after Mufasa's death. See you can incorporate this fact elsewhere in the article.
  • ==Production== is a "wall of text". It needs some subsectioning.
  • The helicopter crash has nothing to do with the film's "Production".
  • All this Jim Folwer info is great; but it'd be a lot better if the article mentioned that the characters in The Lion King actually mimic real life lions because of his influence. Say "Simba and Nala" butt heads, etc. "Inspired him to incorporate these elements into the design" is not strong enough; it doesn't say that he actually did it!
  • Question: Is the area, "The Pride Lands" modelled after the Serengeti?
Phrases like "pride lands", "circle of life" and "pride rock" need to be explained (better) when they are mentioned. Describing the latter as "the delicate balance affecting all living things" is not good enough at all.
I see you added "the condition of the Pride Lands"; but this leaves the reader asking "What was the condition of the Pride Lands?" Can we discuss how Scar and his bad governance is responsible?
I've copyedited through the first half of the plot summary. I'll return again. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have done some work on the article and I agree in general it is not quite ready for FA status yet. Not all the references use the cite template, which I think would be good if they did, and some areas can be expanded. I have done some work on the plot section, but most of it was written a long time ago and can be improved. I have reduced the amount of inappropriate wording and details, but some still remains while a few bits might need to be made clearer. The images look generally all right, I have cleaned up the fair use rationales though some might have more that can be added to them. I will continue to try and work on the article for the time being. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article does not need both a VHS cover and a film poster per WP:NFCC#3 Fasach Nua (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't a VHS cover, I assume you mean the DVD cover. There are currently 7 fair use images in the article which is quite a lot, and given the similarities to the poster and DVD cover, I am willing to agree and will remove the latter for now. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't worry too much about quantity, the thing to worry about is WP:NFCC, they all seem to be the subject of critical commentary or used in identiying the main characters. I'm not convinced the Simpson's one is justified, but the rest seem fine Fasach Nua (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • "Movie Poster for The Lion King" would read better as "The film's theatrical release poster" (in the infobox).
    • Do all of those actors truly have "starring" roles? If not, that list needs to be cut down (in the infobox).
    • "Domestic" and "Foreign" box-offices grosses are not needed. The worldwide gross is fine (in the infobox).
    • Do either of the two Plot images really add anything? Or justify fair use policies?
    • This is really a personal preference, but if you have a cast section, I don't think you need to include the actor’s names in brackets in the plot section.
    • I think the production section needs a bit more information, if available.
    • The structure of the article isn't very clear. Music should be after production. Controversies and impact should be with Reaction. Musical should be merged with Sequels and spin-offs, which should be at the end of the article.

Those are the main things I saw after a quick glance at the article. Gran2 10:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by Sillyfolkboy:
    • The last peer review was archived for some reason unbeknownst to me (auto-close with an FA nomination?) and only half of my recommendations have been followed. Contrary to what User:PeerReviewBot says - the discussion is very much still open as far as I'm concerned. The previous half of the peer review has been transcluded as it was largely dealt with but the second half still remains untouched - please can the nominator or other interested editor adjust the article to my recommendations? See them here. Thank you. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fixed almost all of these today. Need a little more time for the last few. DrNegative (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've fixed the referencing format myself (the problem was using work instead of publisher). Three obvious problems remain:
          • "Vogler, Christopher (1998). The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure For Writers." Expand this info (try a cite book template)
          • ""The True Lion King of Africa: The Epic History of Sundiata, King of Old Mali.". Convert this to a book reference.
          • "'Presentation Reel' extra on the Lion King Platinum Edition DVD" change this to the same formatting as the rest. (e.g. "The Lion King: Platinum Edition (Disc 1) [DVD]. Walt Disney Home Video.")
  • Categories - Xhosa-language films, Swahili-language films, Zulu-language films : Are these included purely because of the character names? If so I would remove them, I don't remember any character actually talking in an African language. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reversed them. I know it now doesn't comply with Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. Still, I'd like the character list to precede the summary, and it seemed weird to have the character list be the first section. I don't know what to do, besides maybe integrate the character list into the plot summary. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — This article is tagged as undergoing a major edit, one of the statements has a Who tag, and the "Sequels and spin-offs" needs some citations. Why don't you withdraw the nomination and hold off until you can fully improve it? Believe me, I've gotten three articles on animated films featured. Having as many problems as this article does is not very good. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The major edit tag was added by me, and then accidently? re-added by someone else in reverting some of my changes. I do agree that this article still needs a lot of work. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:39, 16 August 2008 [61].

F-20 Tigershark

Nominator(s): Maury (talk)


I've been working on this article for the last couple of weeks. More recently I opened a peer review, and one reviewer suggested turning to the WikiProject Aircraft for additional help. This was extremely productive, and a bunch of the "usual suspects" jumped in and made all sorts of improvements. It's a wonderful example of how the wiki works. It's also a little more "mainstream" than my last FAC, so perhaps it will get a little more action here in FAC too.

Just a heads up: it took a while to sink in through my thick skin, but it's become clear to me that my prose stinks. I fully expect lots of comments about it, in spite of the reviews. As the other FAC winds down I'm ready to put my full attention into this one, so please, fire away with the Comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maury Markowitz (talk • contribs) 14:45, August 3, 2008

Comments

Joe Baugher's series on "American Military Aircraft" is well known in the aviation community for basically being the Wiki before there was a Wiki (and props to Greg Goebel as well). His pages have been circulating for many years (I was ftp'ing them at 288 at one point in time) and I have yet to find a single mistake in them that was not in the original source. There are, by the way, a large number of mistakes in original sources in aviation books, Greene being the famous example.
Mark Wade is similar, but different. Mark's best known site is Encyclopedia Astronomica, which is a widely used and heavily referenced throughout the Wiki. However, while his f20 home page is well referenced, it also shows a lot of what appears to be POV. So, when writing this article, I had to make the decision to use only simple factual statements -- dates, numbers etc.
As to the last, "nothing much". All that was used from that page was a table at the bottom. It looks pretty accurate to me :-)
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 13:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles in question are privately written and publicly posted, so there's no sort of "submission" process. I'm sure that had the Wikipedia existed at the time, Joe would have use it, but c'est la vie. We need a different metric in this case. I'm open to suggestions. BTW, the references in question are basic statements, like the flyaway price of the F-16. I have no reason to even suspect these are questionable, given the extensive references he quotes. Let's not forget that we're supposed to reference the source where we found it, not where they found it, which is the policy I'm trying to follow here. Maury (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to lean that it is reliable, but unfortunately, the guidelines and policies on self-published sites are kinda draconian. I know it's not contentious or even particularly remarkable information, and that it's not exactly a subject that is going to appear in academia, but it still needs to attempt to meet the guidelines. Does it get any sort of mention in aviation/etc magazines? Has it been used by major newspapers? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Baugher was extensively discussed on a recent FAR and decided not to be a reliable source. I can search for that FAR if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go: Wikipedia:Featured article review/F-4 Phantom II/archive1. Not a published expert in the field of aviation, doesn't meet WP:SPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Ok, another try: Joe Baugher is notable enough to have his own wiki article (no, I didn't write it!) which specifically mentions the notability of his "series of articles on aviation." The articles in question are fully referenced, and I have checked through them on several occasions (as I noted, the only mistakes I have ever seen are in the original sources he quotes). I believe this meets the criterion. Maury (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and WP:V are two different things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the flip side, many of these "self-published sites" have no references...this one does! Heck, many news sites don't cite all of there sources that they used! the_ed17 02:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Baugher doesn't meet WP:SPS, but the original sources can be consulted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) fair enough. I'm just returning to this today after a very busy last couple of days. I'll be off this weekend too... Maury (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Current ref 19 "F-20 Loadout chart" is lacking a last access date
  • There are other webpages that are lacking last access dates, quite a few actually.
Are these required now? I normally leave these off all REFs, I leave the link checking to robots.
Generally, yes, they are. It's so you can find them using an internet archive if they go dead. Helps to have a date they did exist on to start from. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugg, ok, I'll do that tomorrow. Maury (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed.
  • Are the books listed in the bibliography used in the footnotes? If not, they should probably go in a further reading section.
I was wondering that myself, but BZuk says he did use them (see the page history).
If they aren't actually listed in the footnotes, generally we don't list them in the bibliography. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I did move some of these out, but BZuk stated he used them. I am not going to doubt him on this. Maury (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, keep em coming! Maury (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony F. Jurkus (1990). "Requiem for a Lightweight: The Northrop F-20 Strategic Initiative". Strategic Management Journal. 11 (1): 59–68. JSTOR 2486557. would make a nice peer reviewed reference I think.--Stone (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm still waiting to hear back from the author to see if he has a reprint available. Many are quite happy to provide one, having thought the article long forgotten. A similar reprint was invaluable for New Fighter Aircraft program, for instance. Maury (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • In the lead you refer to Carter and Reagan just so. For non-US readers this may be a little confusing, perhaps consider linking, at least? (fixed)
  • I think WP:HEAD still recommends avoiding The in headings, such as you have "The ANG role ". (fixed)
  • First comment applies to the "Kennedy administration" - which one? I know it's obvious to US readers but to the rest of the world, perhaps less so. (fixed)
  • US DoD is overlinked in the first section. (fixed)
  • "when flown properly" unclear what this means. (fixed)
  • I'd put (USAF) after the first expanded use of the term. (me too! fixed)
  • And is it US Air Force or U.S. Air Force considering most other uses of U.S. in this article take the full stop? (good question, anyone have an answer?)
  • "over its indifferent Soviet counterpart" according to whom was the counterpart indifferent? And what does that mean? (see if you like the new version)
  • " client states." - what are these? (fixed)
  • No need to reuse "Department of Defense (DoD)" again after the first time. (fixed)
  • "When DoD " "When the DoD"? (to be consistent within this article) (fixed)
  • "was the way to go" sounds a little over-familiar. (fixed)
  • Put (GE) after General Electic. (fixed)
  • "Carlucci's flip-flops " would u-turns be more suitable? (that depends, in north america "flip-flops" is definitely the right term to use)
  • cockpit image caption is fragment so no full stop required. (expanded)
  • "The F-20s avionics " F-20's? (fixed)
  • "purchased thirty-four " 34. (fixed - but I'm not sure I like this. you have a number followed by a non-number)
  • Page ranges in the references should use en-dash, not hyphen. (fixed)

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep em coming! Maury (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ps, are you sure about the endash? I'm finding lots of arguments against using them. Maury (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps WP:DASH has changed lately? It may have done, I'm slow on the uptake lately! I'll go check... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The argument seems to center on the search-ability, no-one would type in an en-dash into the search bar, so they won't find hits using it. Of course, that points to yet-another problem with the abysmal search engine we foist on our readers, but... Anyway, it only took about 3 minutes to change them one way, it's no big deal whichever way we go. In the meantime, I'll change -} U.S. Air Force! Maury (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Maralia 15:09, August 15, 2008 [62].

Black Holes & Revelations

Nominator(s): naerii

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... it's got all the information I can find in it, it covers most topic areas, and I like it. Have at it. naerii 12:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I'm traveling, so responses may be delayed a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 13:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow really, for ex. Drowned in Sound and AbsolutePunk are professional reviews so anything they say is de facto a reliable source for what reviewers say. 'Reliability' doesn't come into the equation as you can't be unreliable about your own opinions. naerii 14:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • All the stars in the infobox look god-awful. Why are these ratings even in the infobox?
  • Uh, see the FAs I linked above also. I don't actually know of any album article that has a cover the width of the infobox. I actually think maybe that the width is hardcoded into the infobox. naerii 21:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tracklistings via the template {{tracklist}}?
  • "Album art" section- doesn't deserve a subsection, if all you are going to say is that it was designed by X and then describe what the picture already tells us.
  • Current ref 18 a big fat red error.
  • All references should be completely filled out via {{cite web}} or similar.
  • All the table crap after personnel seems kinda... pointless.... it's prolly WP:ALBUM's way of doing things, but considering it's entirely unreferenced, can you explain why readers need to know each and every country's release? Wouldn't these tables make more sense next to the sections that talk about release, reception, sales, etc?
  • I have no reasoning why, it just seems to be the way things are done, for example Be Here Now (album). It seems to be the way that if you put it in someone opposes you for having pointless information, but if you take it out you're not being comprehensive enough. I have no particular opinion either way. I removed one of the more egregious sections. If you feel particularly strongly about them I'll remove them. I'd like to hear someone else's opinion on this. naerii 22:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (responding in block, because filling out a bunch of inline comments just clutters things up.) I don't have to care what conventions WP:ALBUM comes up with (and I don't see where is says in that section that the infobox must contain a list of professional reviews.) In the infobox, the ratings only clutter the prose. It makes much more sense for a table to be in the relevant section on reception, i.e. how video game articles do it. Precedent isn't a recent to say that you can't make a change.
    • By the same token, rendering an "oppose" based on that logic is poor form because you are holding the article to a personal standard that is not an aspect of FA criteria. Precedent, as you commented, does not mean you can't make a change- however wikipedia is built upon consensus and that is a discussion for WP:ALBUMS, not a FA review. Forcing that particular issue falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult)
  • Image:Chris Wolstenholme Lollapalooza 2007.jpg meets image criteria, however as noted on Image:Floating acrobats.jpg, the current license is not cc-3.0. You should change the license to reflect its current state.
  • LEAD: Feels a bit short. Perhaps flesh out to three paragraphs to talk about writing and such? Also, it might make more sense to have the lead follow the sequence set by the article body instead of starting out with release dates, jumping to sales and then back again.
  • Clunky sentences which should be made more direct:
    • "However, the band found recording there very slow, and they found it hard to make decisions on which songs to include,[4] so they decided to make a change in atmosphere and go to New York to finish the recording.[4]" Just be direct, e.g. "The band found recording to be very slow, making it hard to decide which songs to include on the album. The band travelled to New York to complete recording." or something of the like.
    • "The album was released on 3 July, 2006 in the UK and across the next few days it was released in the USA, Australia, Taiwan and Japan."
    • "Singles were released in both the UK and the US, although they were released in different orders in each country." think you want 'though' instead.
  • Image layout of the bassist screws up lyrical content header on wider resolutions. Add a {{-}} or rework placement.
  • Critical reception isn't doing much more me, acting more like an amalgamation of quotes without much context. I've got the album, love it myself, but even I can't really make heads or tails of the section. Sure, it might have received mixed reviews, but with a metacritic rating of 75, "mixed" would have to mean lots of people gave it 100s while a fervent minority gave it 0s. The first paragraph is pretty good, but doesn't demonstrate the "mixed" portion of the equation.
    • From then, it gets nebulous. Is a 4.2 bad? is that out of 5, 10, or a 100? "Overblown"-meaning what? Throwing out words doesn't help us when there is no real discussion of what critics liked/didn't like about the songs, instead all we get is "ridiculous".
-Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Realist2;

  • Oppose 1C-comprehensive. A lot of work has gone into the article, but it is still only a merging of different web sources. Eg: Muse's previous album, Absolution was released in 2003 to critical acclaim. Absolution had brought the band mainstream exposure in the United States for the first time.[6]. Its cut and paste and there is no insight or context that I can see. I dont think its a bad article - far from it- but its not enough along to bring to FAC. Ceoil sláinte 23:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:11, 14 August 2008 [63].

FC Steaua Bucureşti

Nominator(s): Gabinho (talk)
previous FAC (14:32, January 26, 2008)
older FAC (02:59, 11 September 2007)
older FAC (01:11, 7 July 2007)


Gabinho (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - I wasn't here for the previous FACs, but a quick glance shows that this isn't close to featured quality.

  • All Romanian-language references need a disclaimer indicating this.
  • Citation needed tag in ownership. This is a no-no for any featured article candidate.
  • A lot of dead links, as said by multiple reviewers above.
  • Lead is inadequate per WP:LEAD. Needs major expansion.
  • This is from the lead: "They became the first east European team to win the European Cup being victorious in 1986 European Cup final." This is not prose that meets Criterion 1a.
  • Why is there this much bolding in History?
  • From Statistics and records: "Steaua currently boasts itself with the most impressive pedigree in Romania."?

I noticed this failed a good article review last month. I recommend withdrawing this and working toward making this a GA. If the article can't pass a good article review, it has no chance here, and frankly it needs more work before it meets GA standards. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:31, 12 August 2008 [64].

Frank Zappa

Nominator(s): HJensen (talk)
previous FAC 2
previous FAC 1


Responses. The specific image is under scrutiny, and is removed for now (I have contacted the photographer to make sure he has uploaded it to commons himself; but on his webpage, he links to wikipedia, so it would surprise me if he is being bluffed). The infobox now has a free image. The Vilnius picture has been removed from the commons. As for the audio smaples, I am sorry to have to ask for your help: Does one has to write a small description, apart from the source, in the captions? If you could point to an example it would be great! Thanks for your comments. --HJensen, talk 14:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional response. I have now provided commentary in the captions for all sound samples (either directly sourced, or indirectly referring to source in text). --HJensen, talk 19:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It's got a {{NFimageoveruse}} template?
  • Perhaps use a template like {{Listen}} for the audio samples.
  • The boxes in "External links" can be made inline by using {{commons-inline}} so there isn't as much whitespace.
  • "by 17th century" – "th" should not be superscript
  • ""practical conservative."" – period goes outside the quote, WP:PUNC

Gary King (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses The {{NFimageoveruse}} was put there immediately after the nomination. I have since them removed one non-free image, and replaced one by a free alternative. Subsequently I removed the tag, while emphasizing in the edit summary that it could be inserted if the problem remained. The "Listen" template is being used. The rest of your comments have been addressed. Thanks a lot! --HJensen, talk 11:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addition. Another fair-use image has been replaced by a free image. --HJensen, talk 14:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further response. The sound samples are now presented using {{multi-listen item}} as that gives better space around the box, as well as appears more suitable when having cites in the descriptions.--HJensen, talk 20:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - It is a very well written article.

  • There seem to be problems with the format for referencing per WP:LAYOUT; there should be a separate Notes and Reference section I believe, and a consistent reference citation format.
  • I don't thing you can justify the use of so many non free images.

—Mattisse (Talk) 19:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses. I have followed WP:CITE and made a seperate "References" section for the most used sources. Then, the notes only contain a short reference to the source. Previously, I followed the convention of writing out the source in full the first time it was used, and thereafter "only" in brief form - I could no longer find such practice recommended in any policies. In any case the new form is far superior. About images, I have removed one no-free image, and replaced one by a free alternative. Another editor has also put a free inmage into the infobox, as the previous image's license is under closer scrutiny (it could be suspected as non free as Giggy notes above). Thanks for your efforts! --HJensen, talk 12:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addition. Another fair-use image has been replaced by a free image. --HJensen, talk 14:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong oppose - Excessive and deorative non-free image Fasach Nua (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how they are decorative or excessive. —Giggy 11:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reponse. Since your writing, two fair-use images have been replaced by free images and one has been removed. --HJensen, talk 14:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
till oppose, there has been a slight improvement, however, Image:Studio Z.jpg, Image:MothersBBC1968b.jpg and Image:Image:ZappaVPRO1971a.jpg all fail WP:NFCC#8, and thus the article fails FA criteria #3 Fasach Nua (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How? They don't fail it in my opinion. —Giggy 10:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the topic is not impacted by the use of the non-free images, therefore they fail WP:NFCC#8 Fasach Nua (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be three disambiguation problems which will need fixing: Ray Collins, Tom Fowler and Wazoo.

  • You also need three non-breaking spaces in this sentence in this sentence: “If he could take the forms and clichés of the classical era and pervert them, why not do the same...to doo-wop in the fifties?” Another is needed in "transferred to 35mm film."
  • You also use the word 'hadn't' instead of had not in the sentence "one was that he felt the band hadn't given him value for his money" - although it doesn't appear to be inside a quote.
  • More nbsps needed in this sentence: “With the Synclavier, any group of imaginary instruments can be invited to play the most difficult passages... with one-millisecond accurary."
  • According to a semi-automated Peer Review, the lead is also rather long and there is a mixture of both American and British spellings, when one style should be chosen.

-- Seahamlass 11:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses. The non-breaking spaces are now used; except for "35 mm" as I wikilinked that (so "just" an normal space is used). The spelling is sought to be American, and the lead has been revised slightly. As for the three disambiguation problems mentioned, I am in doubt as to what should be done. All three links to the correct article. Should they link to the disambiuation page? Thanks a lot for the comments! --HJensen, talk 14:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
note - This editor has made the third highest nummber of contributions to this article [65] Fasach Nua (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I didn't write any of the article. Instances in which I corrected the spelling, changed the formatting or fixed any other minor problem shouldn't count. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
note to note True. But with all due respect, he has not contributed much to the article in the recent half year where the article was substantially rewritten and brought to GA status.--HJensen, talk 13:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I think readers will be overwhelmed by the amount of text. Please consider adding some sub-sections into the main headers to break up the content and make this easier to read.
  • No personal life section? I only see childhood and career sections.
  • "1980s: Productive as ever and enter the Synclavier" - Productive as enter? Can we be more formal, at least?
  • Your citations could be more consistent. You have "Miles, Barry (2004). Frank Zappa. London: Atlantic Books, p. 345; p. 56. ISBN 1 84354 092 4.", but later you put the year between commas instead of brackets, for example.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Oppose - 1a, 1b and 1c concerns. It is a requirement that all sources be reliable and verifiable. The main book used is Miles, Barry (2004). Frank Zappa. London: Atlantic Books. ISBN 1-843-54092-4. I looked up this title, and came across some quite negative reviews, discovering comments from readers such as "Having just finished reading this book, it seems to me that Mr. Barry Miles, the author, really doesn't like Frank Zappa all that much.". These sorts of comments indicate that the book has a certain point of view, which has most likely been carried through to this article's context. I then came across another reader review, which said: "For someone who was a member of the Zappa clique (however briefly), Mr Miles seems surpisingly misinformed as to Zappa's artistic motives/intentions.". Are you sure this is the best book on Frank Zappa? I'm not entirely confident it is. I haven't read the book, and I have not scanned the article for any POV, but I think a better book could have been used. If this is going to be FA, you need to use the best sources available. I'm also unsure the prose is of a professional standard. I saw "Sixties" instead of 1960s, and other oddities throughout the article. For example, "Zappa kept composing music for symphony orchestra while playing and recording with the Mothers of Invention." - "kept" doesn't sound good here, "continued to compose music" would sound better. "Later in 1970, Zappa put together a new version of The Mothers " - "put together" is not professional, and sounds too informal. "This lineup debuted on Zappa's next solo album Chunga's Revenge (1970)," - You have started a new paragraph with "This lineup" - What lineup? There should not be a paragraph break when you are telling the reader something - that simply confuses readers and ruins flow. As I mentioned above in my initial comments, "1980s: Productive as ever and enter the Synclavier" terrible section title. "Productive as enter?" Can we be more formal, at least? And lastly, I was surprised to see the omission of a 'personal life' section. Is this article not complete? This article seems to focus on early life, education and then his career. It does not cover as much about Frank Zappa as it should. Readers don't want to know the specifics of his music, they want to know about the man himself. Things like "The albums were subsequently released as a 3-album box set, and were in 1988 followed by the album Guitar focusing on recordings from 1981-82 and 1984." can probably be edited out without harming the comprehensiveness. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses
* The Miles book is hated by many fans since it dares to be critical about Zappa, and not just hailing him as a genious (so that is probably what you pick up on the net - Zappa fans are very touchy :-) ). Therefore, the article is best referenced with a mix of that book (which is written by a notable author), as well as Zappa's own book as the two major references (along with a number of other respected books that are mostly positive towards Zappa). Otherwise, one would get a POV article. So the usage of Miles is a very good guard against unnecessary fan-based POV about Zappa. Funny that the article should be suspected to have an anti-Zappa bias. I had feared the opposite. :-)
* Ok, the title of that section may be too flashy. It has been amended. (The other edit suggestions has been incorporated also.)
* I have written on the lack of a personal section on the talk page previously (bottom line: Most is intertwined with the career material, as his life was his career). I don't think it is needed, and I did not know it was FA requirement. More importantly, I don't have that much reliable, if any, verifiable information about "the man" (after all, he was a composer, so his music must be of most importance?). Only urban legends, which I guess is not appropriate here. If you have some, please let me know. Cheers! --HJensen, talk 14:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I may note that over the past few days, User:Mattisse has been/is giving the article a really thorough copyedit, having already made numerous constructive edits.--HJensen, talk 16:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responses. I have taken care of all your suggestions (used citations template consistently, removed links to potential copyvio sites, removed links to non-notable sites, added publisher when needed, and other more "techincal stuff"). Remaining questions are whether http://globalia.net/donlope/fz/index.html and http://www.lukpac.org/~handmade/patio/vinylvscds/index.html are reliable sources? I would say definitely yes, as they are long-standing, stable sites providing meticolous information about release details of Zappa records. It could talk in favor of the seriousness sites that they are used as primary sources, e.g., in the book Lowe, Kelly Fisher (2006). The Words and Music of Frank Zappa. Westport: Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-98779-5. (Chapter 5, note 1; and the first site gets special mention on page 240 in a Biblipographic Essay). As for http://mixonline.com/, it is my belief that it is a respected outlet on music production issues. Thanks for your input! --HJensen, talk 10:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting Responses The two sites globalia.net and lukpac.org are as reliable as this stuff can get for anyone interested in exploring Zappa's work. mixonline.com is the website for Mix magazine a trade journal which is... "Distributed in 94 countries, Mix is the world's leading magazine for the professional recording and sound production technology industry". Their archive of articles is a trusted and reliable source of material. Lame Name (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with Lame Name, Mix is a well-known trade journal in the music community. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until there are sections detailing his musical style, influences and legacy in detail. While the article seems to cover his life well enough, a critical discussion of his music needs to be discussed to satisfy the comprehensiveness clause of WP:FA? (see John Frusciante among other music bio FAs). Given that his style is so unique and radically different from popular music, I'm sure plenty of scholarly sources discuss the evolution of his musical style.

