I'm renominating this for FA. Unfortunately, at the end of the first nomination I had lost interest in continuing writing for Wikipedia, but I seemed to have rekindled my interest. I fixed the issues I thought were pertinent from the last FAC; some issues I didn't "resolve", since I didn't feel that they were correct. But, if they are brought up again this time I will respond. I have also done some copyediting with the article, and will continue to do so as the FAC continues. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk)21:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from lead by Giggy
I don't particularly like having a redlink in the first sentence... can you create it or remove the link?
"but also to reduce Spain's reliance on American equipment in its army" - "but also" --> "and"?
"Although the first AMX-30 tanks were acquired from France in 1970, production in Spain commenced in 1974 and ended in 1983." - maybe remove the "Although" and put a semicolon after "1970"
"It was Spain's first mass produced tank and developed the country's industry to the point where the government felt it could produce a tank on its own and open bidding for the future Lince tank in 1985, and offered Santa Bárbara Sistemas the experience which led to the production of the Leopard 2E in late 2003" - run on sentence. The two "ands" make it even more clunky. Needs splitting and rewording. Also, should "open" be "opened"?
Actually, I believe that the company originally went by the name of Empresa Nacional Santa Bárbara, but when it was privatized at some point after the death of Franco it renamed itself to Santa Bárbara Sistemas. They merged with General Dynamics and are now known as General Dynamics Santa Bárbara Sistemas (what the article should probably be called, when I create it). Unfortunately, the company's website which has a short history of itself doesn't really specify these dates - http://www.gdsbs.com/web/frame.asp . I know when the company merged, but I'd need to scour through source material I have to see if the first name change date is mentioned anywhere. JonCatalán(Talk)01:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but one comment: do you have the names of the other companies that were involved in the production of the tank? It's mentioned in the lead section, but I don't see it anywhere elaborated on. That's my only gripe. Octane[improve me?] 23.09.08 1802 (UTC)
Comment A well written and referenced article, as always. However, in my opinion the article (especially the introduction) is a bit boring to pass criterion 1a. For example, the introduction focuses on the production history of the tank and Spanish industrial capacity. Compare with Panzer I introduction that focuses on combat history and performance characteristics - firepower, protection & mobility. Maybe the AMX-30E did not see combat (if so, this should be stated), but there is a performance comparison with the Leopard but this section was not very clear to me (relevance of the T-55?) and should be in the intro, in my opinion. I hope this helps to brings this to FA. Dhatfield (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I expanded the introduction a bit, and I hope it looks better now. I didn't delve too deep into the comparison between the AMX-30 and the Leopard 1, but I did mention that one was chosen over the other. In regards to the mention of the T-55, I changed it to "contemporary tank" since that is also supported by the text that it references. Hopefully, that sentence is a bit clearer and more relevant, now. JonCatalán(Talk)02:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still think you should put a short explanatory tag next to the "Designed/Produced 1974" part of the infobox, as it clashes with the other dates given. Just say (Spanish production) or something like that.
"However, both trade deals fell through" - I'm not sure if putting qualifiers at the beginning of a sentence is bad or not, but it sounds bad. Just state "Both trade deals fell through", and perhaps follow up with a statement that no AMXs are still in service (or if they still are?) to cap the lead?
"By 1960" - change to "In", as "by" suggests some sort of tank plan was in effect to phase in these vehicles, but that's not here or there.
"This agreement also laid" - redundancy
"Prior to the end of production of the first batch, on 27 March 1979" to "On 27 March 1979, prior to the end of production of the first batch, [...]"
"...without having to go through GIAT" - informal language. Reword to "without having to consult with GIAT" or whatever more formal term you want.
"Ultimately, a mixed solution named Tecnología Santa Bárbara-Bazán (Santa Bárbara-Bazán Technology) (or TSB) was chosen." Is this the name of the solution or the name of a company?
"However, the deal was canceled after José María Aznar was replaced by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero as president of Spain—to seal the decision, the new Spanish government declared that Spain didn't even have enough AMX-30EM2s in working condition to sell to Colombia." Somewhat contradictory language used here. Perhaps just cut the "to seal the decision".
Everything should be done. I tweaked the infobox, although I don't think it looks good, but I agree that it might be slightly confusing when the text says that France issued the first AMX-30Es in 1970. As the sentence says, Tecnología Santa Bárbara-Bazán was the name of the modernization package. Other than that, it should all be done. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk)00:10, 29 September 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 album was recorded from 2004 to 2005" - is that really the best way to phrase it? Passive voice and very strange wording...
"The album... The album... The album... zzzzz..." - in more than one place.
"While touring in 2004, the band recorded live shows with the intent of creating a live album and to help keep their performance at a high level for the album." - I've read this five times and I still don't understand what it means.