I suggest withdrawal for now because I presume the sections will be quite large and then need to be copy-edited and all that; significant text-addition shouldn't be done during FAC. indopug (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. It might be good to look at the Michael Jackson article which recently became an FA. It has a section called 'Music styles' and 'Legacy and influence', both outside of the main Biography section, so it's a very good model article. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 05:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are comments that are a bit detrimetal on work moral. I and a few other editors have been working hard since July 22 on responding to other comments. A lot of that work would become obsolete if the format should be that of the Michael Jackon article. I am just saying that it would have been nice to have received these comments a while ago. (Frank Zappa's musical influences is, by the way, already presented in an early section. His musical style is continuosly mentioned along with his releases to avoid repetition.)--HJensen, talk 10:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the information that could be in a music styles section is scattered throughout the Biography, you could reshuffle the information and move those parts into a 'Music styles' section without much work needed. I understand what you're saying about not being told sooner, but this has never had a peer review, which is the best way to get comments before GA/FA. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad that is mentioned now after so much effort has been made to relate Zappa's music to his life (after input from others on talk page) and the successful (from my point of view) resistance to having a Personal life section. Zappa is his artistic output in a way Jackson is not with Jackson's celebrity life so dominant. As a mainstrean artist, Michael Jackson's relationship to his music seems so simplified compared to Zappa, and Jackson was not as "hands on" and was not juggling band members, symphony directors, publishing, writing, composing, producing, creation of cutting-edge recording technologies, films (and much more) to the degree Zappa was. Plus Michael Jackson was strictly mainstream, as was his "legacy", so such article divisions as suggested are easily made in Jackson's case. Not so with Zappa who does not flow easily into any musical tradition, and does not have a mainstream "legacy". I will be sorry to see the article carved up to fulfill the above request. I disagree with Wackymacs tht it can be done easily. I may be wrong but I think it will require a complete rewrite of the article from the ground up. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying this is necessary for this to become an FA. As it stands, the article seems to meet the criteria. But it does seem like a good idea to have a 'Music styles' section, but it seems this will be controversial. If what you've said is true, then maybe Indopug's Objection is non-actionable if a full rewrite would be required after so much work has gone into the article? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am obviously biased here, but I agree fully with Mattisse that it is very diffcult to make a particular "musical style" section for Zappa. It would in my opinion call for a new article. His musical styles are so wide ranging that descriptions of them fits best alongside with the description of his output and career. Everything fits together, so taking musical descriptions out and into an independent section would leave the career description void of meaning. (It appears much easier to make such a division in the mentioned case of John Frusciante as he, with all respect (I am a fan), has a style for the guitar and that's it. Then he has a career with RHCP and some remarkable personal facts that can be told completely independent of musical style.) The only subject that fits into an independent section in case of Zappa, is his musical influences, as they appeared quite "stable" through his time (R&B and Varese/Stravinsky). These influences are already in an independent section (merged with his childhood as the influences came into effect during his youth). This is a section that Indopug may have overlooked. --HJensen, talk 16:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not impossible to summarize Zappa's musical style and lyrical themes. Until this are fully addressed, the article is not comprehensive. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not impossible but it is a separate article's worth of work. We are not talking Joy Division (nice article by the way) and their four year career. We are talking about someone who had a prolific output over numerous genres for decades. No single article is going to be able to do justice to the range of his works. As a general introduction to Frank Zappa, who he was and what he did, this is a comprehensive and accurate article. Today, 15 years after his death, people are still analysing what he did, how his "conceptual continuity" tied strands of his work together. There are several more articles to be written about his works but to include more detail, or analysis, of them in this article would overload it with unnecessary detail. Lame Name (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison with John Frusciante is particularly unfortunate, in my opinion. If you compare the templates at the bottom of their respective pages, you can glimpse the difference. You are comparing an artist who played multiple instruments, who used innovative studio pre-sampling techniques to create cuts that combined multiple unrelated recorded and live performances (at a time when this was not being done), who produced and released over 60 albums including solo work, who recorded and performed with an ever changing array of musicians, who composed in a wide range of styles, whose music was performed by symphony orchestras and rock bands, whose performances were equally individualistic (he played a bicycle on the Steve Allen show), who testified before congress and was a cultural ambassador to Czechoslovakia as a result of his musical impact—all this with an admittedly great guitarist but who is 30 years younger with a much smaller and more contained body of work on one musical instrument and whose drug problems take up a large part of his article. I hope that FAC is flexible enough not to shoehorn Zappa into a John Frusciante format. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for any pigeon-holing into a "Frusciante format", that article was merely the first that came to mind. Just like how a biography of an author has a literary style section, musicians' (individuals and bands) articles need a section that exclusively describes (the style and evolution of) their music. Check any reasonably recent musician/band FA. If there is enough material to fill many articles, just a 2-3 paragraph overview would do here. The article also needs an Influences/Legacy section which discusses Zappa's impact on music; did he influence any artists? How do critics/the media view him today? indopug (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following you. John Frusciante has a section on the influences on him but no section on his "Legacy" nor who he influenced. Going by Frusciante's article, he had little influence. Why the influences on Zappa's style (if the word "style" can even be so neatly applied to him) cannot be needly boxed in a section, as for Frusciante, has been explained above. Since the article on Zappa is already longer than Frusciante's, the article would have to be completely rewritten and reorganized to accommodate your request. Maybe a long section on his illnesses and his prostate cancer also, similar to Frusciante format with its large chunk devoted to drug problems, is needed to conform. The editor of the Zappa article has chosen to focus almost entirely on his musical development, leaving out medical issues and such, and I support that choice. I think the article is far more articulate the way it is written now. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John Frusciante hasn't had much of a legacy, thus there's no section devoted to it. It would be a much mroe effective use of summary style of you put things like Zappa's influences and long details on his musical techniques into a separate section. See Joy Division, Radiohead, and R.E.M. for examples. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again I am not following you. Zappa was not a rock band, nor mainly a member of one. He was not mainly a rock guitarist, although rated highly as such by the Rolling Stone magazine. He worked, according to Rolling Stone "with a bewildering array of talents" and not a particular band. To force this article on him into such a format can not be done, in my opinion, as it would require the elimination of most of the material and a complete rewrite into a narrow format that would ignore much of his work. You are comparing his article with those of subjects with a much narrower and restricted focus. You must read the article to try to understand, I think. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm basically saying the section is a mess in this article and it needs to be rearranged to be clearer. For example, there shouldn't be such a brief section devoted to television appearances in the 80s. It's not impossible. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't write the article and knew little about Zappa until I read it. However, the examples you give of rock bands above are just not appropriate. Perhaps if you provided examples of articles more applicable to Zappa, it would be helpful. It's like the example that someone else gave that the article should follow above, it just doesn't relate, in my opinion. Could you provide an example to follow of a player/composer/social critic whose work was independent of a particular band, and who was not affiliated with a particular musical genre? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the article should be better organized. Right now it's straight biography, through and through, when all sorts of musican biograpies have various subsection where appropriate for readability and context. Many details of Zappa's music would work better under a general "Musical style and influences" section rather than in the middle of his bio. John Mayer, John Frusciante, and Janet Jackson have very different subsections, but all are appropriate for each artist. It wouldn't hurt to try rearranging the article. It could alway be reverted to an earlier version. But the nominator of this article must at least try to address this. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I cannot address this within the scope of this nomination. It would become a whole new project. I find it very difficult to envisage an article with the sort of sub-sections proposed. I acknowdledge that your examples show that different performers need different subsections (unlike John Mayer, e.g., Zappa did not to my knowledge have a lot of tatoos and/or made peculiar official statements abot his love life in order to rationalize an indepedent Personal Life section). In case of Zappa, his muscial styles and influences are best told in relation with the evolution of his career. I may be reading my sources to often, because that is the way all sources tackle his story. But in any case, my point is that with Zappa, the appropriate thing may actually be to have no such sub sections.--HJensen, talk 05:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I still do not get your point. John Frusciante you personally discounted above as inapplicable because of the lack of legacy; John Mayer was restricted to a fairly narrow range in genres and also depended on being affiliated with bands, and although I feel that Janet Jackson is a fine performer, in Zappa we are dealing with a talent of far broader proportions: player/composer in classical as well as pop, rock, or whatever/social critic and spokesperson, a performer/composer not affiliated with a particular band. And a winner of many awards that do not restrict him to a narrow category. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I thought I'd wait a while until supporting to see what others came up with. I'm pleased with the way the article looks. The writing quality is professional and so is the referencing. What the writers have managed to do is summarize Zappa's life with a neutral tone without leaving out any major bits of information. As it stands, the article does include plenty of information on Zappa's influences, legacy and music styles—those who say it is missing information on Zappa's musical style and lyrical themes have not fully read the article. Definitely meets the criteria and covers all the bases. Well done to the article's writers! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • "While little was known at the time about the potential dangers of being subjected to radiation, Zappa's childhood illnesses peaked when he lived in the Baltimore area." - I find this sentence difficult to understand. Is it suggesting that the radium pellets worsened his illness? Epbr123 (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the removal of this sentence, based on my knowledge that any dangerous effects were long term and not immediate. I could (sigh) probably find evidence to support my position. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-read the sources and reformulated the sentence. Previously, it read generally that dangers of radiation and living in a toxic environment had unknown effects. The sources emphasize that it was the close proximity to mustard gas that could be the culprit. Indeed, asthma and sinus problmes are diseases that may be triggered by mustard gas. So I have emphasized that part (at some point in the process the gas went out of the article in this part about his health), such as to convey that it is likely (according to sources) that these diseases arose from mustard gas as Zappa's health got better everytime his family leaved Baltimore.--HJensen, talk 07:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is one of the longest biographies I've ever seen on Wikipedia. While it appears well-written, informative, and even entertaining, I think it might just be too long. If you could start splitting it up into smaller articles, then I'd put it much closer to FA status. Something like Leonardo da Vinci, where some sections are preceded by a sub-header, such as "Main article: Cultural depictions of Leonardo da Vinci," which elaborates on the brief in the main article. I don't think this diminishes the subject in any way. It's extraordinary that this much information has been compiled, but now it needs to be presented in a way that's accessible to both vets and newcomers. --Yano (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is long by rock musician standards, but at Prose size (text only): 48 kB (7958 words) "readable prose size", it is not long by biographical standards. Compare to Bob Dylan at Prose size (text only): 77 kB (13059 words) "readable prose size" - which is an FA. And most comments by editors (see above) are suggesting adding more to the article. Zappa is not the typical "rock musician". So the aricle on his life and work is not going to be typical. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yano's point was "it needs to be presented in a way that's accessible to both vets and newcomers". Size itself is not a problem, but level of detail may be too much, which is a perfectly reasonable remark. Consider that some material in the prose might best be suited for subarticles (ie. album and song pages). WesleyDodds (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have a disclaimer in that I contributed to copy editing the article but not to article content. I knew very little about Zappa until I started reading this article and became fascinated. Over the last few weeks I have watched the main editor accommodate requests both here and on the talk page with good humor and a collaborative spirit. Zappa in no way resembles the musicians and bands brought up on this page as examples of how the article should be presented. I believe this article presents a large amount of information about a difficult subject in a well organized, engaging style. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Although I realise that this statement is sourced – "A doctor treated the latter by inserting a pellet of radium on a probe into each of Zappa's nostrils—little was known at the time about the potential dangers of being subjected to radiation" – I find it highly improbable. See Radium Girls, for instance.
  • "... she was indulgent enough to award Zappa a long distance call to the composer as a 15th birthday present." Awarding a birthday present doesn't seem very idiomatic.
  • "... Zappa spoke to the composer's wife. Zappa later received a letter from Varèse thanking Zappa for his interest ..." There are too many Zappas in and around this area.
  • "At that time, only a handful of the most expensive commercial studios had multi-track facilities". Not clear what "expensive" means in this context. Expensively equipped? Expensive to hire? Something else?
  • "With Captain Beefheart, Zappa recorded some songs as 'The Soots'." Why is the band name in quotes? Similarly, "The Soul Giants" appears in quotes later.
  • "Zappa was approached by an undercover cop of the Vice Squad ...". Of the Vice Squad doesn't sound right.
  • "Eventually, he could no longer afford to pay the rent on the studio and was evicted, as a real estate development plan involved a widening of the road." This doesn't seem to hang together. Was he evicted because he couldn't pay the rent, or because of the road-widening scheme?
  • "... over with what toys the Zappa children played." Is this an Americanism, or a reluctance to end the sentence with "with"?
  • "... provided animation sequences for Zappa to a 1974 TV special ...". For a 1974 television special?
  • "While Zappa had always been sexually explicit, his continued insistence on being so fared negatively with some critics." Awkward phrasing.
  • "Zappa's current touring band, with the additions of Ruth Underwood ...". Obviously, Zappa doesn't have a current touring band
  • "... an out-of-court settlement with the MGM ...". Why the MGM?
  • "... a 20-piece big band referred to as the Grand Wazoo. After the Grand Wazoo dissolved, Zappa formed a scaled-down unit known as the 'Petit Wazoo' that toured the U.S. for five weeks". Again, why the inconsistency in the use of quotation marks?
  • "... adopted the stage monikers ...". Monikers doesn't sound like sufficiently formal language.
  • "... they arranged a concert in which Mehta conducted the Los Angeles Philharmonic amended with a rock band ...". How do you amend a philharmonic orchestra?
  • I think that the discussion of musical styles is well dealt with throughout the article, but I don't think that his legacy is dealt with so well, or even at all.
  • "Zappa and a female friend jokingly faked an erotic recording". Who says it was a joke? Jokingly need a citation.
  • There are quite a few places where the text doesn't quite read right to me (I've given some examples above), and I think it really needs someone to go through the whole thing again before it meets the professional prose criteria.
  • The Other TV appearances section is too short to stand alone.
  • Some of the section titles, such as "Zappa as independent artist: more successes", seem to be displayimg a pov. Needs to be neutralised just a tad; "Zappa as an independent artist".
  • "Many of Zappa's diseases were symptoms of exposure to mustard gas". I find that very difficult to believe.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial response Thanks a lot for your suggestions. I'll look into them tomorrow; cannot today, unfortunately.--HJensen, talk 17:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed response. All of your comments and suggestions have been addressed by Mattisse. Thanks a lot! There are two issues you raise, however, that I will address. 1) Your reluctance to believe in the radium-based treatment given to the young Zappa. I find it very hard to believe myself, but it is backed up by references, so I would hate to let it go, as it is an important part of his childhood. 2) You also find it hard to believe that many of his diseases are related to mustard gas. Here, it is probably an instance of bad writing of my behalf. My understanding of the source is that many of Zappa's diseases are some that would arise from being subject to mustard gas. Maybe I wrote it as it was a fact that he was sick because of the gas. I have rephrased it to, hopefully, convey that it is a possibility that his proximity to mustard gas could have caused his illnesses, and that the illnesses disappear when the family relocates. I quote the text from Miles (2004, Frank Zappa) here so you can judge whether I have misunderstood (the quote also covers the radium treatment):
"His sinus problems were treated by an Italian doctor using the latest technology: pellets of radium which he inserted into Frank's sinus cavities on both sides with the aid of a long wire. The dangers of long-term exposure to low-grade radiation were unknown at the time.
Asthma, recurrent flu, earaches and sinus trouble are all symptoms of exposure to nitrogen or sulphur mustard gas. The fact that these ailments disappeared when the family moved to Florida and recurred when they returned to Maryland suggests that Zappa's childhood illnesses were caused by living in a toxic environment. The toxicity of the Edgewood home was increased by a big bag of DDT powder that Zappa's father brought home from the lab to kill bugs. This, he maintained, was so safe you could eat it."
Finally, whether the Other TV appearances section is too short to stand alone, I am a bit in doubt. Another editor, at the Zappa talk page, asked for its inclusion, so I am a bit reluctant to merge it into the text. But if you insist, I will obviously give it a try.
Thanks again! --HJensen, talk 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MUSTARD GAS - I feel all too much is being made of this. As I have confessed, my brother got the pellets up his nose also in Baltimore within the same time frame. The fact is, even today, all that much is not known about what triggers allergies. The important point is that Zappa thought that mustard gas and/or pellets up his nose was the problem and that belief influenced his work later. Reality is something else. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Sorry to be late. Fresh eyes over the whole text are necessary to polish this prose. For a great figure, we need stirling prose. Here are examples just from the top.

  • "was an American composer, musician, and film director"—category leakage: a composer is a musician. You mean "performer". Why link "American", for heck's sake? Don't particularly like the repetition in the next sentence (it might work merged). Did he take the entire 30 years to establish himself?
Response - A composer is "one who writes music" and is not necessarily a musician. Iving Berlin was a composer but was not a musician. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed. But I did not want to pick on it, so I changed "musician" in the lead to "electric guitarist" as that was Zappa's main instrument, and thereby definitely avoids any "category leakage". --HJensen, talk 16:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He worked in various musical genres and wrote music for rock bands, jazz ensembles, synthesizers, symphony orchestra and created musique concrète works. In addition to his music he created short and ...". The first clause is overshadowed by the second; the "and" suggests that we might get new information, not a restatement in slightly greater detail. Comma fairy needs to audit the article: one after "music", which ends an opening prepositional phrase. The longer the sentence, the more likely the use of optional commas.
  • He'd find "productive" a big put-down. Remove it?
  • Try "his own music and that of others", which is more elegant.
  • ", although there were few major ...". Easier.
  • Nerds like me need to be told that "Mothers of Invention" was a band (is that right?).
  • "Multiple"—oh, ugly and vague. How many Gr. awards, please? Provide precise info for our readers.
  • It's no big deal, but most editors abbreviate the name of the country from the start or after first mention: "the US National Recording Preservation Board". Use the dots if you really like them.
  • Comma after "2007", I'm afraid; can't think of how to avoid it.
  • Para 3 lovely.
  • Sounds like his wife lived for four years. Integrate the years of marriage into the sentence; the grammatical treatment of the children issue is inconsistent. Recast.
Additional comment. I forgot to mention in my overall response, that I did not change the way the children are presented. I'll have to ask you for the specifics of the inconsistency; sorry. --HJensen, talk 16:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove comma after "trust". Pity it has to be repeated seven words later.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 00:05, August 10, 2008

Response. Too bad. Well, better late that never! :-) I have incorporated all your suggestions for the lead, except "the multiple Grammy nominations". I am deperately trying to find the exact number right now. I had hoped that the editors who have gracefully stepped in and extensively copyedited (especially Mattisse) had brought sufficient fresh eyes to the article. But I know that one can always improve; that is the fun of wiki - my fingers scratch when I see even FA articles, where I constantly find oddities. But we'll keep on working on some of the other editor's comments. Cheers! --HJensen, talk 13:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resonse 2 - Many performers receive multiple Grammy nominations - some for a span of years in a row; I do not think this request for an exact count is a reasonable one. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of strange MoS issues. Dates are delinked and in international style in the citations, but linked and in US style in the text. Considering Zappa was from the US, it's unclear why the citation date style would switch to international, and considering the delinking of dates in the citations, it's unclear why dates are linked in the article. For samples of how to delink dates consistently, see Ima Hogg (using cite xxx) or Samuel Johnson using citation and international format; pls choose one method and be consistent. Also, see WP:CITE; the citation style needs to be sorted throughout, it currently mixes {{citation}} with the cite xxx templates. Ealdgyth brought that up on the July 23, but the issue is still present. Also, the punctuation on image captions (full sentences vs. fragments) needs attention per WP:MOS#Images, and the issue images need resolution. Some elbow grease still needed. Also, several of the images are looking off the page, away from the text: see WP:MOS#Images. The citations themselves also need work; things like publishers not correctly identified and parameters used incorrectly, another thing that needs elbow grease and extra eyes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responses. Thanks for your comments! I greased up my elbows and gave it a go:
* I have now imposed the US style of pesentíng dates, as well as de-linking all.
* I have not a single "non citation" template left. I had previously retained "cite video" and "cite books", and as Ealdgyth on July 25 deemed his issues resolved, I forgot all about it in the past couple of weeks. Sorry about that. I think it should be o.k. now. I encountered the problem that the citation template to my knowledge does not allow for US date showings (only the cite template can, when amended as done in Ima Hogg). I solved the thing by "brute force" by entering the dates manually. I hope that is o.k. Finally, I hope the references are up to par now; otherwise, please let me know where they are incomplete.
* As for the image captions, I hope to have fulfillled the MOS now.
* As for the image placement(s), I guess it is very browser dependent. But I use standard templates, and they look well placed to me in IE and Firefox.
* About the image usage, I have been very much in doubt. One user opposes the article for use of non-free fair use articles. I have spent some time replacing two with free alternatives and removed one. That leaves three fair-use images. This reduction of 50% was labelled a "slight improvement" but another editor still questioned the initial arguments. I have no stand on this other than I think the three fair-use images do great justice to the article (and I think the number of images are fine for considering the article's elngth). I see from other discussions on FACs that this is an on-going issue among some of the editors also commenting here, so I will let it be up to your discretion.
--HJensen, talk 13:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another one of the reasons I avoid using the silly {{citation}} template; I left a talk message at {{citation}}. I left a sample of a missing publisher in edit summary. Eyes in the image looking off the page isn't browser dependent; it happens that most of your Zappa images have him looking to the page left, so they are better placed on page right. Variety can be achieved by juggling the sounds to the left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! I see I completely misunderstood your image issue (I thought you meant the images themselves were tipping out rightwards.... insert blushing face). I get it know! Thanks a lot for your edits. I'll go over all cites again. There, I also misunderstood you, and looked only at the reference list (the books). My bad. I'll put some more grease on and fix the remaining cites. (As well as doing one final thing to accommodate many of the comments above: include a brief section on Zappa's legacy. I haven't had time as other comments tend to come lumping in at the most "inconvenient" times. But as I said to Tony1 above, better have negative comments than no comments at all, so I am definitely not complaining). --HJensen, talk 15:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through all citations, and believe they are complete now (I also found a few minor things like missing italics). Thanks again! --HJensen, talk 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Early in this FAC there was a discussion of adding a section on musical style, influences, and legacy. A solid case was made for not having a separate section on musical style. However the issue of his musical legacy was almost completely ignored as it almost completely is by the article itself. The article describes the critical reception of some of his music in a few places, but I can't find anything about his impact on the work of other musicians or on society in general. I thought the cultural referneces article might help but it is pretty thin. Surely a figure as important as Frank Zappa had a bigger influence on the development of rock music than just being mentioned in one line of a famous Deep Purple song? For example "Weird Al" Yankovic says that Zappa was an influence and I am sure there must be many more. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I am drafting up a legacy section as of now. Hope you will like it. --HJensen, talk 08:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I'm afraid. This article is much improved since its last time up, and credit to the authors for their work on it. But it's not at the finished point just yet. It wants a section on Zappa's legacy, as others have noted - without this it's not comprehensive. Really good articles should also be succinct. Some of the prose here is somewhat bloated, and there's rather too many irrelevant details thrown into it in places. Here are some specific points, which you should feel free to disagree with.

  • The fact that his family lived near a mustard gas factory seems to sprawl across three paragraphs. Is this detail really so profoundly important as that?
  • There's too many unnecessary subordinate clauses causing fairly trivial sentences to become tediously inflated, eg. 'At about the same time his parents bought a record player, which allowed him to develop his interest in music, and to begin building his record collection. R&B singles were early purchases, starting a large collection he kept for the rest of his life.' Why not just 'At about the same time he started collecting records, particularly R&B singles.'
  • Why the emphasis on Zappa's politics? A whole paragraph in the lead seems a lot given that he's not primarily known for his political views. And a whole section on the PMRC hearing? The large quote of Zappa sticking it to the moms doesn't seem particularly essential to a discussion of his entire life and work.
  • I'd've thought what Zappa is known for, on the other hand, and rightly or wrongly, are his more juvenile lyrics - nob jokes, etc. Certainly this is a common charge from critics, and after all why was he so opposed to censorship if not because his music was particularly affected by it? There doesn't seem to be any proper discussion of such japery. And no mention in the lead. (I think there's still a good argument for a separate section treating his lyrics. Given the whole "conceptual continuity" thing, it seems like a discussion of his entire work might be useful, at least as a complement to the piecemeal 'his work is his life' approach we've currently got.)
  • There's a fair bit of padding that could be moved elsewhere. Much of the stuff specific to indivual records - particular themes, song structures, changes in band line-ups, etc. - might be better shifed to the corresponding album article. ""The Black Page" ... , is notorious for its complexity in rhythmic structure, featuring radical changes of tempo and meter as well as short, densely arranged passages." - OK, but why does this piece get special mention here?
  • There's also some rather creative use of quotation marks going on. '... they highlight Zappa's improvisational skills with "beautiful performances from the backing group as well"' It's not really cricket to turn opinions into facts by paraphrasing like this.

I hope I'm not being hypercritical in these points because in general the article does a solid job distilling a shitload of information. I'd consider taking the article to peer review before bringing it round again. Flowerparty☀ 08:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let us agree to disagree :-) Most of your comments are concerning the presentation and choice of focus, and are as such not actionable right now, unfortunately. I would add that most would think of it as quite wrong if Zappa as a political figure was not emphasized. His stance against censorship is in the lead, and was a life-long passion that did not occur because he was particularly affected by it—he was not. About a legacy section: So many editors have requested this, so it has to be WP:consensus by now. I, of course, won't go against that, so I am in the process of drafting a section on that. Finally, I have to say that I do not like your statement on "rather creative use of quotation marks going on ...It's not really cricket to turn opinions into facts by paraphrasing like this". Every piece of text in quotation marks are of course found the the corresponding citation. No attempts are made to turn opinions into facts. Are you instead suggesting that there is a WP:MOS issue here? In that case, I am very sorry if I have misread you remark. Thanks for your inputs! --HJensen, talk 08:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant there's no mention in the lead of his lyrical themes. There should be, given that this is the bit people are most likely to read. Zappa's lead currently gives a better summary of his politics than most politicians' articles do, so you could be forgiven for thinking he only wrote about politics. The lead hasn't been much altered over the last year, I notice, which means it doesn't really do justice to the rest of the article. Most of the second paragraph is a bit too specific for the lead too - I don't see how his placing #71 in a Rolling Stone poll in 2005 is one of the most important facts you could need to know about Zappa. Or even the grammy nominations, come to that. Perhaps some of that stuff could be moved to the legacy section. And yes, I don't mean to accuse anyone of playing fast and loose with citations, I just meant to point out that sentences like that one about the beautiful backing group performances read like fact rather than opinion - just wrapping the quoted text in speech marks doesn't clearly detach the writer's view from the view of the article, which of course must be neutral. Sorry for the confusion. I don't generally go in for MOS dogmatism but the attribution part here seems to apply (I know technically that says it only applies to full sentences, but I think the spirit of the thing is that views should be clearly attributed within the text - you shouldn't have to scroll down the page to find out who said it). Flowerparty☀ 10:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General remark by nominator Thanks for all the comments and hard work from editors who have and are still stepping in with valueable copyediting. In order not to hide this between all the responses, I make the statement here: I am, in conformity with massive, and reasonable, requests, preparing a section on Zappa's legacy. Due to the general time pressures of having a regular life, as well as keeping track of the kind comments that come in regularly these days, I would like to make the unsual request to the handling editor of giving me a few days to complete it before making a final decision on the nomination. I will do my very best to finish it up this week. The only excuse I can come up with for this extraordinary request, is that it seems that due to holidays, many editors have first started commenting on the article lately, whereby the suggestion for a legacy section, did not come forth immediately. Kind regards, --HJensen, talk 09:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see the FAC has been closed and the article was not promoted. I will try wo continue working on the legacy, and renew the nomination later. THANKS TO ALL WHO PUT TONS OF EFFORT INTO THIS!!!!!!--HJensen, talk 09:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry to see this. I wonder that a little more time was not give as it is so very often for others. Especially as we almost had the legacy section done. Other than your resubmission of this article (or others by you) I will never work on an FAC article again. The rash of complaints at the very end of FAC were muddled and rediculous, from my point of view. I can only think there is an enormous generation gap (perhaps one of 40 years or so) and mature articles, unless they have there preformed clique ready to support (the FAR in-group where passage is guarrenteed), will not pass. I cannot express how screwed up this FAC process has been. To compare an article on a multimedia artist originating in the 1950s which a one-instrument musician in one band with careers of less than 10 or 20 years is a travesty. This is a farce. —Mattisse (Talk) 10:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The comment on "lyrical themes" is an example of a particularly off-base criticism. But as good a reason as any to close the FAC. Has this person examined Zappa's work before commenting? Does this person not realize that Zappa was as important as a social critic and satirists as a percussionist, guitarist, composer, orchastra leader, film maker, TV personality and on and on? —Mattisse (Talk) 10:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can but only agree with the above comments. I was going to add a comment about maintaining the NPOV as there seems to be a drift towards people with seemingly little knowledge of the subject suggesting that their own limited point of view be included within the article. Zappa once said "My job is extrapolating everything to its most absurd extreme." I guess he is still doing it. Lame Name (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - I would like to ask why the when the Frusciante article (a much less ambitious and more superficial piece but which was repeatedly held up as a model for this one), has several non-free images, and no consistent citation style (something User_talk:HJensen had to spend a lot of time fixing because of constant complaints in the FAC) sailed through with no complaints on these issues for Frusciante, at least, none that anyone bothered to fix). And a huge section on his drug problem! There is something wrong with this whole FAC process. Very cliquish. —Mattisse (Talk) 11:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:35, 10 August 2008 [66].

Ashutosh Tewari

Nominator(s): Nmishra9 (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because Ashutosh Tewari has hit the news hard recently, and the general public would definitely be interested in reading about is phenomenal success with robotic surgery within the past few years. Wikipedia serves to showcase notable people who achieve outstanding things in life — Tewari's page will show everyone just that. It was on my user subpage until a few hours ago, but there shouldn't be any issues with it. Thanks for your consideration. Nmishra9 (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Nishant Mishra[reply]

  • Oppose. First thing I looked at was the references. As weird as that may sound, it stands that references must be correctly cited as per WP:CITE. Basically, the references need to be listed completely with author name, publisher, date of the article, and the access date it was found. Also, some articles are lacking references all together. For a quick example:
  • The 'Research papers' section completely lacks references. It could/may be possible to find at least a few (for a start) number of references verifying his published research papers.
  • "Receiving his medical education from Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi Memorial Medical College (GSVM) in Uttar Pradesh, India, Tewari graduated with honors in 1984. He received his training in urology from Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGIMS) in India under the mentorship of Professor Mahendra Bhandari and completed the program in 1991." Source?
  • "Tewari completed his urology residency at the Vattikuti Urology Institute (VUI) of the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, Michigan in 2004. He received his urologic oncology training at the University of California, San Francisco in 1994, the University of Florida in 1998, and the VUI in 2004." Source?

And some others.

Further, please re-read the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and make comparisons. The prose and layout could do with a bit of work. I'm not really in support of the massive list of published works.

Consider this statement - "His research ranges from the study of patient outcomes, robotic techniques, molecular markers for cancer aggressiveness, racial disparity in cancer biology, quality of life studies, strategies to improve nerve sparing and sexual function recovery, and anatomic studies to facilitate continence preservation to the development of next generation robotic techniques [22].". This sentence is way too long for my liking, and most readers will undoubtedly have a troubled shortage of breath and understanding when trying to read it. Instead of simply listing all of them, you could have sentences which end a bit more frequently and elaborate slightly on his exact role of research in that area (if any).

Please also re-consider the lead. It seems that it doesnt quite follow the standard criteria. Make sure that the lead summarizes everything in the article. No new content should be suddenly introduced if not mentioned in the lead. Make separate paragraphs in the lead where applicable and include information on his earlier education etc in there.

And not that it is a strict criteria or necessity, it seems that there is not a worthy amount of media on the page. Although the main image is the most important, further media could be used. And you need to make a caption on the main image. Although, such things look difficult since the article is fairly short. Consider possible expansion is the best advice I can offer you. Hope this helps. Domiy (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Oppose Please withdraw this FAC immediately. Not even a single reference has publisher, accessdate, author information. Clearly not satisfying WP:CITE. His website is [67] a deadlink. look at the Robotic prostatectomy para, I don't know what relation it has with Ashutosh Tewari. More than 50% of the text are just bullets (awards, research papers etc..). This article is still not ready. I think the nominator didn't read the Featured article criteria properly. This article has not even gone through peer reviews. That's why, please withdraw. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 10:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:46, 10 August 2008 [68].

Erich Hartmann

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because the article has been a considered well written during past reviews and has been considered FAC material. I therefore want to formally have this article reviewed to see what might need to be changed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from epicAdam: "I therefore want to formally have this article reviewed to see what might need to be changed." Typically, nominating an article for FA status indicates that it is ready to be featured, not to gain comments. A more extensive peer review than the one from April would definitely be in order before the article continues with FAC. Having said that, I did provide problems below that would definitely need to be corrected before the article can be promoted.

  • All web sources need to have at least a title, publisher, access date, and language (if not English).
  • What makes the following sources reliable?
  • The following facts may need citations
    • Since I don't have the book, I don't know if this information is from the sources cited at the end of the quotation: "On 31 March 1942, Erich was flying a Bf 109 during gunnery training. He took the opportunity to break the rules by doing Aerobatics over the Zerbst airfield. Hartmann was immediately confined to quarters and fined two-thirds of his pay, for a three month period."
    • "On 7 July 1943, he shot down seven enemy aircraft in a single day, during the massive dogfights that occurred during the Battle of Kursk. He had reached 50 victories by August 1943, and in that month claimed another 48 kills. He was then appointed Staffelkapitän of 9./JG 52 in September 1943."
Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same issue as with the first: "Hartmann accorded the Russian pilots a distinct lack of respect in the first year of his service. Hartmann recalled that most Soviet fighters did not have proper gunsights, and that Soviet pilots resorted to drawing hand-painted sights on the windshield. Hartman said that while he considered the P-39 Airacobra, Curtiss P-40 and Hawker Hurricane inferior to the Fw 190 and Bf 109, they provided the Soviets with valuable gunsight technology:"
    • "Hartmann would find this useful. From then on, the fighter unit could take off in extreme temperatures during the harsh winter months."
    • "Erich Hartmann passed the 300 kill mark the on 24 August 1944, a day on which he shot down 11 aircraft in two combat missions bringing the number of aerial victories to an unprecedented 301 victories. He was immediately grounded by Luftwaffe chief of staff Hermann Göring, who was fearful of the effect on German morale should such a hero be lost. Hartmann, however, later successfully lobbied to be reinstated as a combat pilot."
    • "Hartmann once famously described dog-fighting as "a waste of time"."
    • "In 1955, Hartmann's mother wrote to the new West German Chancellor, Konrad Adenauer to secure his freedom. Hartmann's release, and that of another 16,000 German military personnel, was obtained as part of a trade agreement between the two countries. After spending ten and a half years in Soviet POW camps, he was among the last batch of prisoners to be released in 1955 and returned to West Germany, where he was reunited with his wife Ursula, to whom he had written every day of the war."
Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "losing 14 aircraft from combat damage and forced landings. He was never wounded and never bailed out due to damage inflicted by enemy pilots. His kill tally included some 200 various single-engined Soviet-built fighters, more than 80 US-built P-39s, 15 Il-2 ground attack aircraft, and 10 twin-engined medium bombers. He often said that he was more proud of the fact that he had never lost a wingman in combat than he was about his rate of kills. However it appears Hartmann did lose one wingman. Major Günther Capito had joined the unit in the spring of 1943. Capito was a former bomber pilot who had retrained on fighters. After scoring his fifth victory Capito asked to be Hartmann's wingman. Hartmann refused initially, believing Capito was insufficiently trained on Messerschmitts."
Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole "Decorations" section
Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would probably ask an image expert to take a look at the images obtain from http://www.Luftwaffe.de They should be okay, but I'm not sure the copyright licenses on them are appropriate for the images.
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
    • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 160 kilometres, use 160 kilometres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 160&nbsp;kilometres.[?]
Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), favourite (B) (American: favorite), metre (B) (American: meter), defence (B) (American: defense), realize (A) (British: realise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), program (A) (British: programme).

The first points regarding citations: These have citations. One at the end of each paragraph as is usually required. Dapi89 (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • As above, the websites used as sources, what makes them reliable? Also, websites used as sources need at the very least a publisher and last accessdate.
  • See also sections usually go before the references.
Removed topics a linked elsewhere MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • format the external links all consistently, you have one with just a bald url. Also itd be nice if instead of "short biography" you gave an idea of where the site is located, who is publishing it, etc.
Book sources look okay, link checker tool is still timing out on me. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment none of the copyrighted images have fair use rationales Fasach Nua (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've removed two non-free images from the article. One that showed him in a private scene, which wasn't linked with the surrounding text and served just to show what he looked like – redundant with the portrait photo in the infobox, we can't use two images where one will suffice (NFCC#3); and another where he's getting decorated by some general later in life – replaceable with text alone, the fact of him being decorated can easily be described and understood without the image; nothing in the understanding of the article depends on any visual detail in this photograph. I think the portrait photo in the infobox is acceptable though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose: Just to give a flavour of the scale of copyediting that this article needs...

Lead

  • Erich Alfred "Bubi" Hartmann (19 April 1922 – 20 September 1993), also nicknamed "The Blond Knight of Germany" by friends and "The Black Devil" by his enemies, was a German fighter pilot and still is the highest scoring fighter ace in the history of aerial combat. He scored 352 aerial victories (of which 345 were won against the Soviet Air Force, and 260 of which were fighters) in 1,404 combat missions and engaging in aerial combat 825 times while serving with the Luftwaffe in World War II.
Awkward prose, unnecessary bolding, and no need for so much detail in the lead. It might read better as...

Early life

  • You don't give his date of birth, though this information is in the infobox.
  • "Most of the boys' childhood was spent in China...", yet by my calculations, only the first 6 years of Hartmann's life, at most, was spent in China, which doesn't qualify as "Most..."
  • That whole sentence and the one following seems clunky. Maybe "Their father, Dr. Alfred Erich Hartmann, moved the family to Changsa in China to escape the German economic depression that followed the First World War." would read better.

Military career

  • "Hartmann got his pilot's license in 1939 and started his military training on 1 October 1940 at the 10th Flying Regiment in Neukuhren and from 1 March 1941 at the Luftkriegsschule 2 in Berlin-Gatow." Long sentence packed with info but not with punctuation. Something like "Hartmann gained his pilot's license in 1939. He started military training on 1 October 1940, at the 10th Flying Regiment in Neukuhren, and progressed to the Luftkriegsschule 2 in Berlin-Gatow on 1 March 1941." might read better.

Into the Luftwaffe

  • "JG 52 was stationed...", and then the next sentence starts "JG 52 were based...". Is it plural or singular, and anyway, why not state the city alongside the theatre in one go? That whole para is a bit all over the place.

Behind enemy lines

  • "...ninety aerial victories..." yet elsewhere his tally is given in figures. You need to be consistent.
  • The basic outline of this first para is...
  • Hartmann forced to land behind German lines;
  • Hrabak (who is he? First and only mention of him here), gave orders (to whom?), to support Rudel (who's he?) and his Stukas;
  • The situation changed and the flight of fighters (what fighters?) engage "Russians Yaks...";
  • Hartmann is forced to make an emergency landing. Again?
  • See what I mean? It seems a little convoluted and leaves out bits of detail, resulting in a passage that does not flow well, making it difficult to read and comprehend.

I'm sorry, comments on prose that identify just a few points and leave you wondering what else is deficient are frustrating I know, but it's taken a good few hours just to identify and make the above comments. I've picked on one instance in each of the first 5 sections. You could fix these specific instances, but the article really does need a good copyedit throughout. I will happily lend a hand with this if you like, but I can only spare an hour or so each day, and previous attempts of mine to copyedit up to FAC standard have not always been successful. It might, however, help you along a little. Please stick with it, because in spite of this, it's a great article. --FactotEm (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to oppose. Having started a copyedit, I tend to agree with the comments below about tone, and question the inclusion of certain content that tends to break up the flow of the article. As an example, the inclusion of the Krupinski quote to support the nickname in the (itself inappropriately titled) Into the Luftwaffe section seems unnecessary and awkward. There have been other instances in copyediting up to this point where I thought it better to remove small details for the sake of more concise prose. This goes beyond copyediting and into the realms of making decisions on content, which I am decidedly unqualified to do. I will continue the copyedit, and raise issues of content on the article talk page as I encounter them. The main editors can then decide on what they want to retain and what can be discarded for the sake of conciseness. I would also suggest that this article would profit from a MilHist A-Class review before being presented to FAC again. --FactotEm (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Despite its many qualities, the article simply isn't ready yet. As noted above, it needs a thorough round of copyediting before reaching FA standards (and I strongly recommend Tony1's fantastic guide). But there are also a few occurrences of deeper problems with the tone. Although Hartmann was undoubtedly an exceptional pilot, there is no need for the article to be so transparently glorifying: facts should speak for themselves. Here's a partial list of examples:
  • The lead says Hartmann was convicted of false "War Crimes". The phrasing is ambiguous and the scare quotes are definitely a bad idea. The fact is Hartmann was convicted of war crimes. For the lead, it's ok to simply say "wrongly convicted". But later on, (in the section with the dubious title False War Crimes Charges) the article reads "Hartmann had gone too far with his resistance. He was falsely charged with war crimes". The first sentence is speculative and the use of "falsely" in the second is only supported by the much later mention of the 1997 recognition of his innocence. Mention of his posthumous acquittal should be noted right after a neutral sentence such as "Hartmann was charged with war crimes".
  • "Afterwards Hartmann practiced hard, and his dedication soon brought rewards." This is unnecessary. It's clear from his achievements that he did practice hard.
  • In the paragraph on Soviet techniques to deal with extreme cold, the quotes surrounding "techniques" and "proudly" are inappropriate.
  • "After that, he decided to relax and enjoy life." Inappropriate tone and in any case unnecessary sentence. Also, I doubt that there's a solid source for this and problems of a similar nature occur elsewhere: even if one of Hartmann's biographers writes "Hartmann then decided to relax", the fact remains that this biographer is speculating on the issue.
  • I think the over-reliance on Toliver and Constable might be a source of problems in the article: while I don't dispute the reliability of their information, the fact is that a book titled "The Blond Knight of Germany" (the German title "Holt Hartmann vom Himmel! Die Geschichte des erfolgreichsten Jagdfliegers der Welt" is even more revealing) will occasionally put undue weight on good anecdotes that serve to create a romanticized image of Hartmann. For instance, I don't quite see the point of the incident with Hitler's hat and I doubt that it can be seriously documented.
  • Perhaps I'm not getting this right but the following paragraph seems completely implausible.
After being handed over to the Soviets, the German group was split up into groups according to gender. Hartmann witnessed widespread rape and murder of civilians. When the outnumbered Americans tried to intervene the Soviet soldiers charged towards them, firing into the air and threatening to kill them. Order was later restored, and some of the guilty soldiers were hanged "on the spot" by a Soviet commander.
This seems to suggest that, for one thing, civilians were handed over to Soviet forces by the US Army. This may be true but it certainly looks dubious since the transfers involved "soldiers fighting Soviet forces". Moreover, the split according to gender makes little sense for German soldiers who, even at the late stages of war were almost all male. Finally, consider the absurdity of the paragraph's suggested timeline. Germans are transfered, split into groups by Soviet forces. Suddenly, "widespread rape and murder of civilians" occurs. Americans try to intervene but Soviet soldiers charge towards them and threaten to kill them. This is nonsensical.
  • All sentences using "Erich" rather than "Hartmann" are problematic.
  • "More subtle efforts by the Soviet authorities to convert Hartmann to Communism also failed." What's a subtle effort to convince someone to convert to communism?

I don't think the problems described above can be fixed within the short time frame of the present nomination. Fixing the tone is a long process which requires careful re-evaluation of the choice in content and sources. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 08:03, 9 August 2008 [69].

Insane Clown Posse

Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24
previous FAC (00:46, 7 June 2008)

Much work has been done on the article during and following the previous FAC, thanks to the help of several copyeditors and a peer review, and I think that the article is finally up to standards. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too many refs in the lead. A well written lead is a summary and as such will need few, if any, refs. Refs should normally be in the body. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - My prior round of concerns was handled before the restart, but I'm finding too many problems to recommend promotion for now. These are all from Major releases (1995–1997), picking up where I left off.

This still needs more cleaning up to be worthy in my view. I know this has been copy-edited heavily already, but I shouldn't be finding this many simple mistakes in one section during a third FAC. Keep working at it, take care of these and seek out more help to raise this to the required standard. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • All of those mistakes were done by me. I posted the edits, then I was unable to double check them due to Wikipedia not working until about 30 minutes ago. Any other concerns and I will be sure to fix them. Juggalobrink (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still finding some simple errors, so my oppose stands. You missed one above, so take care of that. Here are more comments, starting from the same section.
  • You delinked Eminem in one of your changes. He should be linked at first use.
  • "Back home, Insane Clown Posse were living their dreams." I think this should be "Back home, the members of Insane Clown Posse were living their dreams." Using their real names would work too. It's awkward at the present time, especially when reading what follows it.
  • "explained that they couldn't work things out with Brian" Contractions are avoided unless they are part of a quote.
Let's wrap up my series of comments. Time for the third and final round (this one is much shorter).
  • "Independent releases (2000–present): "which was the first 3-D film filmed in high-definition video." Film and filmed back-to-back; again repetitive. How about "which was the first 3-D film shot in high-definition video."
  • "Robida was shot twice in the head during the shootout with the police and later died in hospital." Change to "in the hospital."
  • Style and influences: "while Bruce has expressed admiration for both Pearl Jam and Michael Jackson." Once more, removing the struck word will make the writing tighter.
The last part of the article is a definite improvement. I left a few notes above about prior comments. Sorry for being so picky, but these small prose improvements always make a big difference in the end. That's all from me.}} Giants2008 (17-14) 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere between Neutral and Very Weak Support - Most of the article is now good, but Mainstream success has received a large expansion since my reviews above, and the new parts are in rough shape. Here are a few quick examples: I've never heard Vince McMahon be called Vincent K. McMahon. "Their deal was that WWF play an Insane Clown Posse commercial once or twice a month, and they would wrestler for free." Multiple grammar mistakes. "Insulted, Bruce exclaimed that nobody was going to try and tell him to change his music again" Are the italics necessary? I feel like this section is on a different page. Other than that, it's OK. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support The page is very strong on content and context, and I found it a very intersting and engaging read. Copy editor needed though. I'd be leading towards a weak support, and I'd guess about an hour ce'ing would bring it over the line. ( Ceoil sláinte 23:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Wackymacs below; article reads much better now, and as I said befor the content is very strong. I delinked a few non full dates, but more low value blue links could be taken out. ( Ceoil sláinte 19:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The issues I highlighted at the last FAC have been resolved. This article is well-written and uses reliable sources throughout. There are three things which can be improved now. Reduce the number of sub-headings to make each section a little bit longer. There is no need to link months/years on their own (or full dates, for that matter). I have noticed a couple of words which do not need to be linked, such as "lawsuit", "photo shoot", "feud", "diabetic", "dreadlocks"—all of those are obvious and can be easily understood by a young reader, so please go through the article and weed these out. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Much better, but I see things that need fixing at the top; this indicates the need for further massaging during this nomination process, preferably by another person (we are all alert to different mistakes). Random examples:

Comment - I have started copyediting this article, there are still redundant words, some overlinking and other issues with the prose. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* I removed a lot of redundant words and reduced the amount of overlinking considerably. It is now looking much better, but I think the number of sub-headings (hence, shorter sections) are letting this article down. There are a couple sections that are just a short paragraph, and it just doesn't look right. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After five weeks at FAC, it's surprising to still find incorrect dashes, dates and ellipses. Date, page and number ranges are separated by endashes; I believe I've corrected them all. For punctuation, the article mixes unspaced emdashes and spaced endashes; please choose one and be consistent. If dates are linked, they should all be linked consistently. When month day, years are linked, month-day combos are also linked so that date preferences work; otherwise, MoS now allows for delinking all dates, but this article is mixing. All of the WP:MOS#Ellipses need attention. I saw some WP:OVERLINKing of common terms (don't most people know what the flu is?). Some citations use page on plural page ranges; others more correctly use pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 08:03, 9 August 2008 [70].