"year-long" - methinks that should be "yearlong".
I'm uncertain about the structure of the article. The "Recording and production" has information about the content of the album, which might be better split off into another section.
All done. As for splitting up the section, if a new one was created, it would be pretty small. The information does somewhat tie in to the creation/production of the album so it does somewhat belong there. GaryKing (talk)00:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know the article is short, but I always like to see a two paragraph lead at the minimum.
The album also includes tracks which are rarely played live, as well as the first ever live performance of the song "Skin Ticket". 9.0: Live peaked in the top twenty in album sales in Australia and the United States and was certified Gold in the United States. Link Australia and United States.
Is it standard to leave the Track listing section unsourced?
I don't think there is enough information to really substantiate a two paragraph lead. The lead would appear to overpower the rest of the article more than it should. Australia and United States are common enough terms that readers don't need to be educated on them by linking them. Track listing is typically unsourced. GaryKing (talk)01:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it covers everything that needs covering it should pass, unfortunately I don't know enough about the content matter itself to determine if it is all covered. Good luck though. — Realist220:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: In the US it peaked at #17 and was certified gold. In other countries it did worse. IMHO I would not characterize this as "selling well", I could easily pull up numerous sources where these sales figures would be panned as a flop. I think it needs to be made more clear that these are relatively good sales considering it is a live album, that you might just be able to get away with. The fact that you have only dedicated two lines to the commercial appeal is unfortunate and should be expanded. — Realist220:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Easy enough, the commercial aspect could be expanded still, am I right in thinking singles were released from this album? — Realist221:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both were recorded for Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses), but not released until after 9.0 was. The music videos for both songs use footage from live performances, most likely recorded on the 9.0 tour. For example "The Blister Exists" wasn't released until 2007, three years after Vol. 3. So I don't know technically which album they were for, I would lean toward Vol. 3 (they are listed as singles on its article). Blackngold2901:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what constitutes then being classed as being released from the album. Is it being released in support of the album or actually being the recording that is used on the album? Here are the videos from the singles; The Nameless and I can confirm that... that IS the same recording that appears on the 9.0 Live album. The Blister Exists and I can confirm that, that is the recording from Vol. 3. The Nameless is a single from 9.0 Live because it was released as a promotional single around the time 9.0 Live was released and it IS the recording from 9.0 Live, however Blister Exists isn't a single from this album because was released as a promotional single around the same time that Voliminal: Inside The Nine was released and features the recording from Vol. 3. REZTERTALKø13:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"The album also includes tracks which are rarely played live, as well as the first ever live performance of the song "Skin Ticket"" - maybe "including" instead of "as well as"?
The flow in the Recording and production section would be improved by throwing in some "Slipknot" or "they" rather than "the band" all the time.
*Oppose The "Reception" section neatly excises any unfavourable comment on the album - for instance, the Rolling Stone quote removes the part about "the songs' samey-ness" whilst there is nothing about the Popmatters criticism that the album suffers from being made up from various shows. Also, there's nothing about the main criticism of the album - its poor mix, alluded to in the popmatters review and detailed more clearly here and here for example. Yes, the album got generally good reviews, but that doesn't mean you can ignore any flaws completely! Black Kite09:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more Rolling Stone and PopMatters stuff, as suggested. I'll leave it to the other guys to use the other reviews, if they wish. —Giggy10:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just looking quickly at the Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) I can see that that one also covers in some detail the promotion, the artwork, and musical and lyrical themes. I will take a look soon, but only based on these I think the article fails on the broadness criteria. Nergaal (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that this is a live album, right? Musical and lyrical themes belong to the articles for the albums where the songs actually come from. This album is a compilation of songs from other albums. The musicOMH is another review from a notable music website; there's no Wikipedia article for it so there's nothing to link to. GaryKing (talk)17:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notable? How can you prove that? For sure it is not well known enough to just list it without having a note or anything like that. Also, are there any other FA-class live albums from other bands? Nergaal (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are any other FA-class live albums; there are many studio albums I can point you to, though, but don't think there are any that are live. Yet. musicOMH is a reliable source, which is why its review is used. GaryKing (talk)17:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not debating weather it is a reliable source or not (I assumed it was). But to a random reader stumping onto a FA should be able to understand what random hames like this ones mean. Since it is not well known and it does not have an article, I think it deserves at least a note to what is it if this is going to be an FA. Nergaal (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's format is different from the others so at first glance it might not be obvious what it is. I have removed it as we have three other reviews in its place. GaryKing (talk)18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot remember what particular article it was, but I remember seeing that every review quoted in the review section should be in the infobox. And if a Starred or