Mangalore

Nominator(s): Kensplanet (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because this article is already a GA. It has been peer-reviewed 3 times and copy-edited several times. Prose size is around 34 KB. I think it satisfies FA criteria, Kensplanet (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Oppose – Needs work on prose
  1. Unencyclopedic tone: "...some of its old world charm such..."; "prognosis of a prosperity in international trade looms", Mangalore is a multi-cultural and multi-lingual city that speaks four local languages
  2. Choppy phrases: The lead especially. The sentences do not flow.
  3. Style issues: AD > CE; wikify dates; India Today > italicise; transportation > transport (BEng)
  4. "The Government of India has identified Mangalore..." Has the GoI indentified or the Geological Survey of India. Distinction is necessary.
  5. Please check the elevation. For a port city, an average elevation of 100 m seems high. The figure more looks like the elevation of the airport. I googled the elevation, and 45 m is what is mostly turning up.
  6. In climate, it is mentioned that the temperature falls below 20 C. How much? Figures are needed. If possible, extreme values would help.
  7. "...gained a significant position..." sentence needs to be rephrased.
  8. What is Per-Humid (A) Zone? No wikilink of explanation provided. Not helpful to a reader.
  9. Too many unnecessary capitalisations: IT Sector > IT sector;, International Airport, Commercial radio, Million Metric Tonnes Per Annum
  10. "which is still in its infancy," redundant information. Infancy metric according to?
  11. What does "Mangalore also has access to Commercial radio providers such as WorldSpace, Sirius and XM." This information is unnecessary. It's nothing unique.
  12. "The city has still preserved much of its green cover compared with other Indian cities." -- reference
  13. Reduce the width of the panoramic image to 600px. The current width causes an annoying scrollbar for users with standard resolution (800x600).
  14. Lower the resolution of the image in the etymology section and right-align. The image pushes the title of the History section to the center.
  15. Rephrase: "The Albuquerque Tile Factory in Mangalore, is the largest tile factory in India, which manufactures the famous Mangalorean red roof tiles" to The Albuquerque Tile Factory is the largest red roof tile manufacturing factory in India.
  16. See alsos should come after a section not before.
  17. Some records show why the word some? Is it disputed?
  18. succeeded in defeating --> defeated
  19. In the 16th century, Mangalore received a huge influx of Goud Saraswat Brahmins and Roman Catholics from Goa. > such an event must have a reason. Portuguese Inquisition?
  20. "Rain measuring up"-- should be rainfall

=Nichalp «Talk»= 07:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had consulted many copyeditors and had also given the article for many reviews. But still may be some prose issues are still present. I am sure there are no major issues regarding Style of References and reliability of sources. If there are, please let me know, KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 07:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with references as yet. I did check on a few when reviewing. Check the one on elevation though. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Done
Old Sentence: Mangalore still retains its old world charm such as red tile-roofed houses in spite of globalization pervading the city.
New Sentence: Mangalore still retains its medieval remnants such as red tile-roofed houses in spite of globalization pervading the city.
Old Sentence: The late 20th century witnessed Mangalore develop as a business and commercial centre although Mangalore still retains some of its old world charm such as red tile-roofed buildings amidst coconut groves, and fishing boats silhouetted against the darkening skyline.
New Sentence: The late 20th century witnessed Mangalore develop as a business and commercial centre although Mangalore still retains its medieval remnants such as red tile-roofed buildings amidst coconut groves, and fishing boats silhouetted against the darkening skyline.
Old Sentence: Mangalore is a multi-cultural and multi-lingual city that speaks four local languages Tulu, Konkani, Kannada, and Beary apart from Hindi, Urdu and English.
New Sentence: The city speaks four local languages Tulu, Konkani, Kannada, and Beary apart from Hindi, Urdu and English.
Old Sentence: The present day city bustles with activities in the upcoming IT sector and the prognosis of a prosperity in international trade looms.
New Sentence: The present day city bustles with activities in the upcoming IT sector. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 07:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pervading seems like a POV. Pervading has negative connotations, and globalization is not necessarily negative. "fishing boats sillouetted" is also more of something you find in a travel brochure. As for languages, you are making Mangalore anthromorphic. How about this: "Four languages are predominently spoken in Mangalore:"? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Old Sentence: The city speaks four local languages Tulu, Konkani, Kannada, and Beary apart from Hindi, Urdu and English.
New Sentence: Four languages Tulu, Konkani, Kannada, and Beary are predominently spoken in Mangalore apart from Hindi, Urdu and English.
Well, I agree with you. In this sentence, Globalization currently has a negative gist. I have removed Globalization.
Old Sentence: Mangalore still retains its medieval remnants such as red tile-roofed houses in spite of globalization pervading the city.
New Sentence: Mangalore still retains its medieval remnants such as red tile-roofed houses.
Old Sentence: The late 20th century witnessed Mangalore develop as a business and commercial centre although Mangalore still retains its medieval remnants such as red tile-roofed buildings amidst coconut groves, and fishing boats silhouetted against the darkening skyline.
New Sentence: The late 20th century witnessed Mangalore develop as a business and commercial centre although Mangalore still retains its medieval remnants such as red tile-roofed buildings. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 09:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Choppy phrases: The lead especially. The sentences do not flow.
We had carefully rationalized the LEAD. The First Para mentions extremely crucial details such as Location, etc..The Third Para is entirely dedicated to History. The 4th Para is dedicated to secondary details such as airports, culture, languages, etc..Are you trying to point at the second Para since that's the only Para where details are mixed. If it's not, then can you substantiate. Can you point at the sentences which do not flow. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 18:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. I have moved the Page Transportation in Mangalore to Transport of Mangalore.
Another mode for local transportation is the autorickshaw.--->>> Another mode for local transport is the autorickshaw. HOPE, no US vs UK English issues now. Also italicized India Today.KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 08:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4 Well the Government of India had published a vulnerability atlas in 2002 giving information on places which are vulnerable to earthquakes. The Reference incorporates data from this atlas. I couldn't find Geological Survey of India anywhere in the Reference. We are not sure whether the Geological Survey of India is involved here. However if Distinction is absolutely necessary, we can replace Government of India with Geological Survey of India. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 09:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the source. The source quotes two individuals who might not be considered as a "reliable source". You can change the reference to something else to exclude Union Government of India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have removed the Reference since the two individuals cannot be considered as a reliable source. I'll search for a reliable REF. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 08:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. A reliable Reference has been provided from the Geological Survey of India. If you check the seismic Map http://www.gsi.gov.in/images/zonation.gif then you'll observe that Mangalore falls in the yellow zone which is the Seismic III Zone. Hope issue has been resolved. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 08:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Premkudva is working on it. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 09:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Premkudva is working on it. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 09:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7 Done by Premkudava
Old Sentence: Thereafter, Mangalore gained a significant position in the state since it gave the erstwhile Mysore state the benefit of a coastline.
New Sentence: Mangalore remains a significant territory of Karnataka, providing the state with strategic access to the Arabian Sea coastline. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 09:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8. There is no wikilink for Per-Humid (A) Zone. I coudn't find it anywhere. Best would be to create the article. Since giving explanation about the Zone on this article would be considered unnecessary details. Anyone interested in creating the article is very much welcomed. OR else, I'll do it later.KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 08:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. IT Sector --->> IT sector
International Airport --->> International airport
However Million Metric Tonnes Per Annum should remain since it has an acronym MMPTA. Even if you try googling on the name with Million metric tonnes per annum [71] still you will find Million Metric Tonnes Per Annum, KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 08:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a proper noun. See the google search results after the first three. The top most google search result is an acronym site. Such sites usually use title case. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either it should be Million Metric Tonnes Per Annum or million metric tonnes per annum. It should be either entirely in small or entirely in capital.KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 08:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be small letters only, the caps are due to the typical Indian habit of capitalising anything and everything.--PremKudvaTalk 11:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lower case for all =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Changed to lower case.--PremKudvaTalk 06:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10: Done
Old Sentence: Mangalore is home to the Tulu Film Industry, which is still in its infancy, with only 31 films released to date and an average of about one film released each year.
New Sentence: Mangalore is home to the Tulu Film Industry, with 31 films released to date and an average of about one film released each year. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 09:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11. You are right. Mangalore also has access to Commercial radio providers such as WorldSpace, Sirius and XM. has been removed, Kensplanet (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12: Removed The city has still preserved much of its green cover compared with other Indian cities.. No reliable references were found stating this fact. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions Kensplanet (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13. Done The width of the panoramic image is now 600px. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 09:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

14 . Done.
The Image of the Etymology section has been lowered from 200px to 150px. The Infobox also doesn't interfere with the Image now. The image also doesn't push the title of the History section to the center now. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 09:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

15. Rephrased the Sentence.
Old Sentence: The Albuquerque Tile Factory in Mangalore, is the largest tile factory in India, which manufactures the famous Mangalorean red roof tiles.
New Sentence: The Albuquerque Tile Factory is the largest red roof tile manufacturing factory in India. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 08:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

16. Done. Tulu Nadu (Culture) is after the section. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 08:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

17. No, its not disputed. 100% Sure. In addition to the newspaper article http://www.thehindu.com/2007/10/29/stories/2007102958510300.htm , the Mangalore city Corporation Website also states that Mangalore was connected with the Southern Railway in 1907. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 08:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18: Done
Old Sentence: In 1526, the Portuguese viceroy Lopo de Sampaio succeeded in defeating the Bangara king and his allies and the trade passed out of Muslim hands to the Portuguese.
New Sentence: In 1526, the Portuguese viceroy Lopo de Sampaio defeated the Bangara king and his allies and the trade passed out of Muslim hands to the Portuguese. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 09:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

19. Done.
Old Sentence: In the 16th century, Mangalore received a huge influx of Goud Saraswat Brahmins and Roman Catholics from Goa
New Sentence: In the 16th century, a huge influx of Goud Saraswat Brahmins and Roman Catholics from Goa migrated to Mangalore due to the Portuguese-Maratha Wars and the Goa Inquisition. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 09:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the word "huge". Redundant wording. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed the word huge. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 11:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20. Done
Old Sentence: Rains measuring up to 4,000 millimetres (157 in) falls during the period from June to September. The rains subside in September, with the occasional rainfall in October.
New Sentence: Rainfall up to 4,000 millimetres (157 in) falls during the period from June to September. The rains subside in September, with the occasional rainfall in October. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 09:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4 The elevation is high since the city is having a lot of hills, the airport elevation so noted is because it too is located on a hill, it does have its low areas, so we will have to locate a reference for the elevation highs and lows. Am on it.--PremKudvaTalk 11:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that Mangalore is a coastal town starting at sea level. For an average elevation of 100 m, the city should be very hilly. Udipi just north, at 39 metres, and 5 km from the coast, has a more tempered elevation of 39 metres. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Manglore is very hilly as compared to Udipi, but I have to locate references for the actual altitude mentioned in the article. On it.--PremKudvaTalk 06:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6 Trying to locate proper reference for climate ups and downs.--PremKudvaTalk 11:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12 The only reference avialable for green cover is the panoramic image;-) Sorry unable to locate a reference for now.--PremKudvaTalk 11:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC) }}[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise links checked out with the link checker, sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed the Link. Also added http://www.hindu.com/mp/2004/06/10/stories/2004061000340300.htm instead. A reliable newspaper article. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 15:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ealdgyth's Comments

  • This is the case with the first footnote, the publisher would be the newindpress.com or the name of the newspaper publisher, not Express Network Private Ltd, which manages the site.
    Done. Replaced Express Network Private Ltd with newindpress.com. That's the name of the Publisher. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 16:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have removed the site since it is very difficult to prove whether the site is reliable. Replaced with (http://www.thehindu.com/mp/2008/06/21/stories/2008062151860400.htm), a reliable link. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 10:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found reputed Newspapers mentioning that Weatherbase is an authoritative and reliable source. Some newspapers mentioning this are The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Seattle Times etc..(http://www.weatherbase.com/about/press.php3?refer=).
Hope the site is reliable. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 08:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, sorry to be a pain, but a "brag" page from the website itself isn't the best source for information like this. Shouldn't be that hard to look up in those newspapers. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think this should work (an article from New York Times)
(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02EFD6153FF933A25755C0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2)

I think this should prove that Weatherbase is a reputed site. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 16:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have found that the United States Geological Survey recommends Falling Rain Genomics for general coordinates of places. (http://tin.er.usgs.gov/metadata/ofr-2006-1135.faq.html)
If the US Geological Survey recommends it, we can be sure that the site is reliable. Do check it. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 11:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cosmas_11_book11.htm (current ref 17) is an online reprint of a book originally published in 1897. Please list it as a book, not a webpage. And might I suggest something more recent might be a better source?
    Done. Mentioned it as a Book. But finding a recent source is not possible. It's very very difficult to find Reliable References for such things. Mangalore is also not a very major city of India. Hence, References are limited. Hope, no reliability problem arises just because the book was published in 1897. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 18:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, It's not deadlinked. Please recheck it. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 15:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the link's not working. It has been removed. The sentence The Yakshagana is a night-long dance and drama performance practiced in Mangalore with great fanfare already has 2 Refs. So removing 1 ref won't harm its reliability. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 15:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 12:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the length of this page, with most responses not threaded, the remaining sourcing questions moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mangalore/archive1#Unresolved sourcing questions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

The last paragraph in the lead can be done away with. The sentences seem to be of different thoughts with no connection. Except Mangalore tiles, the rest should be removed. Take for example the mention of banks. Is there something unique about banking in Mangalore. Swiss Banks, Cayman Islands, Grameen Bank all are something unique to the region and are interlinked with the city character. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a few sentences from the Lead. Retained Languages (Since I don't think there is any other city which speaks four local langauges), coconut palms (Whenever you observe Mangalore in brochures etc.. you'll always find coconut palms. It's an indentity of M'lore) Mangalore tiles (unique and well-known)
I think these should be retained. But however you think anything is unnecessary, then do tell us. Or you can try your own hand at copyediting the last paragraph of the lead. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 18:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

  • In "Etymology", "In 1526 AD, the Portuguese took possession of Mangalore, thus corrupting the word Mangaluru to its present form Mangalore". But it has not been mentioned when the name was Mangaluru. The preceding sentences say that the name was Managalapuram and Manjarur, but nothing is said about Mangaluru. Yes, in the next paragraph, we get to know the name Mangaluru. However, to maintain flow, IMO, that should be mentioned prior to the Portuguese change of name.
  • "History". says that the city was merged into Mysore sate. But when did it become a part of Karnataka?
  • "Geography". The topography of the city ranges from plain to undulating, with four hilly regions natural valleys within the city Probably some words are missing in this sentence?

19. The sentence night time temperatures fall below 20 °C replaced with night time temperatures drop to about 19 °C--PremKudvaTalk 06:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: In the history section, the image of The Sultan Battery overlaps some of the text, making it difficult to read on my computer. There are also examples of the text being squeezed between two images, which is frowned upon by Mos Images policy.-- Seahamlass 14:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix it soon. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issue resolved by Premkudva and Arejay. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 11:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All issues by Dwaipayanc resolved by Premkudva, KNM, and Arejay. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 11:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The prose still needs a lot of work. I think the article can benefit from another round of WP:PR. I've listed some issues that I noticed as I read through the first few sections of the article:

  • "Its port handles 75% of India's coffee exports and the bulk of its cashew nuts": Sentence is ambiguous...bulk of whose cashew nuts? India's? Mangalore's? The port's? The way the sentence is structured, it's not clear what the intention is.
  • Etymology and Mangaladevi. Is this a myth or a historical fact? If it's a legend, it needs to be noted as such. Also "They could not proceed further" – I don't quite get what that means. Maybe clarify? Also is Nath a "cult" or a "sect"? I feel the word "cult" carries a negative connotation. The Nath article uses the neutral word "tradition"...maybe we can use this too.
  • Mangaluru does not literally translate into "the city of the Goddess Mangaladevi" in Kannada. Literal would mean a word-for-word translation, which Mangaluru is not. You could perhaps say something like, "..in Kannada, the city is referred to as Mangaluru, a reference to Mangaladevi (the suffix ūru means town or city in Kannada)".
  • This article appears to draw a logical relationship b/w the Portuguese taking control of the city and the corruption of its name to "Mangalore". I think this needs to be clarified.
  • Mythological context in the History section is very choppy.
  • Text should be simplified a bit further. Too much use of past-perfect tense ("Vasco Da Gama had landed..", "the Kadambas had ruled...", "Mangalore had been...".

I will review the rest of the article this evening, but I do feel that there are enough issues in the prose to warrant a more qualitative PR at this point. Thanks AreJay (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I appreciate your review. But I think there are a few sections which need to be washed. We are sure we'll do it during the FAC. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 08:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Premkudva has already done a good work. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 08:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Done
Old Sentence: Its port handles 75% of India's coffee exports and the bulk of its cashew nuts
New Sentence: Its port handles 75% of India's coffee exports and bulk of the nation's cashew nuts. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 11:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Done
Mentioned According to a legend. It is a legend according to the Ref.
Mentioned Nath tradition but retained Cult in the following sentence since it ultimately converges to tradition.
Removed They could not proceed further as these details are unnecessary. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 12:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Done
Old Sentence: In Kannada language, the city is known as Mangaluru, which literally means the city of Goddess Mangaladevi.
New Sentence: In Kannada, the city is referred as Mangaḷūru, a reference to Mangaladevi (the suffix ūru means town or city in Kannada) KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 09:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Done
The Portuguese were the first to use Mangalore and not the British.
Old Sentences: In 1526 AD, the Portuguese took possession of Mangalore, thus corrupting the word Mangaḷūru to its present form Mangalore
New Sentences: In 1526 AD, the Portuguese took possession of Mangalore. During their regime, Mangalore (a corruption of Mangaḷūru), stuck as the official appellation. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 13:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Mythology has been brilliantly copyedited by Premkudva. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions Kensplanet (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Issues resolved by Premkudva. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 14:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional concerns
  • Images: Some sections have too many images and are sometimes not used to compliment subject matter. For example, I'm not sure how "Light House Hill" shows "demographics" of the city. The locality is not mentioned until a minor reference in the Utilities section. Similarly Jyothi Talkies is not mentioned in the article anywhere. While the images look ok on a 768x1024 screen resolution, they appear to bleed into other sections of the article in other resolutions. Getting rid of a couple of non-essential images would be good.
  • The reference [72] points to no information about Deeva Raaja Odeya or Mangaluru Raajya, as has been cited in the article. Additionally, the spellings appear to be unconventional. I would have thought that they would have been spelled "Deva Raja Odeya" and "Mangaluru Rajya", resp.
  • History: The history section appears to be too long. Detailed mythological history should be condensed. Non-essential sentences (such as the back-and-forth changing of guard from Tippu to the British) should be removed and/or summarized . Also there is little to no information about Mangalore's history after 1956, apart from a brief mention about growth of IT and commerce.
  • As mentioned in the talk page, sports and eduction should not be in the same section, since they are unrelated.
  • Transport: are there any issues relating to transport and infrastructure a la Bangalore? If so, they should be mentioned in this section (or alternatively, in the Civic administration section)
  • What about statistics on the level of crime in the city? The National Crime Records Bureau may have some data on this.
  • Some statistical information, though not necessary, would go a long way in making this article a great read. Here are some links from the Directorate of Economic Statistics of Karnataka [73]. Some info from here (I saw some data about Mangalore Port traffic, Infrastructural info (MESCOM, etc) and Mangalore Municipality size and revenue data.
  • The reference [74] seems to time out.

Thanks AreJay (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 3 History. Agree, its a bit lenghty. Here are some modificatons..
    Removed (Roman writer Arien called Mangalore Mandegora. A 7th century copper inscription referred to Mangalore as Mangalapura. )
    These cannot be proved by reliable sites though unreliable sites do have them. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 12:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed (Mythological great sages Kanva, Vyasa, Vasistha and Vishvamitra meditated in this region, according to legend.)..These sentences cannot be proved by the reference. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 12:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed (The sage appointed Bhanu Vikrama king of the region, who further deputised his brother, Udayavarma, to rule the territory between the Payaswini river in the south and Gokarna in the north.)
Since there are no wikilinks to Bhanu Vikrama and Udayavarma, I think these are extra details. I think Mythology is short and fine now. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 13:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed (Further, in the Mahabharata, the Pandavas, who lived in Banavasi during their exile, visited Sarapady, a village near Mangalore.)
They visited Sarapady which is not in Mangalore. Let's stick to Mangalore only. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 15:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed During Tippu's regime, the city was constantly caught in the crossfires of Anglo–Mysore Wars.. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 12:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed The British annexed Mangalore again in 1791, only to surrender it to Tippu in 1794. Also added some details of 1950+ history. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 12:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the details on Sports should be enough now. Please have a glance. If not, then inform us. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 14:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5. There are no major problems or issues relating to transport and infrastructure. There may be a few, but are very very minor and I don't think they deserve any mention. Traffic congestion is not observed in Mangalore. The Port is excellent and traffic is very smooth there. Infrastructure is quite good atleast for a city not exceeding .5 million. If you figure out some, then do inform us. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 15:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7. The site was excellent. Mangalore Port traffic, Infrastructural info (MESCOM, etc) and Mangalore Municipality size and revenue data have been added. Here are the data which I have added.
  • During 2000-01, Mangalore generated a revenue of Rs. 33.47 crore (US$ 7.77 million). (Economy)
  • The traffic at this port was 122 thousand tonnes during the years 2003-04. (Economy)
  • As of 2001, the Mangalore municipality covers an area of 73.71 km² (28.46 sq mi). (Civic administration)
    Your copyedits will surely help here. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 15:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

}}

  • Conditional support: Great work by Premkudva and Kensplanet! I conditionally support this article for FA, pending the resolution of the outstanding issues of other reviewers. I'll take another crack at copyediting the article either this evening or sometime tomorrow. AreJay (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Review 2

Almost there, but take care of the following:

  • City experiences a --> has a
  • in that a myriad of --> with several
Replaced--PremKudvaTalk 10:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • red clay --> red-clay
  • According to legend -- > what legend? local?
  • How did the British rule Mangalore the first time in 1757?
  • Why is the Aranian Sea termed as "strategically important"?
  • medieval is not a preferred term used by Indian historians.
Would old or ancient be a better alternative?--PremKudvaTalk 11:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current framing of the sentence that red roof tiles are "medieval" is odd. Red roof tiles are still common in many parts of India. The sentence reads as if (i) the use of the tiles today is an abberation conventional roofings (ii) some interesting piece of unique and localized historical trivia. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is KREC?
Replaced with Suratkal, KREC is NITK. But the beach there is known as Suratkal.--PremKudvaTalk 10:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per-Humid zone needs to be explained
  • recorded was 93% in the month of July --> is 93%...
  • Why does Mangalore receive more precipitation than other urban centres? Is it due to convectional rainfall due to the presense of the Western Ghats?
  • ...and timber[49]. --> the full stop should come before the reference
  • Albuquerque Tile Factory --> would make an interesting article
  • In culture, the first image should come after {{main}}
  • is practiced in Mangalore with great --> is held
  • which is located --> located
  • Why is "practiced" so commonly used? Use synonymns, and terms such as worshipped, or celebrated.
  • "air cable" ambigious --> change air to broadcast. Infact that sentence does not reall add much weight. Maybe by adding the term "also provides"?
  • Canara Tv could do with a redlink, it looks like a typo
  • Grammar: "In addition, the city also"--> Either use in "addition", or "also"; they mean the same
  • Number of air passengers needs a reference
  • across the Netravati River at Thumbe --> How far is Thumbe, the distance would be helpful
  • What is the highest point in Mangalore
  • GSM and Code division multiple access (CDMA) mobile services are available in the city --> Cell phone operators include both GSM...
  • Merge sister city with culture. A single bullet is meaningless

=Nichalp «Talk»= 07:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Nichalp's Review 2

Reply
  1. Replied about the use of medevial above.
  2. I'm still not happy about how the British gained Mangalore. Was it ceded, was it wrested away? Was there some treaty.
  3. Secondly, the linkings to the British are not correct. It should be linked to and noted as the British East India Company (Honourable East India Company).
  4. Climate: The Per humid thing is odd. The Koppen system on the other hand is reliable and wide spread. Modify the sentence to: Under the Köppen...Manglore..."Tropical/megathermal climates", Tropical Monsoon..."

=Nichalp «Talk»= 11:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

  1. The red roof tile sentences have been modified in the best possible manner. Your copyedits are very much welcomed
  2. It was wrested out. I have mentioned it. Thanks
  3. All events before 1799 linked with the British East India Company and 1799+ with the British.
  4. Fixed Climate. Under the Köppen climate classification, Manglore belongs to the Tropical/megathermal zone
  5. The highest point in M'lore is not available. I searched a lot. If you can find it, then do mention it in the article. Hope the article is still comprehensive. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 18:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

}}

Final issue
Reply to final issue
  • Well, that's a long story. Mangalore didn't play a major role in the Ist Anglo mysore war. Actually, the Deewan of Mysore had declared Hyder Ali as a rebel for some reason. The Deewans stance made many Malabar chiefs and Mangalore chiefs doubt the policies of Hyder. They themselves surrendered themselves to the British when Hyder was busy in warfare with someone. The Ist Anglo mysore war is not very much involved here. Perhaps, this will give you all the details (http://books.google.com/books?id=GYpCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA114&dq=british+captured+mangalore+in+1799&lr=&as_brr=3#PPA114,M1)

Mentioning these sentences is not possible there. But surely the First Anglo-Mysore War is not at all involved. If you can modify it,then please do so KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 19:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All sourcing issues have been resolved. Please check Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mangalore/archive1. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 14:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


RELIABILITY ISSUES

  • I checked the Frequently Asked Questions of that site. The below mentioned Question is from that page.
    What are the data sources of the World Gazetteer?
    If possible, official data sources are used. In many cases however no official figures are available. In that case, secondary sources such as year books, encyclopediae, atlases etc. are used. I have also received data from other stats lovers.
    Well that means World Gazetteer incorporates data from municipal corporations, books, encyclopediae, atlases etc. which I think all are considered as reliable sources. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 16:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They may consult those sources (they probably do, actually) but without either knowing more about who is behind them or them citing the sources on the pages, it's hard to know where they got the information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll have to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities for that. We had added World Gazetter since it was mentioned in the guidelines for Indian City articles (Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities#Demographics) KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 09:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have a got a page from the Princeton University which recommends World Gazetteer for population data. (http://www.princeton.edu/~shawatw/interne1.html)
Since, the University recommends it, I think it is reliable. Do check it. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 10:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closer. Just a couple of notes on this ... the page was last updated in 1998. And who is the author? Is it a graduate student? Undergraduate student? Professor? Who the author is will have some bearing on how much importance would be attached to it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to (http://www.princeton.edu/~shawatw/resume.html) (Wangyal's resume), Tsering Wangyal Shawa is a professor. Looks quite experienced. I think this should have significant bearing on the notes. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 16:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave this one out for others to decide for themselves. Something on the web that hasn't been updates in 10 years is really really out of date in terms of the web. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. All sourcing issues have been resolved. Please check Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mangalore/archive1. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 15:00, 5 August 2008.
Well I have an article from The Hindu, the National Newspaper of India (http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mp/2007/05/12/stories/2007051250850100.htm)
I think this should prove that the site is reliable. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 09:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking this one is marginal. I'll leave it up for others to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know what more should I do to convince you. An article from the newspaper surely means that the site is reputed. Newspapers won't publish details of any sites unless they are noteworthy and reliable. You seem to be convinced with the New York Times article on Weatherbase but not this article. In both cases, situations are absolutely similar. Can anyone find differences? KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 13:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is in the tone of the articles. The NYT article discusses the fact that the site is a good spot to go for weather data, which is what you are using it to source. The Hindu article discusses more about the guy behind the web portal and doesn't discuss the accuracy of the site. It describes volunteers contributing to the website, but doesn't say anything about how accurate it is. I didn't say it wasn't a reliable site, but it hasn't shown that it is reliable either. If the Hindu article had said that the site was a great place to go for accurate information on Mangalore, then it'd prove the reliablity. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree both the sites could be relied upon.--PremKudvaTalk 11:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. All sourcing issues have been resolved. Please check Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mangalore/archive1. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 15:00, 5 August 2008.

UNRESOLVED ISSUES (Ealdgyth)

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dludden/ is the page for either a professor or a student of the university. Probably a professor. It's not strictly speaking "published" by the University, as it's a personal website, looks like it hosts class materials. I'd prefer to see something about why this particular author is considered enough of an expert in globalization to rely on his work, but the source is borderline, and passes muster (barely) for the information sourced to it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The homepage apparently belongs to David Ludden, a professor at Penn who specializes in comparative world and South Asian history. When I saw the link, my first suspicion was that this was a grad student's homepage. I'm more comfortable with the reference now that I know that it was written by a professor specializing in S. Asian history. However, the distinct lack of references in that article does somewhat concern me. AreJay (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mainly concerned that it's not giving it's sources and it's author hasn't been shown to be considered to be an expert. I'm willing to leave this one out for other reviewers to decide on their own, though. I'd consider it borderline as a source. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. All sourcing issues have been resolved. Please check Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mangalore/archive1. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 15:00, 5 August 2008.

As below, a "brag" page on the website itself isn't very useful for showing this. http://www.rediff.com/search/2001/jan/08hist.htm is a bit more help, but it doesn't show why we should trust someone that the review itself says isn't a subject matter expert and that doesn't give its sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even books rely on data from Kamt's Potpourri. Check this book like Leadership Roles for Librarians By Herbert E. Cihak, American Association of Law Libraries, Joan S. (http://books.google.com/books?id=gnDwfbiRoCQC&pg=PA87&dq=Kamat%27s+Potpourri&lr=&as_brr=3&sig=ACfU3U2TFdS6zOgzLo5jw58m9HV6H9744w)
If Books rely on them, then I think the site has to be reliable. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 14:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They used it for a quotation. However, it's probably borderline. I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves also. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. All sourcing issues have been resolved. Please check Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mangalore/archive1. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 15:00, 5 August 2008.

UNRESOLVED ISSUES (Dwaipayan) *How about a city map, if available?--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestion. But currently we don't have it. We'll put it there later. But I don't think we can make it now. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 14:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that's fine! It is not at all mandatory. I'm striking this out :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has come a very long ways at FAC, and progress is commendable, but it's not in promotable condition until someone goes through and does a thorough and basic copyedit. I've been keeping an eye on it, hoping its supporters and editors will notice and fix the issues I see throughout like:

The Ullal suburb of Mangalore produces hosiery and coir yarns.[2], while beedi rolling is an important source of revenue to many in the city.[3]

and the WP:LAYOUT issues. Can the nominators get some new eyes on the article to do some basic copyediting and look for these little glitches I'm seeing throughout? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out. I'll carefully analyze the article again. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 5:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been noticing things like that throughout, so a fresh set of eyes may help. Also, templates (like "further, detail and see also") do not go at the bottom of sections, they go at the top (see WP:LAYOUT). And navigational templates don't go in See also, they go at the bottom of the article. I'm a bit worried when no one points out things like this weeks into a review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you think of any editor who can do this copyediting work immediately. All other major issues regarding prose and references have been resolved. Only these very minor issues are still present I think. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 15:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure someone will get to it now that I've pointed it out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the issues which you have mentioned have been resolved. I don't think there should be any more issues now. I have been going through the article again and again. If you want me to do something more, then please do tell me. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 12:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Harvard reference}} has been replaced by {{citation}}.
  • citation hasn't been mixed with the cite xxx family. It's only in the References section, that {{citation}} has been used. Ealdgyth had also checked it and Ealdgyth was convinced and had striked the issue. You can check it now. All cite xxx templates have been replaced by citation templates. Hope there are no more referencing issues
  • I have removed unnecesary links and overlinking. I am sure you won't find any. But if you do find 1 or 2 issues, then do tell us or manually correct it yourself. :) KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 08:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 08:03, 9 August 2008 [75].

History of rugby union matches between All Blacks and France

Nominator(s): Shudde
previous FAC (04:25, 3 February 2008)

This article has previously been nominated, and has since been expanded by myself, and copy-edited by ROGER DAVIES talk. I believe this article meets the FA criteria, and would welcome any actionable opposes or constructive comments. - Shudde talk 08:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - a few quickies
    • Check image captions - if they're sentence fragments they should not have a full stop.
    • Avoid bold linking in the lead.
    • Match summary table sorts incorrectly - you need to lock down the final "totals" row.
    • Note iii wikilnks draw, if it's necessary then I presume you should link it within the article as well?

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 13:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think all three are acceptable in the context for which they are used:
  • lassen.co.nz/pickandgo.php is used to give more detailed statistics in the summary table below the Matches section. Obviously the best source of statistics for any All Blacks versus France matches is allblacks.com, as that is compiled by the NZRU and they would certainly be the most authoritative source. However "pickandgo" enables a much more flexible way of analysing the data and statistics from Test matches played between the two teams. Certainly the statistics between allblacks.com (see here), and pickandgo (see here) are consistent, so this supports that conclusion. Also pickandgo is now the official statistics partner of www.rugby365.com; which is a professional rugby union news site, which adds significant weight to the argument of pickandgo as a reliable source of Test match statistics.
Wouldn't hurt to back up the lassen site with the allblacks site also. But I think you've shown the site is reliable enough for the use it's being put to here. (If it was being used for a BLP, we'd be more strict) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rugbydata.com is I believe acceptable. It has been questioned at an FAC before (see here). However I believe it is neutral and non-controversial, and in this case, is simply used to justify the statement that French rugby improved between 1906 and 1925 by stating when they achieved notable victories over some international sides. I have no reason to doubt it's reliability.
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. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I havn't done an extensive search, but it has been used in news articles on the South African Rugby Union website ([76]), and is also linked to by the New Zealand Rugby Union and the Rugby Football Union ([77] [78]). There is no info on the website regarding it's methods, or how they verify their information, but like pickandgo, I have yet to find a discrepancy between rugbydata.com, and more traditional sources (e.g. books, newspaper articles etc). - Shudde talk 02:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an alternative source just in case, it's a list of results from the "Ligue Nationale de Rugby" which is the governing body for the two professional leagues in French domestic rugby (Top 14 and Pro D2). I think this is a reliable source. - Shudde talk 02:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • www.int.iol.co.za is a South African news website. It seems no more or less reliable then any other news website frequently used as a source on wikipedia.
Is it a newspaper/newsmagazine company? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See [79]. It's owned by Independent News & Media. - Shudde talk 02:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK hopefully that addresses those questions. If I havn't explained myself very well, or whatever please let me know. - Shudde talk 07:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Pretty good article, but still several rough edges. I don't remember doing any reviews of rugby articles before, so keep that in mind.

  • "Since 2000 the two teams have contested the Dave Gallaher Trophy which the All Blacks won in 2000 and have never lost." I would remove "won in 2000 and" from this as it seems redundant. It says they are unbeaten later in the sentence.
  • "was a 61–10 victory to the All Blacks" Picky, but should probably be "by the All Blacks".
  • History, Early meetings (1905–1925): Link try on first appearance. It is essential to link jargon like this.
  • Also consider linking forwards and three-quarters in the quote.
  • Post war (1954–1958): "was dominated by the All Blacks with the majority of possession and territory." Try "was dominated by the All Blacks who had the majority of possession and territory." Also, what is territory? I assume this refers to field position, but would like to know for sure (revealing my lack of rugby knowledge).
  • Do articles exist for the players mentioned here? If so, please link them, as they would be of high value.
  • Home Nations is capitalized in the lead, but not here.
  • Full amateur tours (1970–1994): Parc des Princes, Paris was linked earlier in the article.
  • "France won 13–6" is perhaps the shortest sentence I've seen during a review. Can this be expanded, possibly by including an interesting fact about the game or two?
  • Number eight was also linked before.

I'll take a look at the rest once these are done. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all done except for a couple of things:
  • English isn't my strong point unfortunately, so what was wrong with "was a 61–10 victory to the All Blacks"?
  • Territory and field position basically mean the same thing; it's quite a common term, unsure how best to deal with it if people are unfamiliar with it. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
  • I'll find something to add about the 1973 match.
Hopefully everything else has been addressed. It's good to have someone unfamiliar with the sport look over the article. Thanks. - Shudde talk 08:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is "to the All Blacks" British English? If so, ignore that comment since I'm versed in American English. I don't think territory needs to be linked; I thought it meant field position and wanted to confirm that. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are several players not linked: Keith Davis, Robert Baulon, Paul Labadie, Ralph Caulton, and Ken Gray. None of these people have articles, if you would like me to link them anyway I'm happy to. I'm not sure if that's British English or New Zealand English or not, but to me it reads fine. I could be wrong though, but think it's ok. - Shudde talk 03:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a little on the 1973 match. There is not much information about the game around, but added what I could. Hopefully it's enough. - Shudde talk 04:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back for some more comments.
  • Still in Full amateur tours (1970–1994): Hyphen for first ever?
  • "as all bar two of them" Is bar acceptable here? In American English this is rarely used, so I'm not sure.
  • "Later, in 1986, the bans served..." Remove first comma.
  • "before the All Blacks counter-attacking to win in the last quarter." Try "before the All Blacks counter-attacked to win in the last quarter."
  • "The All Blacks reciprocal tour of France came in 1990." Should be "The All Blacks'"
  • "In 2003, Daily Telegraph readers the try the fourth best" Notice the missing word.
  • Professional era (from 1995): "Tana Umaga scored three tries in the match and Andrew Mehrtens kicked 19 points in the match." Redundant.
  • "whilst Andrew Mehrtens scored nine penalties." Whilst is usually considered overly formal. While will do just fine.
  • "The two countries met in each year in one-off Tests in 2001, 2002 and 2003." "In each year" is another redundancy. The years are mentioned afterward, so I'd chop that off.
  • "France were 2004 Six Nations Champions, and were defeated by five tries to nil." First, link the 2004 Six Nations tournament so we can find out what that is. More importantly, I would change but to and. It's an odd transfer to go from France winning a prestigious competition to being routed by New Zealand, and an adjustment would help this make more sense.
  • "The final rounds of the 2007–08 Top 14 season conflicting with the tour" Grammar.
  • "made 57 tackles to Frances' 269" Punctuation error.
  • I don't normally get involved with content much, but I feel that too much time is spent on the controversy from the 2007 game. I'm sure other games in the series had disputes like this, but they didn't occur in the Wikipedia era so they have been forgotten. Two post-game reviews from sources who are probably biased in favor of the All Blacks are not needed. Did anyone back the referee? If not, you'd be better off quoting the All Blacks' coach. Also, Wayne Barnes doesn't need his first name used twice.
  • Why are all the sources listed seperately from the citations? Normally only books, and sometimes frequently used web pages, are put in a seperate section. It seems like a lot of wasted space to have a lot of these Internet pages in there, since many are only used once to cite game results.
This should keep you busy for a while. I'm planning on polishing the prose in Records, as I saw a few things that can be improved there. Otherwise this is it from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fixed those things. A couple of comments:
  • "bar" should be fine; certainly is acceptable in New Zealand English
  • I think the 2007 World Cup section isn't too large. The 1999 match (another knock-out WC game) is also quite long, but there was no real controversy in that game, there was universal agreement that France deserved to win, and so it was not necessary to include anything other then a match report. The 2007 match however was very controversial, and I don't believe what is written violates NPOV or undue weight. The statistics from Verusco are also quite incredible, regardless of the outcome of the match, and are worthy of inclusion. I've tried to not include anything that could be seen as subjective, and have let the facts speak for themselves as much as possible. As for your comment regarding the report, and including the coaches comments. The coaches largely resisted criticizing the referee, and in fact are not allowed to publicly do so, they can be fined or disciplined if they do. Regardless of this, their comments would certainly be biased. The review mentioned there was commissioned by the NZRU, but was independent. It was more comprehensive then just looking at the one match, and reviewed the whole world cup campaign, including preparation and so forth. I thought because it was independent, that having it there was important and relevant.
  • The citation method was not what I originally used, but Roger prefers it, and found copy-editing easier doing it that way. It just comes down to personal preference.
Hopefully that clears up those comments. - Shudde talk 06:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree on the 2007 game, but that's just my opinion. You missed a punctuation error above, and I will do my promised cleanup of the prose in Record later tonight. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the punctuation. - Shudde talk 02:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]
Made the edits last night. Oh, and Support. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support—pretty good now. Just a few spaced en dashes as interruptors, versus unspaced em dashes elsewhere; can they be consistent, one or the other? Tony (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Early meetings" section: any way to knit together the three parastubs? It's a bit choppy. Also a shorty in the subsequent section. Please audit throughout for paragraph flow.
  • "The All Blacks had defeated England, Scotland and Wales, and drawn with Ireland"—Easter-egg links: concern that your nice piped links are going to be completely ignored by readers who've hit the one to France (the country, only) previously, and won't realise that these country-name links lead to somewhere of specific relevance to the topic at hand, viz., "The All Blacks had defeated [[England national rugby union team|England]], [[Scotland national rugby union team|Scotland]] and Wales, and drawn with [[Ireland national rugby union team|Ireland]]. This is a broader issue that I want to bring forward for community discussion, but here, specifically, can you think of a signifier that will show them these are links to the teams, not the countries?
  • Date audit revealed quite a few partial links (year unlinked, month and day linked) in the main text; this is a no-no; but in any case, I've removed the autoformatting, which is no longer encouraged by MOSNUM. Also, MOSLINK says don't bother with links to London and such well-known geographical locations (unless skilfully piped, of course).
  • "Summary of Test matches played between France and the All Blacks:"—We need a formal sentence to introduce the table, since this is part of the running para in the main text.
  • Watch those commas. This is a listy sentence with three items; I'd be inclined to use another comma. "The 2001 Test was won 37–12 by the All Blacks, the 2002 Test was a 20 all draw and in 2003 the All Blacks won 31–23 at Jade Stadium."
  • MOS: en dash needs to be spaced when one item is "New Zealand", which itself is spaced. Can't find it now, but saw it.
  • "The following week the two teams met in Paris; this time to commemorate the centennial of the first ever All Blacks versus France Test." Semicolon should be a comma, yes?
  • "Despite France hosting the tournament the match"—two things: I'm starting to think you need to audit the whole text for commas (viz., their absence). Too many is just as bad as too few, of course, so perhaps someone new could do it, with the benefit of distance from the original writing task. Second, this is an ungainly "noun plus -ing" construction. See this. "Despite France's hosting of the tournament" would get you out of this here, although you might have a better solution.

I've been looking at the end sections; overall, I think it's fairly well written, but a word-nerd who's fresh to this text would be able to polish it nicely in not-too-much time. Tony (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've addressed several things.
  • I tried to appropriately link two of those paragraphs, and added a sentence to the third. There are very few short paragraphs, so I don't think this is a big problem, but if you disagree let me know.
  • Hmmm. I see what you mean about Easter egg links, and I think the best way to deal with it is to be sensible in the context of whatever you are discussing. For example if one was to say, "they played in England" one would expect England to be linked to the country, but when saying "they played against England" one would expect the link to be to the national team's article. If there are any examples of poor linking that you can see please let me know. In the example you gave, linking to the country (or region, ie Ireland) seems like a pretty pointless thing to do; as one is clearly discussing their representative teams. I don't think there need to be any hard and fast guidelines/rules about this, but I completely agree that care should be taken.
  • If there are any examples of over-linking please let me know, I had a read and can't see any that pop out.
  • I'm not sure what you are asking me to do with the summary of Test match statistics. I have added something, but have no idea whether it's what you had in mind.
  • I'm not sure if a comma is necessary there, I think it's personal preference in this case. It doesn't worry me in the slightest, I've left it for now, but if you prefer I can change it.
  • Found that en dash, have spaced it.
  • Changed semi-colon to comma.
  • Yeah Roger is a bit of a word nerd, but unfortunately he's already had a read over it. If there is anyone you could think to suggest I'd gladly ask them for a hand.
Hopefully that's most of it. None of those prob's seemed major. The extra copy-edit will not doubt add that extra polish, and I'll try and find someone appropriate. - Shudde talk 06:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: everything resolved --JayHenry (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have added that template. The image is probably also public domain in New Zealand and the United Kingdom (where it was probably taken) anyway, but I havn't double checked that yet. - Shudde talk 02:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange hybrid citation method. While almost all of the websites are listed fully in Sources, and referred to in Citations, some of them are fully listed in Citations. What is the magic for deciding which are listed where? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed remaiing things. Wasn't sure why sometimes the year in the "date=" parameter from the {{cite book}} template linked the year, and other times didn't. Couldn't figure out why, so replaced "date=" parameter with "year=" one. Really wierd. Anyway all consistent now. - Shudde talk 12:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is still inconsistent (and even incorrect) date linking in citations. There are fully unformatted dates, fully formatted dates, and partially (incorrect) linked dates, where only month-day are linked, and year is not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. (Changed to oppose given the length of time since these problems were first raised.) A little dry. I think some mention to be made of the fact that some NZ-France games have been among the most exciting in rugby history, and include two of the biggest World Cup upsets ever: 1999 and 2007. I've added a reference to the 1999 match being the "greatest in World Cup history." The account of the 2007 match smacks of All Black sour grapes, I'm afraid. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NB, I see that Phanto282 made similar comments about the dryness of the prose back in January, and this looks as though it was a major reason for the failure of that FAC. And the matter was raised on the talk page back in September and October. Why wasn't the issue addressed? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One has to be very careful not to be POV. The greatest upset in history? That is quite POV in itself. The prose has been addressed however, as since then the article has been expanded and copy-edited by Roger Davies (see nom). So the article has been expanded and copy-edited considerably since the first FAC, and certainly since the peer review last year. If you think something needs to be added then let me know, but it's hard to action something as subjective as dryness without being more specific. - Shudde talk 08:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing subjective about dryness. Moreover, it's part of the featured article criteria that an FA's prose should be engaging. Others have pointed especially to the lead, which hardly gives readers an incentive to keep reading, as it's a catalogue of statistics. It could be talking about just about any two teams. I'd have thought that the lead could mention, for instance, the fact that the All Blacks are consistently the best or one of the best teams in international rugby, and that the French are known for flair and unpredictability, and that the combination of the two has given us two of the best matches ever seen in the Rugby World Cup. Meanwhile, there's nothing particularly POV about providing some kind of evaluation like that: there are many sources to be found describing the 1999 and 2007 matches in those terms. Then, when you get to discussing those matches, how about a quotation such as this one, from Anton Oliver: ""The feeling in the sheds was like no man's land. Sort of desolate, decayed, the smell of – I don't want to dramatise it – but death, you know. But that is what it feels like, no man's land, and it is not a nice place to be." That rather highlights what was at stake in the match. But instead, we get the repeated insinuation that it was the ref wot won it for France. All sense of any excitement has been completely bled out of the account. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are problems with what you are suggesting. The flair and unpredictability of French rugby is quite a stereotype. The way they have played many times in their history has been conservative, and in fact flair has been drilled out of them, here I'm thinking of the 1970s and 1980s under captain then coach Jacques Fouroux, and more recently of Bernard Laporte's reign as coach. The All Blacks have been near the top of world rugby most of their history, but that is neither here nor there. I don't think the article should include sweeping statements that can be misleading; to dramatise or romanticise is really easy in sports articles, and a lot of effort has been made to avoid that here. Engaging is fine, but this is an encyclopaedia number one, so primarily we have to get our facts right. - Shudde talk 09:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a big problem with the way "the greatest rugby match ever" is worded. This is the opinion of the BBC, and the reference isn't nearly strong enough for the claim that "Many have considered it" the best Rugby World Cup game ever. More importantly, is the game itself overrated? If my scoring is correct, France was up by 19 points near the end; I'm not sure if a great comeback equals a great game, although the Rugby World Cup hasn't been around long. The statement should be changed to "The BBC has called this match...", and I'm not even thrilled with that. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, I do agree with Jb about the 2007 game, and still believe that there is too much about the referee. In a perfect world, I'd like to see one analysis dropped and the French point of view told. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that "Many have considered it" is bad. This is weasel words and should be avoided, even if Jbmurray thinks it makes the article more engaging. The BBC article was also written in 2003, before the last two World Cups (there had only been four before that) so that is a problem. I'm happy with any suggestion you have regarding rewording this. It is very very hard to find good reliable sources for these kinds of statements, especially when not discussing the match in a truly historical context (four years later probably isn't long enough). I'm not sure if the game is over-rated or not, and if someone was to claim so, they may be right. That's why I've tried to avoid subjective sweeping statements like this. - Shudde talk 11:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has the title of the article been brought up before? All Blacks and France --> New Zealand and France? More consistent and friendlier for those unfamiliar with rugby/the All Blacks. BuddingJournalist 07:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everyone in rubgy refers to them as the All Blacks, but I agree that a rename might be beneficial. —Giggy 08:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe this has already been addressed on the All Blacks talk page that that is their official name, unlike other national rugby teams in which their well known name (such as the Wallabies and the Springboks) is not actually an official name. Unless of course this article is in reference to more than just the All Blacks playing against France, then it should be renamed. Thanks, MattWT (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to get an image that contains both teams in full for the top right corner? Maybe during the national anthems when they're not moving? I do like seeing images of the Haka but this shouldn't be NZ-biased. (So an image of an early French team, alongside the original All Blacks, would be good too.) —Giggy 08:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I havn't been unexpectedly busy recently. I havn't been able to find a free image with both teams together. Most images that I can find are just massive wide angle shots of an entire field with dots for players! I'm not fussed though, so if people have other preferences that is fine, but we can only work with what we have unfortunately. - Shudde talk 12:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:36, 8 August 2008 [80].

Croatia national football team

Nominator(s): Domiy
previous FAC (17:48, 25 July 2008)


This page has been exceptionally fixed up since its initial nomination was rejected. References have come into top citing quality and are used consistently throughout the article. The prose has beel also largely reviewed and copyedited, making it up to a notable FA standard of engaging. A consensus has been agreed that this article covers pretty much everything eligible in regards to the national team, most of it being introduced in the lead section and then expanded on later in the article. A lot of interesting factual information is provided, somewhat differed to the basic information only provided in other national team pages. Images are clearly used and follow the copyright regulations, and the page is completely free. The quality of this article is a fair nomination for featured content, and hence this nomination. Based on the previous peer review and rejections, there has been even further modification of this page and hence this finally submitted version. Domiy (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: some of the citations/references come after commas, and some come before commas. Consistency is preferred. I also think that wrong dashes are used in scorelines (see wp:dash?). Manderiko (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already been over the dashes thing. It is identical to what you will find in scorelines of any other team page, including the Scotland national football team which is a Featured Article. This was raised before, but its been fixed up now. This is how dashes are supposed to be used, or at least are already used by other team pages.

Didnt really notice the author from references is needed. I didnt really see it in other articles and it was specified to be needed, only the dates and publishers were. Just wanted to clear these things up before any negative thought is put towards it. Domiy (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise links checked out with the link checker tool. Sources looked okay. I wasn't able to check the reliablity of the non-English souces. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It has improved since the previous FAC, but more work needs to be done.

  • I agree with the previous reviewers on the sources. The blogs and fan sites should be replaced, and authors should be added where needed.
  • "Croatia won the game 2-0 at the A. Le Coq Arena in Tallinn." Hyphen should be changed to an en dash.
  • FIFA is linked five times. It only needs linking once in the lead and once at the start of History. Please check for overlinking throughout the article.
  • I noticed POV complaints on the talk page related to the Supporters section, so I took a look at that. I wan't happy with what I found.
    • "Nonetheless, such disparities are absent from Croatia's overall national performance." Says who?
    • "Throughout their presence at major tournaments over the years, the Croatian fans have become the centre of harshly accused racist behaviour." Harshly accused? This is glaring POV. It's also contradicted in the following sentences.
    • "During Croatia's famous win at the new Wembley stadium (should be capitalized) in 2007, their supporters were favored for their constant involvement and spirit for the team." Famous can also be considered POV. There are a few other occurances throughout the page.
    • "A large emphasis soon occured surrounding the criticism of the English fans who, despite having a clear numerical home advantage, were over-volumed (?) by the 6000 or so away fans." The criticism needs a reference.
  • In Stadium, remove 2000 and 2006 links; stand-alone years should not be linked.
  • "having missed out on only one major tournament since their eligible participation." I think this means "since they became eligible to participate."
  • Wembley Stadium should be capitalized, as I said earlier. I see this in the lead.

These suggestions will help, but more improvements are needed. My best advice for you is to continue bringing in outside editors for assistance. The more people helping, the better. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thanks a lot for that Giants2008. I'm sorry for those minor blemishes. But there are some things I have opposition to. I'll start with Ealdgyth.

BecomeACroatiafan.com is, in fairness, a fan site. However, it has been established as a reliable news delivery. As I said previously, there would be a big difference between using it for a major claim that needs a source (eg - Croatia are neutrally admired or their players are being chased by many clubs etc etc), or using it for a simple factual backup like I have in the article. BecomeACroatiafan.com is only used in some very basic information which I have literally had no luck finding elsewhere (as you should know, Croatia is not a very public or popular country. This needs to be taken into consideration! Finding sources on them are getting more and more difficult!). Likewise, they deliver basic stories and have been used to reference some very basic historical information that any football fan should know.

GOAL.com? A consensus was reached on this on the talk page for the wikiproject footy. At least from what I remember. The question would be, what doesn't make them a reliable source? They publish news stories just like anyone else. Whats the difference between them or BBC/Sky Sports? Both publish news stories on the same thing (and it 99% of cases, their stories are very identical!).

Same goes for Javno. While there may be arguments over the fansite mentioned previously, Javno is established as one of the leading news websites in Croatia. The only publishers in front of them are VecernjiList, but they rarely publish sport.

RSSF is also used on the Scotish team page. Again, what doesn't make it reliable? Its an accurate statistics foundation website. I think you need to calm down with the reference criticism. Just because a site does not lead to Sky Sports or BBC, it doesnt mean its any less reliable.

But those deadlinks are a big surprise. I will do my best to fix those up because I didnt know about them.

"Nonetheless, such disparities are absent from Croatia's overall national performance." Says who? - In fairness again, says the fact there are no clashes between the same fans at the national team games. This is a very extreme issue, I wouldnt expect any news site with half decency to publish something like this. Its another basic fact. Though there are clashes between the fans at domestic club games, there has never been any such incident between them when the national team plays. Again, you need to consider the difficulty of finding articles related to such. On top of the fact that this is a very rare and extreme subject, its another one based on Croatia, a very small and unknown country yet to be established.

But as per previously, everything else you said has a decent point which I did not see. I'll do my best to fix them up now, anyone else feel free to add more opposing or supporting comments. Domiy (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that if it's proving too hard to find a reliable source for a statement then it's OK to leave it unreferenced or use an unreliable source. This is nonsense, if you can't find a reliable source for a statement then you must take it out completely. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not exactly what I'm saying. I can see how it may sound that way. But you have to firstly consider that they are very basic statements. The only reason I initially put refs in there is because of the standard criteria for Featured Articles. But for things like "Dario Simic has made 99 caps" or "Croatia have many national hymns for the team" to need a reference is kind of extreme anyway. They are every basic facts that you dont need a news article to tell you. Furthermore, it should work on a merit that any source is provided for them. Seriously, they are so simple, they should and could be mentioned without refs. If youre going to ask for references on everything said in the article, then go look at all the other articles on wikipedia and diminish their quality because I'm certain that not even the best article on this site has a reference for every single statement. Domiy (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, it's very simple really, WP:WIAFA says that "claims [must be] verifiable against reliable sources" and I think you will find that most existing Featured Articles do indeed have a reference for every statement. Take a look for example at Duncan Edwards - every single sentence in the body of the article has at least one reference. I think you'll seriously struggle to convince anyone that things like "player X has this number of caps" are "so basic they don't need referencing"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Problems with POV, peacock terms, poor English. A read of many of the references provided will show they are being misinterpreted. Still needs a ton of work. Wiggy! (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question why is the copyrighted symbol Image:Croatia football federation.png used to represent the team in preference to the free symbol used by FIFA and UEFA, Image:Flag of Croatia.svg, to represent the team? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The flag of Croatia (or any nation) image DOES NOT represent national teams. It only represents the origin of the team, but specifically related to football and the Croatian team, that is the only appropriate image you could display. I too have a question then. 1) Whats wrong with this badge symbol anyway? The upload page specifically states it under free and fair use following strict regulations. And 2) If there are this many hassles about this article, I really dont see how Scotland national football team became a Featured Article. Where the regulations of criteria much less strict back then or what? All I've been hearing is defects that clearly also exist on the Scottish team page as well, yet it has managed to make Featured Article content. Really, why is this (or other specific cases) being treated so differently? Domiy (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the crest is free, then it should be tagged as such, if it is fair use then efforts should be made to avoid it's use, and if possible replaced it should be replaced with a free alternative, if a flag is good enough for FIFA/UEFA, then why is it not good enough for WP?
You shouldnt get so hung up on WP:WAX, constructive criticisms should be welcomed, and used to improve the article. If you feel the Scotland article fails FA, then you can take it to the FA review Fasach Nua (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've been through this before and it did not go your way. You're flogging a dead horse with uselessly rhetorical questions. Leave the man be to (legitimately) use the federation crest to (legitimately) represent the national club. If he needs help with properly tagging the thing, then you might constructively do that. Wiggy! (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question is only rhetorical is no-one chooses to answer it! Fasach Nua (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe I should have described it then as vexatious or tendentious. The point being its an unnecessary challenge and not in anyway helpful. Just leave it go. Wiggy! (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose inappropriate use of images Fasach Nua (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SHOULD BE NOTED THAT A LOT OF WORK HAS BEEN DONE SINCE THE NOMINATION. WIGGY FIXED UP THE PROBLEMS WITH ENGLISH SO CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG, THE ONLY THING WRONG NOW IS THE REFERENCES FIXUP? Domiy (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patience, Domiy. I think it still has a ways to go. I've only made a couple small patches. Wiggy! (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, Domiy, have you been to the club home page? There seems to be some material there that covers the early 20th century. Wiggy! (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like a verifiable source of the team photo used, it looks suspiciously like a copyvio Fasach Nua (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK my memory and knowledge is not too great on copyright but if I remember correctly from reading the regulations, is it not acceptable to use an image that is of such age? I remember hearing that if the copyright holder has been dead for a while, or the overall media itself is from an outdated time, then there is no copyright law on it? I'm sure that whoever took the photo in the 1940s is long dead by now, unless it was taken by a 1 year old kid who is now only 69 years old and has held his age very well and still holds copyright on the photo. I'm pretty sure we can all rule out that possibility, so there should be no further issues with this photo from the 1940s. Besides, I didnt even upload it. It was taken from the Croatian page of the national football team on wikipedia. Even so, if somebody still did own this photo (extremely unlikely), there is the larger possibility that it is released under free use etc. Again, it is used on the Croatian version of the page so I would assume somebody from Croatia uploaded it. Based on it's rareness, it was probably somebody who has obtained rights that it can be used on wikipedia, or he himself is the holder of the photo. Domiy (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the law in Croatia, but in the UK (and I believe a number of other European countries) an image retains copyright for 70 years from when the photographer dies, or if the photographer's identity is unknown, 70 years from when it was taken. Clearly neither of these terms has expired in the case of this picture. Statements like "there is the larger possibility that it [may have been] released under free use etc." and "it was probably somebody who has obtained rights" show that you're just guessing at the copyright status of the image..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image should be free in the country of origin and the US (where the WP servers are) Fasach Nua (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, Domiy, have you been to the club home page? There seems to be some material there that covers the early 20th century. Wiggy! (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:36, 8 August 2008 [81].

Ukraine

Nominator(s): Bogdan що?


The article has undergone a lot of changes between its GA and peers reviews, and I am now confident it is ready for FAC. If it, in any way does not meet the FA criteria, please don't hesitate to comment. Thanks, Bogdan що? 21:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't really taken a hard look at the article, and more critiquing may come later, but the first thing I noticed was the lack of non-breaking spaces (nbsp). Add them in the appropriate places per WP:MOSNUM#Non-breaking spaces. Calor (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some non-breaking spaces but I'm still a little puzzled, do instances of the following need the nbsp: 77 percent, 11 million and 11th century? --Bogdan що? 10:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of them do. So, for example, it would be 77&nbsp(semicolon)percent. Calor (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to WP:MOSNUM, non-breaking spaces are needed "in other places where displacement might be disruptive to the reader, such as £11 billion, 5° 24′ 21.12″ N, Boeing 747, and the first two items in 7 World Trade Center". I take back what I said above, as I'm half right. So, insert nbsp's in places where the above clause would apply. Calor (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It seems to me that your initial instinct was correct, displacement of any of the above would be disruptive to the reader. Thanks, Bogdan що? 16:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A few points relating to the lead:-

  • I think "Varangian-dominated" needs a hyphen
  • Third sentence is too long - should be split, either by a full stop or semicolon after "powers"
  • 2nd para: lose the "but" at the start of the last sentence
  • The following sentence is not logical: "Being the second largest country in Europe, Ukraine also possesses the second-largest military on the continent". These are two quite separate facts; Ukraine being the second-largest European country by area does not of itself lead to its possession of the second largest military force. The sentence needs re-writing
  • Delete "some" before the population figure
  • "77% of whom", not "them"
  • The link on Christianity is unhelpful. A better link would be to Eastern Orthodox Church.

I hope these comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you for the quick suggestions. --Bogdan що? 10:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What makes the following sites reliable:
REF 100 (http://www.ukraine.com/culture/)
REF 101 (http://www.ukraine.com/culture/cuisine/)
The description of that site says its an Information and travel guide. That way I even have (http://www.ukraine.co.uk/), (http://ukraine.uazone.net/). Can we trust them? KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 11:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, when I received the same comment on the peer review, I initially thought that the ref was OK in the folklore context. But since more editors expressed concern, it has been replaced. Thanks, Bogdan що? 11:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, both "University of North Carolina" and "Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies" are reliable sources. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 12:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*REF119 (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2005/WPP2005%20web/Countries/Ukraine/demographic.xml) Gives a 404 Not Found Error. Some more deadlinks are,

Done, thanks for going through that. I fixed the three of the refs, and removed the ukrweekly one, it wasn't necessary. --Bogdan що? 13:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Still need to mention that Encyclopedia Britannica is a fee required site.

:Not done, how would I do that? --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes in your citation template there is a field for it. Otherwise you'd note somewhere in the citation (I usually use a ()s after the publisher or title) that "fee required" or something similar. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Bogdan що? 13:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also note that using a tertiary general encyclopedia like Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta as a source for a general encyclopedia is a bit odd. And you're using them for very general subjects where you're going to be missing a lot of context, such as Eastern Orthodoxy or Communism.
I was very surprised when I first got this comment from you on the peer review. When referencing the article, I thought that encyclopedia citations where the last thing I had to worry about. They are reliable, verifiable and more importantly they're neutral English language sources; which are very hard to come by. Also, I removed the Eastern Orthodoxy ref but the Communism one is used to cite the aims of the Bolsheviks in the USSR during the 1920s, why is that missed the context? --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they are still tertiary sources, i.e. just like Wikipedia. General encyclopedia's make good starting points for research, but shouldn't be used exclusively for sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 26 (Vavrik, I .R. Terezin and Talerhof) is lacking a page number
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 43 ..."Lower, Wendy (2005) .." is a snippet from Goggle books. First, using a google books snippet is always iffy, because you're not getting the full context of the work if you're just searching for phrases on google books. Second, if you must use the work, you use it like a book, with the {{cite book}} template or something similar. You need to give page numbers, etc.
Done, I don't have a copy of the book so I replaced the reference. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What'd you replace it with? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ref 41) "Ukraine - World War II and its aftermath". Encyclopædia Britannica (fee required). Retrieved 2007-12-28.--Bogdan що? 13:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals (example, current ref 57 (Serrill, MIchael S. )
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 99 (Britannica "In all, some ...) has just a plain bare link in it as a reference, it should be formatted correctly.
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 100 (Gorbachev, Mickahil...) has the same issue.
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • References in a non-English language should state the language they are in. An example is Current ref 106 ..
Done, it's an English language ref hosted by the National Ukrainian archives, I clarified it. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, and links checked out with the link checker tool. I was not able to check the reliablity of the non-English sources.
Just a note, I really have a concern with how MUCH of this article is sourced to general encyclopedia's such as Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta. It's a concern I've mentioned at FACs before, but a decent number of the references for this article are from such sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from epicAdam:

  • I would also like to echo Ealdgth's concerns over the use of encyclopedias in the article. Surely there are other references that can be used besides unauthored Encarta entries.
  • Overlinking may be an issue here. Common terms like "Russia" should only be linked once in the article (if at all). Sometimes, if it relates directly to a specific section something can be linked there as well, but other words like "legislature" and "industry" need not be linked (and certainly not more than once); English speakers (hopefully) know what those words mean already. There are other terms like "Serf" and "Serfdom", and "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" and "Soviet Union" that both link to the same article and are linked despite being located right next to each other in the text...
Done, removed some links. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the autochecker, there are instances of inconsistent spelling using American or British spelling such as: armor (A) (British: armour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), metre (B) (American: meter), defence (B) (American: defense), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), program (A) (British: programme).
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, it mentions that the Kiev starting in the 9th century. However, under "Golden Age of Kiev", it mentions the start at around the 10th to 11th centuries. Am I missing something here?
Done, the Rus was formed around the 9th century, but reached its pinnacle in the 10th to 11th centuries, I clarified that. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is typically no need to cite information in the lead as long as it is also cited in the article (such as the size of Ukraine's military).
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image "Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks to Sultan Mehmed IV of the Ottoman Empire" seems to have issues on my computer with the text overlapping the image. I don't see any divs that would be causing such an error, so it must just be a problem with the number of images. You may want to consider removing some images or shifting their locations.
Done, it probably has something to do with your resolution, I removed the Russian Empire map. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the etymology section about "the Ukraine" vs. just "Ukraine", it may not be necessary to provide references to all those style guides. Finding one source, perhaps the country's official listing at the United Nations, etc. to show that the name is just "Ukraine", would be sufficient. The problem with using a whole series of references to justify a style issue is that I could possibly go out and find a number of other reliable sources that call the country "the Ukraine".
Not done, this was subjuct to a huge edit war, followed by a huge discussion at Talk:Ukraine/Archive03#"The" Ukraine; so I'd rather not touch that part. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ref 32" should probably be a note instead of an actual reference, right?
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "populated by the Rus' people who formed the largest and most powerful European polity" That's quite a lofty claim that would need to be sourced as well as explained how "most powerful" is measured... economic, military, cultural, all?
Done, it's how the CIA puts it.[82] --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kiev was totally destroyed in 1240.[18][17][19]" It would be helpful to order the references and insert them after the information they are meant to cite, as opposed to just grouped together at the end of a paragraph.
Done, some references were spread out. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of instances when links to detailed articles are just buried unnecessarily. For example, the phrase "heartland of Rus', including Kiev, fell" links to the article "Battle on the Irpen' River". That sentence could very well say, "In the mid-14th century, Galicia-Volhynia was subjugated by Casimir the Great of Poland, while the heartland of Rus', including Kiev, fell under the Gediminids of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania after the Battle on the Irpen' River." As opposed to leaving that information just oddly hidden.
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing is thin throughout the "Foreign domination", "World War I and revolution", and "Interwar Soviet Ukraine" subsections. If information came from a single source, consider increasing the source density, especially directly after statistics are presented. It would be nice if the first paragraph of Foreign domination could even provide a single source for facts like "most of Ukraine's territory was controlled by the local as well as increasingly Ruthenized Lithuanian nobles as part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" and "the Latinized versions of "Rus'", became widely applied to the land and its people, respectively."
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources?: "the cossacks allied with the Commonwealth in military campaigns", "suppression of the Orthodox Church pushed the allegiances of Cossacks away from Poland."
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source?: "which is one of the highest growth rates in Europe and the world."
Done, removed. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the information about the space industry located under the history section?
Done, moved to Economy. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is nothing mentioned about the West/East (i.e. ethnic Ukrainian/ethnic Russian) split in politics?
Not done, saying that Ukrainian voters are divided on ethnic lines is an oversimplification, bordering on falsehood. I'd rather stay away from such controversial statements as much as I can. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward: "The Ukrainian stock market recorded 130 percent growth in 2007, for second highest in the world."
Done, rephrased. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the annual growth of average salary income in real terms is about 20 percent for several years (2001–06) in a row." "several years in a row" is unnecessary since the dates are provided and definitely preferred over vague time frames.
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "literary languages"? What?
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source: "Romanians and Moldavians are another significant minority in Ukraine, concentrated mainly in the Chernivtsi, Odessa, Zakarpattia and Vinnytsia oblasts. Gagauzians are another minority, concentrated mainly in Budjak."
Done, removed that meaningless and unsourced part. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source: "Jews played a very important role in Ukrainian cultural life, especially in the 19th and first half of the 20th century. Today Yiddish, the Ukrainian Jews' traditional language, is only used by a small number of older people."
Done, removed that meaningless and unsourced part. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 12th grade, students take the Government Tests or school-leaving exams. The Government tests act as both school-leaving exams and university admission tests." Huh? Is it just me or do those two sentences contradict each other?
Done, fixed. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward: (Transportation) "it is considered to be by European standards, of low quality."
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this article needs to be edited further to make sure any outstanding MoS issues are taken care of (non-breaking spaces, number and percentage formatting, etc.) and to upgrade the quality of the prose in certain sections. The article is definitely "good" but not quite up to FA standards yet. -epicAdam (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is too long because the history section is too long. Most of the material should be in History of Ukraine, if not already there, and not duplicated here. Likewise, the intro section is too long and is mostly history. That should be replaced by one paragraph capturing just the highlights. Other interesting things should then be added to the intro section. Hmains (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came to make the exact same comment as Hmains. The history section (at 3,300 words) is too long: over a third of the entire article (8,400 words). Renata (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At some point in the rewritting of the article, it was agreed ([83]) that a longer than usual history section would benifit the reader since to western audiences the country is relatively new. The article is still under the 100kb limit and to me, it covers everything that need to be covered. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Whatever 'agreement' existed is not relevant here. The history section and history in the intro are too long for a country article. This extensive and good history needs to be in History of Ukraine or its sub-articles, not here. Indicating that other articles have problems that need to be fixed is no excuse for allowing problems to exist in this article, which is what is under discussion here. Hmains (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I was not the one that pointed at other country articles, miss Calliopejen1 was. And secondly, how does one determine the desired length of any section, if not by agreement, or consensus? --Bogdan що? 21:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support :

Following the 'list':

1.

  • a) The article is well written, and was easy to read. Obvious that a lot of time was spent developing it.
  • b) Article shows great amounts of information. History of Ukraine is developed from early ages to modern.
  • c) Factually accurate. Heavily sourced and checked.
  • d) Writer obviously showed neutrality. One of the hot issues in current society is the 2004 Election. Personally I was worried about possible bias on that issue alone. To my pleasant surprise, there was none. Accurate and neutral.
  • e) The article has not sustained heavy moderation. From what I've seen for the past week no major issues with 'editing wars' have been recorded. (This point I guess is weak in my analysis considering I have not been monitoring it 24/07, but the article seems stable. Making it meet the criteria)

2.

  • a) Despite introduction being somewhat lengthy I personally do not see an issue with it. In fact I believe it makes it better. As the criteria states it "summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections". Article definitely did that.
  • b) Contents are short, precise and to the point. I see no issue there.
  • c) Refer to 1c.

3. Images are all cited and sourced. They relate perfectly to the article, meeting the criteria.

4. Article is quite long in general, but compared to most featured articles I believe this is as good as it gets.

I wish good luck to the editing 'staff' of this article, and hope it receives the nomination. --Altair Metamorf (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Special:Contributions/Altair Metamorf. --Bogdan що? 07:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First and only edits so far by Altair Metamorf (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite these being my first edits, I was part of Wikipedia 'community' for over 3 years now, watching many articles being demoted, promoted, etc (most importantly I saw reasons behind actions). I have created this account only because I was interested in expressing my feelings about this article and possibly many more in the future. --Altair Metamorf (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pending major changes I think this article is not balanced in its coverage. The history section is far too long, and geography gets only three tiny paragraphs (omitting discussion of its ecology/biota and any current environmental issues). The section on the military is longer than that on the government. Why does literature get four paragraphs while art and music get zero? Religion is covered in far too much detail for an introductory article. I would advise looking over other featured country articles and seeing how they are structured. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What patterns do you see in other featured country articles? Germany has several sections that are unique to it alone like philosophy, Development aid and Media while writing two sentences on music (a lot can be said about German music) and nothing on art. Japan has next to nothing under culture while including a section on Maglev trains. Israel's military section is bigger than its economy section, and the article is 122kb in size. Then there are other countries like Belarus and India(!) that don't have a word on topics from Infrastructure to Education. --Bogdan що? 16:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Unfortunately, even with the changes, I don't think the article has gone through enough editing to be reach FA status. To the nominator's credit, while the comments I made above have mostly been fixed, those types of issues should have been worked out in peer review. I am also still dissatisfied with the questionable use of encyclopedic sources like Encarta, an issue that was not addressed. I noticed that the article didn't receive many reviews in PR; however, primary editors also have to be proactive in seeking out assessments from other reviewers, especially those that may have an interest in that subject area. For example, no editors from WikiProject Ukraine provided comments on the peer review even though this is probably the single most important article in the whole WikiProject.

A more-extensive peer review may have found a way to cut down on the article's length and level of detail, especially in the history section. WP:Summary isn't just a guideline, it's part of the FA criteria. The prose has to be engaging, and while the history of Ukraine is indeed fascinating, I think that readers quickly lose interest in the topic. As a guideline, the history section should consist of about 10 standard paragraphs. It might help to create a list of the top 10 events that shaped the history of Ukraine and then provide a paragraph of well-sourced detail about each of those events. Anything extra should be in the supporting "History of Ukraine" article. Again, 10 paragraphs is not a hard-and-fast rule, but it's often a good starting point to try and determine what really is important when telling the story of Ukraine.

As for what subsections should be included, of course not every country is going to focus on the same items. However, if items are important enough to be mentioned in the lead, then they ought to be mentioned in the article. Currently, all three topics (architecture, literature, and music) received top billing in the lead, yet only literature is discussed in any detail. Further, the prose just does not have the level of sophistication that readers would expect from an FA quality article. Phrases like "The unification that Ukraine achieved for the first time in its history was a decisive event in the history of the nation" and "the most valuable prize in their quest for power" do not have a professional tone.

The sourcing in areas is still spotty. Places where I'd expect a citation (for dates and statistics, etc.), especially for sentences at the end of paragraphs, are left hanging. The article also provides grandiose claims like "people that remained in the occupied territory either passively or actively opposed the Nazis", which are not only missing citations but are near-impossible to verify. After some heavy editing and another extensive peer review the article may be able to achieve FA. Best, epicAdam (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what is it that determines the desired length of any section? FA class country articles are very inconsistent, while you say 10 paragraphs in history and WP:COUNTRIES says 4 to 6. And for that matter, why does a longer than usual history section make the article worse? --Bogdan що? 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ten paragraphs is only a suggestion; some countries have more, some less. More to the point, making sure the article is an appropriate length is part of the FA criteria. A longer than usual history section doesn't necessarily make an article worse, but if there is too much detail readers tend to lose attention, which violates the first FA criteria about "engaging" prose. -epicAdam (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:14, 6 August 2008 [84].

Nominator(s): Jeremy ( Blah blah...)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it meets the standards of FA. After a considerable amount of time and effort based upon feedback I received, I feel that it is well written, accurate and covers the subject thoroughly. Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Hard to get past the following couple of sentences: "Situations involving a myriad of topics have affected all aspects of the company. Depending upon its ownership and executive staff at the time, its responses to these challenges have ranged from a conciliatory dialog with its critics to a more aggressive opposition with questionable tactics and negative consequences.[2][3][4][5]" The first for English that is both mangled and impossibly vague; the second for its extravagant and unhelpful over-referencing. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would you suggest to help improve it, how can I make it better? I am open to all comers. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the references, for a start. They're not needed in the lead, in any case. (I was going to do this myself, but they set up later references, so it would have taken me too long.) Then copy-edit, looking to ensure that your sentences feature concrete nouns and active verbs as far as possible. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable, done. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been able to find any non-free images to represent the various cases. I will research this, I can probably find one or two regarding the CIW dispute. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some additional images, but not allot. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Per the MOS, curly quotes shouldn't be used for block quotations.
  • Also, on my screen,, between the animal welfare and nutrition section is a HUGE amount of white space.
  • What does the little green triangle mean in the infobox?
  • I have a big concern with the titling of the article. It says "Legal issues" but the first section is on controversies that appear to have little to do with legal issues. Certainly, protests aren't legal issues in a strict sense of the word.
  • Current ref 66 Chrisopher D. Pelosos "Burger King v Rudzewicz" what makes this a reliable source?
  • The first two notes are just titled links. Should you be giving some context for them?
  • There are three dead links with the link checker tool.
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool (except where noted above) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:
  • I changed that.
  • I included a {{blank}} there because of issues of the images running into the next section, it can be removed if required.
that one I'll leave up to the MOS experts out there. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor fixed the white space issue by moving a picture. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is {{increase}} {Increase), along with {{decrease}} (Decrease) and {{steady}} (Steady) are used in the {{infobox company}} (which is what the box is based on) template to show profit, loss or flat revenue over the previous years financial statements. It is fairly standard from what I have seen.
Shouldn't there be a key/guide to explain that to the reader though? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that would need to be taken up at the {{infobox company}} page. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes per usage instructions for {{Infobox company}} about usage of the profit, loss and steady templates. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the controversies I chose instances where there was a legal outcome, like a contract, binding agreement or in the CIW case a threat of a congressional inquiries, as a result of the dispute or where there was a legal question that did not involve a lawsuit. The only section that initially appears to have no legal implications is the ice cream label incident, however the reason I included this is because in the Islamic faith there is the concept of Shariah. Shariah is the Islamic concept of canon law, or the legal framework within which the public and private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Islamic principles of jurisprudence and for Muslims living outside the domain (from the article). For those offended, they truly feel that the perceived blasphemy that occurred was also a crime under the precepts of Shariah. Since Muslims make up a sixth of the global population, this could have huge implications for the company as it expands in the Mideast; in some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, the company could theoretically be tried for heresy because Shariah is the law.
I'm still not seeing anything involving PETA that involves a contract anything that mentions legal proceedings. The only thing that comes close is that BK instituted procedures to make sure its suppliers were adhering to animal welfare regulations. However, I'm not sure that qualifies as a "legal" matter, honestly. I'm not going to necessarily oppose based on this, but it does raise some NPOV issues in my mind. Especially as it is the first section in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It defines the contractual requirements that suppliers must agree to in order to do business with BK, ie Contractual law. The PETA section is first because I just happened to write that first, no other reason. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made some small changes that clarify the legal aspects, specifically animal rights and contractual frame works. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spoke with Mr. Poloso and he explained that this was not his original work but an online version of the class notes of the corporate law course he was taking at the time.
Then I have to say that it's not a reliable source at all. Needs to be replaced.
I have made a request at WP:LAW for assistance in updating this citation.--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have found an excellent reference that provides significant history and details of the case that more than satisfies the WP:RS standards, and have removed the instances of Peloso as well as expand the section a bit. One or two more paragraphs and this section will be completed. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finished --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is how the Australian legal system lists cases from what I have read, I tried not to add anything which might compromise the information because I am not a lawyer or Australian and cannot comment beyond that.
Might ask someone who works on Australian articles how best to format them then.Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask over there. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a request for assistance at WP:AUSLAW for help insuring accuracy of the section. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the members of WP:AUSLAW has recently completed an article about the case and will be editing the section to insure it is factually correct and is properly cited. I did add a case name to the two citations. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will try to fix the dead links, the News-Press now moves older articles to a paid for archive which it started doing in May or June of this year from what I have read.
I repaired or replaced all inactive links. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I haven't had a chance to go over all of the article, but I sampled a section and I'm a tad concerned that not all of the claims are sufficiently referenced. (I know that may seem odd, as the article has a goodly number of references, but bear with me). For example:
    • In "Burger King Corporation v. Hungry Jack's Pty Limited", the claim "When Burger King moved to expand its operations into Australia, it found that its business name was already trademarked by [a] takeaway food shop in Queensland" isn't supported by the reference for that paragraph, "Restaurant Business News", (which makes no claim about the location of the shop), and is, in fact, false: the shop concerned was in Adelaide, as per Terry, A. (2008) Where's the Beef? Why Burger King Is Hungry Jack's in Australia and Other Complications in Building a Global Franchise Brand, Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 28:2.
    • In the following paragraph there are three references, none of which fully support the claim "In 1991, Hungry Jack's renewed its franchise agreement with then BK parent Burger King Corporation which allowed the Hungry Jack's to license third party franchisee." I think the references are close, but the only date I can find is 1990, not 1991. That should be an easy fix, though.
    • Later, in the same section, there's: "After Burger King Corporation lost the case, it decided to terminate its operations in the country and sold its assets to its New Zealand franchise group, Trans-Pacific Foods (TPF)". The reference given, "Hungry Jack's to replace BK brand in Australia", doesn't mention Trans-Pacific Foods nor New Zealand, and the statement to which it is directly attached, "An additional part of the agreement required Burger King Corporation to provide administrative and advertising support as to insure a common marketing scheme for the company and its products", isn't seemingly supported by the reference at all.
It might be worth going through to make sure that the references support all of the paragraphs where they are used. I might have just stumbled across the only section with problems (I'm from Adelaide, so the Queensland reference caught my eye), and if I get time I'll look a bit harder to see if I can help spot more specific problems that can be addressed. Certainly I doubt that the facts are wrong (other than the Queensland one, of course), so getting correct references shouldn't be too hard (the Terry article, for example, is a good one), but I can't really support it as it stands. - Bilby (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply
    • I fixed the the city to Adelaide and added a reference to the article. Is there a free online source I could quote from? I would love to read the article.
    • Date fixed.
    • Found a reference for that, I also came across some other stuff that will bolster this.
--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) Once I finish some work I'll have a look and see if I can help with any other referencing issues, should there be any. I don't know if there is a free version of the article, but it is 44 pages of reference goodness, so I'll do what I can with it for you. - Bilby (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure that the history of the Hungry Jack's issue is entirely accurate. Being from Perth Western Australia, I had some recollection of a certain WA Politician having registered the names of famous American brands in Australia back in the 1950-1960's with the aim of making them 'pay him off' if they ever wanted to come to WA. Macdonalds for instance never came to Perth until this registration expired thus Macdonalds wasn't in Perth until only recently. Burger King I assumed was in the same boat so the company that set up Hungry Jack's and Kentucky Fried Chicken in south Africa and Perth was formed and circumvented the trade mark registration with the Politician back in the 1970's. The first Hungry Jack's store being opened in Dog Swamp around 1970. The Western Australian and South African franchises are separate entities to the Eastern states and therefore sell a different brand of Cola etc than the eastern seaboard franchises in Australia. I might be wrong, but this story is a common urban myth in Perth if it is, and an article of the particular politician and this episode was in the Perth Newspaper only a decade or so ago, stating this as fact. Petedavo talk contributions 12:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:14, 6 August 2008 [85].

Connie Talbot

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured status because it's the article I most enjoy working on (which is odd, considering I am not a fan- I originally got tangled up in it because I thought it may need to be deleted, and at least needed looking at thanks to BLP concerns...) and so I am confident that I am able to work with recommendations and to keep it at top standard if it is promoted. I am confident it meets the criteria (or will do after a little work, if needed) and I feel now is a good time to nominate as I doubt there will be any major events or coverage involving Talbot in the near future. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Opposed and will remain so until the details of her personal life are deleted. This is a child, and the world does not need to know where she lives, what school she attends or what her siblings are called. GrahamColmTalk 17:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this information has been published in national newspapers such as the Daily Mirror, which are read by thousands of UK citizens. Please state which criteria you are basing your opposition upon, or remove it - this FAC is not a springboard for your opinions. If you feel the FA criteria should include something as regards the privacy of children etc., propose it on the FA criteria talk page. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with LuciferMorgan. The information is from the Daily Mail, Daily Express and Daily Mirror. Perhaps not the sort of papers I would normally read, but certainly not The Sun or The Daily Sport- they are respected newspapers read by many in the UK and around the world. I do not see why publishing non-controversial information that was reported by such good sources (most of them through articles interviewing Connie/her family) is in any way a bad thing. J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about the FA citeria, it is about Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Graham Colm Talk 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why you believe that this information should be removed? It is clearly referenced to very good sources, is public (as is shown by the fact it is already published on various high-traffic websites) and is not particularly contentious- no one doubts that it is correct. If it makes you feel any better, the company managing Talbot has seen the article (they donated the images) and did not object to that section being included. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Part of professional prose, criterion 1a, is writing at an appropriate level of detail for the subject and the audience. I have to admit, the "Personal life" heading gives off a creepy tabloid vibe that is definitely an inappropriate level of detail in many cultures. That this could appear on the main page and have that many readers exposed to this child's personal life is bound to make some people uncomfortable. --Laser brain (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there would be a problem with such a section if Talbot was older. I am not sure I feel that people should be covered in different manners (whether it be because of their age, sexuality, gender, race, religion or whatever) in a neutral encyclopedia. This information has been covered in respected sources, and is of interest to anyone interested in the subject. J Milburn (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. I'm not the one needing convincing—I'm just proposing why some people might be opposed to the level of detail in the section. --Laser brain (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I get the feeling that if promoted this would be a good one for the Don't-Show-On-The-Main-Page list, at least for a while.
I can understand that, it doesn't bother me to be honest. J Milburn (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither, gives more of a chance for mine :-P —Giggy 10:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is an English child singer" - why not just "singer" - singing is the same concept even if she's a child...
Maybe this is more of a British thing, but the concept of a child singer is sort of separate to me- we have an article, seems worth linking.
  • "second series of Britain's Got Talent" --> "second series of the show"?
Done.
  • Ref 13 lacks publisher
Done.
  • "Rainbow Recording Company, an offshoot of record label Rhythm Riders made specifically for Talbot,[2] was due to release Talbot's first album on 26 November 2007" - the "was due..." doesn't make sense to me... I think I know what you're saying, might be better if you cleaned up the commas and stuff.
Looking into the future from the past- ignore the parenthesis, it just becomes 'Rainbow Recording Company was due to release...' What would you recommend instead?
Aaah, yes, you are correct - the commas and stuff got me a bit confused. —Giggy 10:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Music experts have described Talbot as potentially being "the next Charlotte Church".[16]" - what's this got to do with the text around it?
I was trying to give an impression of the small amount of pre-album hype that existed- I've changed it to "Before the album was released, there was much speculation about Talbot and the album with music experts describing her as potentially being "the next Charlotte Church"." Does that sound better?
Yep. —Giggy 10:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The team behind the album are John Arnison..." - goes back to past tense next sentence; be consistent
Done.
  • Ensure all date formatting and linking is consistent (WP:DATE)
I'll take a look in a second, thanks for all your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've gone for British dating without commas (eg, "[[25 October]] [[1990]]") which is fine, isn't it? J Milburn (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anything's fine; you just need to be consistent (both in your linking/not linking status, and in the format that you've used). —Giggy 10:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—Giggy 04:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support; just took another look and saw nothing of concern. —Giggy 08:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm honest, I'm not certain they are reliable. Note that they are both citing the same quote, so removing one wouldn't effect the article, but removing both would mean the quote would have to go. I'd appreciate the thoughts of others on this. J Milburn (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed them, and replaced the Cowell quote with another quote from Talbot's mother. J Milburn (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely you could add more about her appearence on Britain's Got Talent. Buc (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I really didn't come across that many sources, though I do seem to remember she was the one the media were all raving about. I'll take another look for some in a minute. J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded it a good bit. Provided that inthenews.co.uk is reliable for very, very uncontroversial information about what happened on the show (and that I can personally remember) that should be an improvement. J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • "with Talbot being presented a gold disc" - perhaps better as "and Talbot was presented a gold disc"
    • "9 year-old James Buckley" - should be "nine", per WP:MOSNUM
    Done. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "She was also responsible for the turning on of Walsall's Christmas lights" - maybe better as "She also turned on Walsall's Christmas lights"
    Done. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Reviewers in the Harlow Star" - perhaps mention what kind of periodical this is.
    • "Talbot has performed publicly and on television both in Europe and across Asia, where her music had been heard through YouTube." - I found this hard to understand at first. Perhaps reword as "... both in Europe and across Asia, where her music had gained recognition through YouTube."
    Done. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Left-aligned images shouldn't be placed at the start of subsections, per MOS:IMAGE.
    • Some incorrectly formatted ellipses, per WP:ELLIPSES
    • "Talbot's mother said she was", "Sharon, Talbot's mother, said", "According to her mother, Sharon" - perhaps state her mother's name only on her first mention.
    • Some incorrectly formatted refs. "Monroe News" in ref 5 and "Billboard" in ref 12 should be italicised. "TV and Showbiz" (ref 2), "news.com.au" (ref 3), "Billboard.biz" (ref 12), "TV & showbiz" (ref 20), "Connie Talbot official website", and "News/Showbiz" (ref 37) shouldn't be in italics.

Epbr123 (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:14, 6 August 2008 [86].

Conan (2007 video game)

Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk)


As the primary contributor to the article's current shape, I nominate this video game article for Featured Article (FA). The article is comprehensive, presenting information on gameplay, story, development (game, art, and audio), reception, sales, and watchdog focus without bias. Barring vandalism, it is also stable, having been released for a year and no likely sequels or rereleases. The information are sourced, and the images are appropriate and helpful for the content. Process-wise, the article has gone through a successful Good Article Nomination and a peer review. Thanks to AnnaFrance, the article's grammar has very much been improved. Please take a look and comment on the article's suitability for FA. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOoo! Someone else checking sources! Yay! I concur, btw. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the responses here are fine. —Giggy 01:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC) You're welcome to cap off these comments if that's your preference.[reply]

Support Comment—Some of the writing could be a little sharper, but overall it is a nice effort. However, I have a few small concerns:

Issues resolved.—RJH (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "Other methods to kill enemies include throwing them..." it is unclear how Conan throws an opponent with weapons and shields in his hands. Does he disarm and grapple, or is this just a form of knockback?
    In the game, Conan grabs opponents and hurls them. He automatically sheaths his weapon in some cases, and holds them in others (large hands). It is a trivial detail to mention this as this "disarming" is transparent to the players, i.e. players are not required to press buttons to put down their weapon, then press buttons to grab and throw. In any case, I have added "grabbing" to the sentence to present the case as Conan's actions rather than a consequence of his attacks (or knockback as you say). Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Story section says that Conan freed Graven, but then fails to explain why the wizard then curses the barbarian's armor. This needs to be clarified. I would have expected Graven to be grateful.
    Well... what do you expect from an evil wizard? Jokes aside, I added "unknowingly" to convey Conan's action as accidental and "Showing no gratitude" to describe the wizard's reaction. Would that clarify the case? Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is hoping to use the magical armor to end the Black Death, A'kanna or Conan? It is ambiguous. Why does [s]he believe the armor will end the curse? I think this also needs to be explained.
    I rearranged the sentences to make it clearer on who wishes to use the armor to cure the curse. As the game does not expound on A'kanna's reasons for believing the armor can do such, I cannot go into the "why"s. Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, they judged that the final encounter with Graven was one of the worst boss fights in video game history." This really needs to be clarified. I saw no mention of problems with this fight scene in the earlier sections, so it came as something of a surprise.
    Actually, I thought it was prefaced with the few critics' comments on the predictable and flawed artificial intelligence of the opponents. Anyway, I expanded the sentence and changed the manner in which the subject is discussed. Would this suffice? Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Howard's depiction of Conan's brutal physical nature called attention to the dull nature of their lives and offered them a temporary escape." Presumably "them" and "their" refer to Huling's masses? This sentence seems somewhat offensive to those who enjoys the Conan literature for other reasons. (I enjoyed it for the vivid imagery of the setting, for example, and a certain grittyness of the characters.) It should clarify that this is Huling's opinion rather than a general statement.
    I have prefixed "In the journalist's opinion" to this sentence. Would this do? Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any information you could add about the amount of THQ's investment? That would be interesting to know.
    Unfortunately, no. The information's primary source came from the SEC declarations, and the amounts are not broken down to individual items. Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "His proposal was stopped from passing by a legal challenge..." do we know definitively that the bill was going to pass? Otherwise, why not say, "His proposal was blocked..."?
    Done. Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing my concerns. I changed my position to support.—RJH (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Crit. 1: Some poorly written sentences in need of better phrasing. Ex. "Their reactions varied on the game's depiction of the Conan universe; several praised it for emulating Frank Frazetta's famous artwork on Conan but others said that the game's graphics were drab and of low resolution." - "their"? "others"? "several"?
    "Their" was referring to the "Critics" in the preceding sentence. I would presume "several" and "others" would again refer to these critics. As I am unsure on how to resolve this if its an issue, I asked the copyeditor, AnnaFrance, if she could take a look at this. Jappalang (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence has been improved. I believe it is now more clearly worded, with better narrative flow. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The gameplay is the same for each level: Conan moves from area to area, fighting groups of enemies until he reaches the end. At the end of certain levels, the barbarian has to fight a boss, a unique opponent who is more powerful than the standard foes." If the gameplay is the same for each level, why does Conan fight "unique" bosses? Rephrase.
      Each boss is "unique" because they are different from each other in appearance and attacks (well, except for Bone Cleaver who appears twice but has different attacks). The gameplay as noted is the same for each level until the end; on several levels the game proceeds to the next level when Conan reaches the end, on others he has to fight a boss. Again, I am unsure about this issue, so I am consulting with AnnaFrance. Jappalang (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Between the two of us, I think we've improved this area of the article. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, if players block just when an enemy is about to hit the barbarian..." Don't start out sentences with 'However' if possible. Refine tone: "If players block at the blah blah blah..." or something along those lines.
      Done. Jappalang (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Colored runes are awarded for killing enemies..." this sentence is an abrupt change from the previous one, which was talking about mana points. Reorganize or transition.
      Reworded to redirect attention to "killing enemies" at the start. Does this ease the transition in reading? Jappalang (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When Conan was released, its Mature rating from the Entertainment Software Rating Board made it a target for a law being pushed in California, United States. The law was proposed in 2005 by Senator Leeland Yee, who believed that sales of Mature-rated games should be regulated for their depictions of cruel injuries. His proposal was blocked by a legal challenge from the gaming industry in 2007, but California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who played Conan in the 1982 film, appealed the judgment, seeking to ensure that Conan and other games with similar levels of violence would be sold only to those above the age of 17.[48] As of 2008, the case has yet to be resolved." This whole bit sounds a tad awkward, more an afterthought than a outgrowth of the previous topic. Who cares about who Yee is? Cut to the chase of what the law does.
      I rewrote the statements to these effects. Instead of starting with its release, they focus on its ratings linked to the game's violent content. This change was to provide a smoother flow with the preceding thought (the violent objected to by the watchdog). Leeland Yee and his beliefs are replaced as well. Do the changes satisfy your concern? Jappalang (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article covers gameplay, development, story, and reception: meets 1.b; all sources check out, meets 1.c; .d and .e also met.
  • Crit. 2: no concerns so far.
  • Crit. 3: All fair use images properly tagged, with rationales and appropriate resolutions.
  • Crit. 4: Length is no issue.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • More comments:
    • "Its development was handled by Nihilistic Software who was inspired"- bad use of passive voice, reword to "Developer Nihilistic Software was inspired by..." and go through and check for any other passive voice issues.
      Done. I have reworded it accordingly, and have gone through the text, checking for consecutive-usage of passives in a clause. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are there the refs in the lead? They're alone and clumped together, so it breaks up the flow rather badly.
      Personally I agree with the notion of "no refs in the lead", but the issue was raised up in the talk page here and here. I would like further opinions on this (and maybe some concrete changes to the guidelines for the lead). I did reduce the citations in the lead by one (by leaving only one GameSpy opinion in there instead of two). Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The lead is supposed to summarize everything in the article, and thus the fact that reviewers considered it less than X, which it drew inspiration from should thus be sourced later, so I don't see why there is the need to clutter the lead. Additionally, it's mentioned earlier what the design inspirations were; why not just remove that portion entirely, so it just reads "...the similar experience offered in God of War."? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. Thanks for the suggestion (just dropped the trailing clase, it felt a bit weird in reading "failed to match the similar"). Jappalang (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "selected around 80 reviews"- why not just give the precise number?
      Well... Metacritic had 83 reviews for their aggregation, and GameRankings had 84. Rather than putting down a "83–84 reviews" or "M gathered 83 and GR 84", I decided to just go with a rough figure, which is still true (and tidier in statement). Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources all look reliable. A quick survey of a few of them looks as though they are used accurately. And the images seem to have appropriate fair use rationales. I'm not the best copy-editor, so I'll refrain from comment on criterion 1a. But this is close to FA status, if it isn't already there. Randomran (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, 1a. I stopped reading after "Gameplay" because there are a lot of problems. Aside from the basic glitches, there is significant confusion of the "player" and the "character" and other game-guide jargon characteristic of VG articles. At the least, it needs a copy-edit by a fresh pair of eyes and some scrutiny of when the terms "player" and "character" (or "barbarian") are used. Examples:
    Regarding the use of "player" and "Conan" interchangeably, I was following the guidelines to write in out-of-universe fashion per WP:VG/GL#Style and examples in WP:MOS#Avoid second-person pronouns (player being a metaphor for the character). Besides the guidelines (although I am not a fan of using other articles as sources), recent FAs such as Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo 3, Myst, and Myst III: Exile adopt this manner to address gameplay. Their successful nominations lead me to think this presentation was acceptable. Is this something that should be addressed in the writing guidelines? AnnaFrance, who did the copyediting and had little involvement with video game articles as far as I can tell from her contributions, did not seem to think of it as an issue either. Jappalang (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as Jappa is basically hinging his argument on my writing style :P) The main reason I use 'player' when talking about gameplay is because all of the above are first-person based, and for all intents are purposes you are the protagonist, not merely directing him (and in the case of the Myst series, the character is specifically designed to be nameless, formless, and you.) For a third person game, that distinction is lost, although I think it's still understood by the reader that "the player can" means the player can in the capacity offered by the game. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for humoring me on this issue—I will continue to make an issue of it as long as the waters are muddy. For the record, I consider David's interpretation of this style guideline to be much more acceptable than it was applied here. If the waters are muddy, we need to make sure readers know what the human is doing and what the character in the game is doing. Part of our goal should be making durable articles—imagine five or ten years from now when games are more truly interactive and there actually is stuff that happens to the human player and stuff that happens to the game character? We've had shock controllers for years.. I don't think we're far off from other things. Anyway, some issue remain above. Will give the article another read-through within 24 hours so hopefully it is not archived just yet. --Laser brain (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem as I am of like mind in trying to cater for the general reader. I think what shows is that the examples in the stated guidelines need clarification (as in Monopoly, the player does not pass "Go", but rather his playing piece passes go). David, your examples are used because they are the bulk of video games FAs in recent times :P. Jappalang (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:10, 6 August 2008 [87].

11th Airborne Division (United States)

Nominator(s): Skinny87 (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because the article has gone through a Peer Review, a GA-Class Review and an A-Class Review, as well as a thorough copy-edit and a brilliant effort by User:Epbr123 to rectify MoS Issues and so forth. I believe it to be at FA-Class level, and as such submit it for review. Skinny87 (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose

  • First impression: the lead is a bit heavy duty for this article--concision is always the best policy.
I don't see how the lead can be more concise, given its only three paragraphs per WP:LEAD.
  • Knollwood Maneuver
  • "Another senior officer took command of the division for the duration" --...and he's never named: find him; or strike this statement. Further as an aside, "senior officer" denotes ranks O-4 (Major) through O-6 (Colonel). The correct term would be "general officer" or "flag officer." Also, "for the duration" is a bit of a WWII era American idiom which might be lost on some readers.
Sorry, but you seem inconsistent yourself. You want the un-named officer struck through because he has no name, yet want it clarified that someone else took command when Swing was away in Sicily? None the less, I have corrected what you've asked of me in terms of rank and duration, but I will leave the reference to the senior officer in as otherwise the next part makes no sense.
To clarify: it is obvious that if the CO was transferred, that someone took his place. If the new CO is known by name, and the addition of this information is significant to the history of the Division; then the statement can stay with the addition of the interim CO's name. Otherwise, the entire statement adds no new information to the article, and should be removed. Lwnf360 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence also says that the new CO was in command "for the duration" i.e. until Aug. 1945 or later. Later in the article you say that Maj. Gen. Swing re-assumed command of the Division during the war. These statements contradict each other, and therefore one must be false. Lwnf360 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Major-General vs. major general" --inconsistent spelling within the article.
Inconsistencies corrected.
  • "It was chaired by Major-General Swing, who had returned from Sicily and resumed command of the division." -- you just said that another senior [general] officer assumed command for the duration! Get it straight.
Not really sure what to say here, given what I noted above, but the problem has been fixed.
See above for elaboration. Lwnf360 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 11th Airborne was chosen by the Swing Board" -- Swing Board: what on earth is that?...oh after it is mentioned, there is a lengthy-and-off-topic discussion of what it is.
I fail to see the problem here. I give a fairly concise description of the Swing Baord, what it did and why it affected the division.
The Swing Board and the Knollwood maneuvers are presented, textually, as distinct topics. They should therefore be segregated into separate paragraphs--and preferably the Swing Board should be presented first as a prelude to the maneuvers. If you don't want to separate them, then the language needs to be changed to integrate the discussion of the Swing Board into the discussion of the maneuvers. Lwnf360 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire Knollwood Maneuver section needs to be rewritten (content and prose). I'm not going to waste my time picking it apart any further, because I find yet-another glaring problem as I continue. Moving on.
  • Leyte
  • "After its participation in the Knollwood Maneuvers ended, the division remained in reserve until January 1944, when the division was moved by train from Camp Mackall to Camp Polk in Louisiana, for four weeks of maneuvers and tests to ensure that it was prepared to be transferred overseas and enter combat.[12]"--This sentence has 51 words, and expresses about five ideas. Cut it up.
Fixed.
  • "After this extra period of training and a waiting period of several months, the division staged at Camp Stoneman, California in April, and departed on a number of ships, arriving at Milne Bay between 25 May and 11 June.[12]" --Prose issues abound. In the previous sentence you told us they engaged in training for all of January 1944, reinforcing it here with "After this extra period of training and a waiting period of several months" does nothing for you. "Departed on a number of ships, arriving at Milne Bay" how about "sailed to Milne Bay"? This sentence should read something like: "In April 1944 the division staged at Camp Stoneman, California, and sailed to Milne Bay between 25 May and 11 June." --On a personal level, I feel that the European date convention has no place in an article about the American 11th Airborne Division: May 25 and June 11 feel so much better for me. But the article is "technically" correct, so I guess I shouldn't complain.
Fixed
  • "Between June and September the division became acclimatized to its new environment[acclimated to the south pacific] and continued its airborne training by training in the New Guinea jungle[.] and [The division] also conducting[ed] parachute drops around the airfield in Dobodura [New Guinea]."
Fixed.
  • I've gone three sentences into this section and found major problems with all three. That is my rule to stop. This section also needs a major rewrite for prose.
  • Luzon
  • "The 188th rapidly advanced and secured Nasugbu, with its 1st Battalion advancing up Highway 17, a major highway in Luzon, to deny the Japanese forces any chance to set up defenses, whilst its 2nd Battalion advanced south and secured the right flank of the division after crossing the River Lian"--50 words expressing about 4 ideas. I doubt that it is grammatically correct. Cut it up.
Fixed
  • "By 2:30 pm the 188th had reached the River Palico and secured a vital bridge over the river before it could be destroyed by Japanese sappers, then continued its advance by following Highway 17 to Tumalin, where it encountered heavier Japanese resistance."--same complaint as the last one.
Fixed
  • I'm done reading this article at this point. I feel comfortable saying that it needs a complete rewrite for both prose and content issues.
Lwnf360 (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to comment. I realize this is an FAC review and that everything isn't going to be peaches and roses, but I would expect even a thin veneer of politeness to be present in reviews. I found a number of your comments needlessly rude and overbearing. However, that said, I thank you for your criticism of the article and helping to improve it.
I apologize for my brusqueness (I have been in a bad mood for a few days), but honestly, I feel that this nomination should be withdrawn. There are content issues. That's a killer right there. On top of that there are major prose issues--nearly every sentence has stylistic or grammatical problems. There are entire paragraphs which are muddled and confused in purpose and meaning. There are entire sections, e.g. Knollwood Maneuver, which are the same. Things need to be taken back to the "topic sentence" level and reworked. I'm sorry to drop the hammer on the article (and I take it that you feel that I'm dropping the hammer on you too, which I do not mean to do.), but it is what it is. Lwnf360 (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point on prose, but I don't know what you mean by the content. You highlighted the Knollwood Maneuver, but I fail to see what's wrong with it in terms of content, or how it is either muddled or confused. Skinny87 (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Goddamit. Perhaps I was a little too quick to disagree as well - no, in fact, I was, and I apologize. I really want 11th Airborne to be a Featured Article, and obviously it isn't quite ready yet despite the work I've put in. That's annoying, and it's made me a little defensive. Looking at the article again, of course, you're right. The prose I can do, that's not a problem. But I do need to cut down on the details of the a bit and reorder it in the Knollwood Maneuver, I can see that. Rewrite it to make it less wordy, put more into what the 11th actually did during the exercise, there's barely anything on it. I'd like to keep this FAC open a day or so longer, if that's okay, so I can get any more criticism and make a list of what I need to do. I apologize for getting defensive. Skinny87 (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I am by no means an arbiter of FAC. You are welcome to try and keep the nomination open as long as you can--but that pushes you and the other article contributors to work quickly if that is your choice. You're right that additional feedback will help you identify and work through the issues. Lwnf360 (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It won't close until after SandyGeorgia or Raul654 says so (usually Sandy). I'll give you a hand on the copyediting. Cam (Chat) 18:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment

  • Ref 8 is lacking publisher info.
I added the publisher as 'Moore County Airport, which I hope is okay. I didn't add that reference, someone else sneaked it in. If that's not good enough, I'll be happy to remove it completely. Skinny87 (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, sources and MoS look good.

Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) I'd appreciate if this could be closed and the FAC failed. This article obviously has some work to do before it can get to FA Class; I don't have te time right now, and to be honest it's stressing me out just thinking about sorting it out. I'll get to it later, in a few months perhaps. Skinny87 (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw it; please be sure to leave the {{fac}} template in place until the bot goes through, per WP:FAC/ar. Hope to see you back soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 16:17, 3 August 2008 [88].

Princeton University Department of Psychology

Nominator(s): Gyan Veda (talk)


I am nominating this article for featured article because it is carefully-written and replete with appropriate, reliable references. The writing is unbiased and its style is appropriate to Wikipedia's standards. I am also nominating this article because few psychology-related articles have been featured.

Most importantly, I am nominating this article because it accomplishes what a Wikipedia article ought to do: It integrates information about the Princeton University Department of Psychology that was previously dispersed in hundreds of sources into one coherent article that is helpful to anyone who is curious about the subject matter.

I thank you in advance for any comments that you may have about this article and how it can be improved. Gyan Veda (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incomplete. I see the article has used the Princeton Companion, yet seems to have missed the article on the department itself. Where is the mid-nineteenth century course on Psychology? Where is the Psychological Review, published at Princeton? Where is the link between Wundt, James McCosh, and Baldwin?
    • Response. The Princeton Companion's article on the department itself is now cited where appropriate.
    • The mid-nineteenth century course on Psychology was not referenced because the focus of the article was on the Department of Psychology itself. Mentioning the course, which was offered prior to the establishment of the department, seemed tangential.
    • The Psychological Review was not mentioned for a similar reason: To maintain the focus of the article on the department itself. Though James Mark Baldwin was a professor in the department at the time that the journal was founded, the journal was not published by the department itself. (It is currently published by the American Psychological Association). Indeed, the co-founder, James McKeen Cattell, was not even a member of the Princeton psychology faculty; he was a professr at Columbia University.
    • James McCosh's writings on psychology are one of the factors that brought Wilhelm Wundt's work to the attention of American psychologists. James Mark Baldwin studied under both McCosh and Wundt. His academic legacy, therefore, popularized the psychology work of both scholars.--Gyan Veda (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is characteristic. James Mark Baldwin says what he did, and who he was; the paragraph here is less than a CV: a handful of degrees and a date of appointment.
    • Response. The paragraph about James Mark Baldwin lists only information about him that is relevant to the Department of Psychology. Again, I wanted to keep the focus of the article on the department itself. I did provide a link to the James Mark Baldwin article on Wikipedia for anyone who may have been interested in learning more about him.--Gyan Veda (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, do we need the list of alumni? Is it complete, for so long-standing a doctoral program? I doubt it; yet it adds little to the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. Unfortunately, the list of alumni is not complete, but it gives the reader a sense of the institutions in which the alumni end up. The focus on alumni who work in academic institutions is an asset to the article because many of its readers may be academicians themselves and, consequently, they will appreciate something akin to an academic tree of the department.--Gyan Veda (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Others may disagree with me; but I do not think I am answered. One point deserves discussion: since the list of alumni does not include doctoral advisors, it does not serve the purpose of an academic genealogy, which would in any case be better done as a set of templates or categories. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This section is not meant to serve as an academic genealogy per se, but as an institutional genealogy. The list is a reference of the names that have at one point been associated with the department as students in it. Last summer, incidentally, I helped a psychology professor with a project that required him to find out the dates of graduation, the names of schools, and the names of the present workplaces of dozens of social psychologists. His endeavor would have been easier if he would have had a resource such as this alumni list.--Gyan Veda (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Let me know when these are done then I will gladly strike my oppose. Cheers!

Gary King (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • You need to assume that nobody knows where Princeton is located. While you have the street corner why not add the city, state, and country?
  • Since its establishment in 1893, the department has been among the foremost psychology departments in the country thanks to the contributions of its faculty and students. So the day it opened it was the formost? I think you need an outside source (sources would be better) to back this up.
  • Today, the department continues to be a leader in psychology research and scholarship. Today is not encyclopedic. And you need sources for this statement.
  • Two sentences in a row starting with "The department" in the lead.
  • The department's distinguished faculty have received numerous awards, which include a Nobel Prize,[8] six Distinguished Contributions awards,[9][10][11] the American Psychological Association's highest recognitions, and three William James Fellow awards,[12] one of the two highest recognitions awarded by the Association for Psychological Science (APS). This has a lot going on. I am not clear, does the two highest recognitions refer to the James Fellow award?
  • The department is presently... Presently is not encyclopedic. How about since 2000... And again with the department. You need to find some other way to refer to it besides the department.
  • ...the laboratory thrived as a center... Does any outside source say this?
  • Wikilink university president
  • "the first laboratory in this country, if not in the world, dedicated solely to the teaching and investigation of scientific psychology." Direct quotes need a citation immediately after them.
  • The building was named in honor of Henry Eno, the principal donor and research associate in psychology. Why not put this sentence with the first mention of the building?
  • University president James McCosh was one of the first people to bring the experimental psychology of the German psychologists Wilhelm Wundt and Gustav Fechner to the attention of scholars in the United States. Outside source. First in the US is a big claim.
  • During this period, score of the department's research... is this a proper use of score, it seems strange to me?
  • Does Princeton have a School of Engineering article, if so wikilink.
  • Francis W. Roudebush '22... I don't think the use of '22 is encyclopedic. You could write alumnus Francis...
  • For the first time, laboratories could be built and equipped to house the various new branches of the rapidly-developing experimental psychology. Why could be built? Lack of money, people, what?
  • When using the same source more than once you should use <ref name="A descriptive word relevant to the article"> followed by the citation. And then for every subsequent usage use <ref name="The same descriptive word relevant to the article"/> This needs to be done throughout the article.
  • What is modern psychology? Is it the same as it was before 1968?
  • You need outside sources for the history section. You also need more than that one large article and two other building specific articles for the entire history of the department. A history should not be taken from one source, but multiple sources that give various viewpoints.
  • The department has continued to thrive since its establishment in the nineteenth century. Its achievements in psychological research, scholarship, and instruction have been continually recognized. The department's graduate program has been ranked fifth best in the United States by U.S. News and World Report (USNWR),[22] fifteenth by the Princeton Review's "Gourman Report of Graduate Programs,"[23] and twelfth best by the National Research Council.[24] The department's undergraduate program has been ranked eighteenth best in the United States by the "Gourman Report of Undergraduate Rankings."[25] Its individual graduate programs have received high national rankings as well. USNWR ranked its behavioral neuroscience program sixth best[26] and its social psychology program seventh best.[27] Source for thrive? Source for continually recognized? US News is a magazine and should be italicized. What years are these rankings from? What is the Gourman Report? Sixth and seventh best in the US, the world, history?
  • Historic faculty should be a paragraph of written text not bullet points.
  • Alumni in academic and research institutions should be its own article like List of Princeton University people but for the department's alumni. Also, you should have a single paragraph discussing the most notable alumni with the link to the alumni list above. The historic faculty could be added to the list article too if desired.
  • The department counts with the requisite facilities and specialized equipment that are used to conduct research in modern psychology. How does it count?
  • There shouldn't be external links within the text like Center for the Study of Brain, Mind, and Behavior (CSBMB).
  • The faculty of the CSBMB includes seventeen faculty members from the department. Faculty used twice.
  • The library section needs outside sources.
  • gained a stunning... who says it is stunning? Outside source?
  • A gallery shouldn't be used in an article. Consider uploading them to commons or incorporating more images into the article.
  • Has there been any negative information, scandal, controversy, protest, in the entire history of the department? As this article reads now it is entirely positive.
  • Any interesting experiments, new techniques, new theories, etc.?

Nice start, but I think you have a little ways to go. You need more outside sources. The references also need to be fixed as mentioned above. Please let me know if you have any questions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightLago (talk • contribs) 23:06, July 31, 2008

Oppose While a commendable effort on an outwardly narrow topic, the article is suffers from unsubstantiated or unverifiable academic boosterism so common to the vast majority of academic articles. I can't in good faith support the current article's marketing brochure-ese per criteria 1a, 1c, 1d.
  • Instances of flagrant peacockery, boosterism, and otherwise non-neutral or unencyclopedic tone:
    • "has been among the foremost psychology departments in the country thanks to the contributions of its faculty and students" - "among the foremost" is a textbook case of peacockery
    • "Today, the department continues to be a leader in psychology research and scholarship. Its undergraduate and graduate programs are highly-ranked and it has developed a well-respected neuroscience program." - shouldn't this sort of thing be printed on a glossy card stock and placed in an admissions office? What information does this actually convey? Does it differentiate the department at all from the similarly prestigous programs at Harvard, Michigan, Yale, Berkeley, etc. who could make similarly imprecise claims?
    • "The department has continued to thrive since its establishment in the nineteenth century. Its achievements in psychological research, scholarship, and instruction have been continually recognized." - Yawn.
    • "one of the country's foremost authorities", "a leading figure" - must not be that influential if they don't have a wikipedia article :) Give me concrete reasons why they were influential rather than subjecting me to thesauric abuse. If there is no wikipedia article for them, give me some context: What posts did they hold, what theories did they develop, what books did they publish, what students did they advise....
    • "The decision to build depth as well as breadth resulted in a vigorous and popular department. Interdisciplinary research and scholarship has flourished thanks to a group of faculty and students who work across traditional lines"
    • "The complex will house state-of-the-art labs, faculty offices, and classrooms in an attempt to push the university to the forefront of neuroscience and behavioral science research." - So the department's current facilities are implicitly not state-of-the-art and its reputation is not at the forefront of neuroscience and behavioral science? Seems to undermine the rest of the article's content. This imprecision is the exact reason why boosterism must be actively combatted.
    • "No science department can be complete without an academic library that houses the scientific documents that are essential to conduct research and to teach." - Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of publishing syllogisms.
    • "the library gained a stunning Reading Room" - sounds dangerous.
  • Rather than a "sentence-ized" list of faculty and a lazily attributed "These programs range from..." for desribing the various research programs, the article might be better served (and two birds downed with one stone) if each faculty member's background was presented in some context with his or her own research lab/program
  • The subsections in graduate programs read like overwrought mission statements, not encyclopedic descriptions of each program's foundation, associated faculty, specific examples of previous and current work, student body, degree requirements, descriptive statistics, etc.
  • The various awards should be linked not to their namesakes, but to the article describing the award on either the association page or a stand-alone article if they are so notable.
  • You mention 6 notable theories in the lead but provide no further mention about who developed them, in what historical and intellectual context they were promoted and received, etc. Is there a distinctive "Princeton school of psychology" as there is a "Chicago school of economics", for example?
  • As mentioned above, the alumni list seems to flirt with running afoul of WP:NOT#DIR - I don't think it's appropriate to list every alumnus or alumna who ever assumed a faculty position, but how then to draw a line? Certainly, one shouldn't select only those appointments to "prestigous" schools. If they have a wikipedia article or would fulfill WP:PROF if they don't yet have one, both would be reasonable (though certainly imperfect) metrics.
  • Has nothing negative ever happened within the department? Surely it is not a utopian city upon a hill. Contentious tenure disputes? Resignations and departures? Conflicting feelings about participation in WWII, Cold War, Vietnam, student protesters in the 1960s? Changing undergraduate population and curriculum requirements? Hiring diverse faculty? Reductions in federal funding? The answers to some of these might run aground of WP:OR, but a stroll through Lexis Nexis should turn up some dirt on any program so prestigious and well-established.

The page would have to undergo a serious rewrite and expansion to address my concerns, but I would be happy to follow along and would love to see more representation of specific programs and departments at FA. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I endorse the above in large part, but not completely.
  • The importance of the department, is the academic work of its faculty. The education part is hard to do quantitatively. The enrollments have varied over the years and I dont think they're a straight-line record of increasing success continually. It is indicated by the alumni.
    • The list of doctoral alumni shows many people who obviously need WP articles, and I would make them first, and eliminate the rest.
    • As long as the BA graduates are limited to those who became famous psychologists, a case can be made for them too. But write the articles.
  • The research part needs a fuller description of the major groups that had significant influence. Some of the recent work here has had revolutionary implications, and it isnt mentioned specifically, cf. the overly brief article about Elizabeth Gould--and not just her.
  • As for publications, besides Psychological Review, where is and Stevan Harnad's innovative journal Psycoloquy?
  • The extent to which the department had a clinical emphasis at different times needs to be discussed. The extent to which is had a psychoanalytic emphasis at different times needs to be discussed. It's possible to find statistics. I am not quite sure you'll find much in the way of useful published opinions.
  • In general the article is vague, hagiographic, sounds like PR, and is not up to date. For example, para 1 of the Library section is a copyvio; para 2 is out of date, and probably an older copyvio. I wonder about the rest of the article--the Princeton web site is not GFDL.
  • the final sentence mention the projected move to a new building. Only those who know Princeton will realize it is to the opposite end of the campus; there are some implication with respect to change of orientation from psychology as a social science to psychology as a natural science.
  • There is some controversy about articles for individual academic departments. I think this is one department that probably does warrant such an article, and there is enough material to show it. But it shouldn't be FA until it can serve as a model for the others.DGG (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the page blanking by the nominator,[89] and will withdraw the nom. Please leave the {{fac}} template on the page until the Bot comes through, per WP:FAC/ar. WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 has tips on how to initiate and invite volunteers to a peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:21, 3 August 2008 [90].

Ozzie Smith

Nominator(s): Monowi
previous FAC (00:05, 31 March 2008)

I am nominating Ozzie Smith as a featured article candidate for the second time after an in-depth peer review. Monowi (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, one problem I see right off the bat is that there are no references in the lead at all, even though there are a lot of stats, awards, etc. written in there. These should all have references.
  • There's inconsistency on punctuation when quotation marks are used. All periods, commas, question marks, etc., should either be inside (recommended) or outside the punctuation.
  • This is incorrect, actually. Wikipedia follows logical quotation in that "punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation"; emphasis mine. Punctuation usage such as Nicknamed "The Wizard of Oz", Smith won... is correct. María (habla conmigo) 14:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, that just looks wrong. Goes against everything I was taught in school, but I suppose it makes sense. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are just two quick things that I saw in a very quick look. I don't have the experience (or the time, at the moment) to really, really give this a hard look. Hope I could help a little. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this defunct external link by changing the reference so that it cites the actual printed source material, not an online version of the article. Monowi (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After replacing current reference #103 in the article, the Baseball Almanac is no longer cited in the article. Monowi (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As posted below, the reference that used redorbit (#63) has now been replaced by an alternative one from ESPN.com. Monowi (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with recent edits I've made to references #25, 63, & 72, (see discussion below, also note refs. 63 & 72 are now 62 & 71 respectively) The baseball cube is no longer used as a reference in the article. Monowi (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise links checked out with the link checker, sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Reference, Baseball Almanac and Baseball Cube are recommended by WP:BASEBALL as reliable sources (see previous FAC). KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball-Reference is owned by the same group that runs Pro-Football-Reference, a site which you have listed as a reliable source at User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reliability of both baseball-almanac.com and baseball cube was addressed during the last FAC. If I'm not mistaken Ealdgyth, you posted on 29 March 2008 that those issues had been resolved. Monowi (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They were both outside the caps when the FAC closed, so I didn't consider them addressed then. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a discussion of Baseball Almanac at the baseball WikiProject. It's certainly not promising. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for info on how to answer queries about reliable sources; saying a given Project considers it reliable doesn't address the policy question (WP:V). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what references are from these questionable sources.
  • Ref 25: I would just reuse reference 1 for the Gold Glove streak. As for the single-season assist record, here's a fairly up-to-date page from the Hall of Fame.[91]
Thanks for the link to the more authoritative Baseball HOF article for the assist record citation; I've replaced ref #25 with this web article. Monowi (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 35: Can't find anything online, so a book may be needed here. This Yankee fan doesn't have an appropriate one.
  • Ref 63: Here's an ESPN replacement.[92]
Another great alternative link that I just swapped into the article; thanks! Monowi (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 72: Baseball-Reference has both of these facts on their Smith page. According to BR, it took more than a month for the Cardinals to sign Smith, contradicting the article. Perhaps this should be looked into.
Issue addressed. I looked up the info on the baseball-reference page, and it cited retrosheet as the source for the transaction info. So, I've now cited Ozzie's retrosheet page for the dates of his free agency period, Nov. 2 to Dec. 6. Thanks for pointing out the murky time frame that had been written before; much better now. Monowi (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reference #104 (now #103) was used to verify Ozzie is first in all-time assists and chances at shortstop. I found an article authored by Business Wire that verified these facts, and I subsequently replaced the Baseball Almanac reference with it. Monowi (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I wasn't reviewing yet during the first FAC, so I'm new to this one. Let's see what improvements I can find.

  • "A fifteen-time All-Star" Numbers of 10 or higher are typically not spelled out.
reverted "fifteen" to "15" in the lead. Monowi (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Smith played his first four seasons with the San Diego Padres where he established himself" Comma after Padres?
  • "When turmoil with Padres' ownership developed..." Something seems off here. Add the after turmoil?
  • Early life: To avoid any confusion, it would be nice to mention that the book was his autobiography. "As a passage from his autobiography Wizard describes" should do nicely.
Revision completed. Monowi (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Living in L.A., Smith was an LA Dodgers fan" Should these uses of LA be spelled out? If not, they should be made consistent.
Issue addressed; sentence now reads, "Smith was a Los Angeles Dodgers fan, and would ride the bus for nearly an hour to get to Dodger Stadium, attending about 25 games a year." Monowi (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he went on to play baseball and basketball" Try tightening it like this: "he played baseball and basketball".
Revision made; definitely sounds much better now. Monowi (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link at-bats and stolen bases. It's important for non-baseball fans to know what these mean.
Done. Monowi (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Padre years: Hyphen for now defunct?
  • San Diego Padres linked twice in section.
It appears you're referring to the lead; both "San Diego Padres" and "St. Louis Cardinals" were wikilinked twice in the lead, but I have now corrected this. Monowi (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I meant the Padre years section. I missed it in the lead. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Smith credits Padre manager Alvin Dark for instilling confidence in him" Does he still credit him? If not, I'd prefer credited.

I still think this needs some work. I'd like to do some cleanup myself if I get time, but this is all for now. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I did a bunch of cleaning up a few days ago, mostly in the form of removing excess links. Here are some more things I discovered while editing the page.
  • Still in Padre years: "As Smith describes the play in his own words" sounds redundant.
  • "evidenced by an 0 for 32 start to the 1979 season." I'm worried that this will not be easy for non-baseball fans to understand. "; he started 1979 by going hitless in his first 32 at bats" might be clearer, but I'm sure my prose can be bettered.
Sentence now reads, "Despite his profound defensive abilities, Smith's hitting was still a work in progress, as he failed to get a base hit in his first 32 at-bats of the 1979 season." Monowi (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Padres' owner should be mentioned by name in the section where Smith clashes with ownership. Ray Kroc owned the team, if I'm not mistaken.
Added specific mention of Ray Kroc and his wife Joan in that sentence, utilizing the reference that was already cited for that sentence. Monowi (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trade: "With relations between Gottlieb and Padres ownership quickly deteriorating..." Wait a second. Isn't Smith the relevant party in this article? At least mention his name. This also doesn't match the previous section.
  • 1982 season: "Herzog's newly assembled team won 12 games in a row during the month of April..." Removing these words will make the writing sharper.
  • "Smith exhibited traits that coincided with the essence of Whiteyball." This is a complicated way of describing baseball strategy. How about "Smith exhibited traits that were ideally suited for Whiteyball."?
  • Go crazy folks: First, should this section title be "Go crazy folks", seeing as it is part of a quote?
  • "ending Game 5 in a 3–2 Cardinal victory." I'm not in love with this and would prefer "giving the Cardinals a 3–2 victory." Of course, this could be my familarity with post-game recaps.
  • I have a major problem with this wording: "However, a blown call by Don Denkinger rendered Smith's defensive prowess moot, as the Royals took the Series in seven games." To start with, this should say that Denkinger was an umpire to avoid confusion. More importantly, this is borderline POV in favor of the Cardinals. It was a horrible call, but what isn't mentioned is a pair of defensive mistakes by Will Clark and Darrell Porter, respectively, after the umpire's error. St. Louis still could have won the game, and had another chance in Game 7. Also, the .185 team batting average was for the whole series, not heading into Game 6.
Point taken. I have re-written this specific paragraph to reduce potential bias. The main sentence about this now reads, "After the Cardinals took a three games to two advantage, a controversial call by umpire Don Denkinger during Game 6 overshadowed the remainder of the Series, which the Royals won in seven games." I also removed the inaccuracy about the Cardinals .185 team batting avg. that was portrayed as being prior to Game 6, and its accompanying reference. The tidbit about the .185 avg being for the entire Series doesn't easily fit into the new version of the text, and isn't essential to Ozzie's article anyway. I also have retained the same reference (currently #52) about Denkiger's call, as this reference can still back up the re-worded sentence that is currently in the article. Monowi (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Torre era: "then notching a triple in front of the home crowd for his 2,000 hit." Incorrect grammar that I missed the first time through. Should be 2,000th hit.
Fixed. Monowi (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now. I'll come back for a few more once these are done, but I don't expect to find much more wrong. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is no mention anywhere in this article of Busch stadium's artificial turf (or its pitcher friendly dimensions) and how that affected both his offensive and defensive value, and the way he played the game. The effect was significant. You do mention Whiteyball, and that article talks about turf and the ballpark, but the defensive effect of artificial turf (favoring quicker more agile fielders like Ozzie) was at least as great as the offensive effect, and I would expect a brief allusion to both in an article about any of Herzog's players. Here are a few refernces I turned up with a quick search [93], [94], [95]. Not to see any mention at all of the topic in such an otherwise comprehensive article was a little jarring. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note; I've tried to decipher why this FAC has gotten so little feedback, when it looks pretty sound structurally. I suspect what is holding up Support is a tendency towards unencyclopedic prose, with a slight tendency towards peacockery. Perhaps work on that angle, with some copyeditors, before bringing it back to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ ABC Medianet, (March 11, 2008) "Season Program Rankings". Retrieved on March 11, 2008.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference stbr was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference scan was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/August_2008&oldid=235007897"