Grade is not given, it should be summed up as "Positive", Negative, or Mixed. I think the MusicOMH review should be re-added for this reason. Blackngold2919:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Observation. This article has 598 words prose, about 1/4 the average size of album articles (2420 words) and less than half the size of the smallest of the 26 album FAs I checked (Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) at 1288 words). [Raw data available if desired]. This article is extremely short which raises concerns about the comprehensive criterion. In my view, a comprehensive article ought to cover what's expected of fully-developed articles on a similar topic. This is a live album so some aspects of a studio album don't apply, but cover art and marketing are common sections and seem applicable. Most album articles have something about themes or style - the comparable question here is: why were these songs chosen over others, and perhaps why was one performance chosen over another (if they did more than one live performances of the same song). On some topics it may only take 600 words to cover everything we know, but then omitting anything would be a problem. Larger articles would probably be allowed more flexibility to cover some aspects of the topic lightly. Gimmetrow04:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree he has some valid points, the problem is we can only add what we have reliable sources for. The band is pretty secretive about some things, they still don't show their faces in many public events, certainly not in concert. I would love to add this stuff, and I'll look, but I wouldn't be surprised not to find much more than we already have. I think the key item of criteria is "comprehensive length" not x words of length. Blackngold2903:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the FAC says "it neglects no major facts or details". I don't think not having information on the cover art (which we have no information or sources for) and the promotion (which was really just "The Nameless" single [I have added this info]), is neglecting major facts or details. REZTERTALKø14:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that really short articles should explain somehow that they cover everything we know. I also wonder, if "everything we know" doesn't cover something we ought to know, but it's reasonable it will be known in the future, should that article be considered comprehensive now? Gimmetrow16:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the article is "short" is relative and isn't part of the criteria, it is the comprehensiveness that matters. I don't know what info would "be known in the future", as if somebody would write an article about the cover art of the album three years after it was released? I understand that this is the first live album GA and possibly FA and we want to set a high standard for future noms, but we've covered recording, reception, and explained certain aspects (the vocal announcement, rare songs) to the best that our sources allow us. If I wanted to learn something about an album, that would be the info I would want to know, not who drew the picture on the front. Obviously if that info could be found it would be nice to include it, but I don't see it on the FA criteria list.
What I'm trying to say is: As per the FA criteria the article is supposed to be comprensive. I believe that it is as comprehensive as it could possibly be. Obviously if new info comes to light, it will be added. But I don't see how one could say it needs to be more comprehensive, when it is as good as it's gonna get. Believe me I would love to add ten paragraphs of info to it, but there just isn't any info to do that. Blackngold2916:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very "short" articles tend to leave the reader unsatisfied, so they get looked at more carefully for things that wouldn't matter so much in a 2000 word article. I didn't put "objection" up there; I'm trying to come to some agreement how to handle such articles. But for something specific: the only thing I knew about this album before reading this article was that the album contained "Purity", the song left off another album for copyright reasons. Perhaps explain how the song was OK on this album? Gimmetrow16:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I mean, I would love to add an explination of the appearance of "Purity", but I don't have one; reliable or otherwise. Perhaps we should make it more evident that info such as "lyrical and musical themes" is included on the articles of the first three albums? Would adding a summary of these themes for a few songs be repeating too much info? Blackngold2916:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What if we added a section with a {{main}} template that links to all of the appropriate musical themes sections? Kind of like how actors have a "Filmography" section with just a main template to the filmography. GaryKing (talk)17:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we have to do that? That would be blatant WP:OR and it's like trying to work out why they pick certain songs for a live set. You don't have to do that for live performance DVDs so why would you have to do it for a live album? REZTERTALKø22:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If neither the band nor anyone associated with them ever said why they put certain rare tracks on the album, fine, but if they did, it should be there. The overall question is how to handle very short articles, or would it be OK to have an article like Adrastus of Cyzicus as an FA if it comprehensively covered its topic? If we had a rule that articles under (say) 1200 words could be FA but not appear on the main page, it might relieve some of the concern. Gimmetrow00:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're getting at, but I think it would be a mistake to require X amount of words. One of my most recent english teachers oft stressed the point of concise writing, and that better writing often comes from fewer words of better quality. If you were to say 1200 words is minimum, you might have people taking good 1100 word articles and adding words in just to increase the length, while at the same time they're decreasing quality. It doesn't seem fair to me that we have articles with every known published fact on the topic and they fail GA because they're too short, though I can understand failing them for FA. To me, the Adrastus of Cyzicus article doesn't seem to cover a notable enough topic to warrant an article. Blackngold2903:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GA shouldn't have a length requirement - that was the basic idea of GA. The Adrastus page was something of an extreme example, but there certainly are historical and other topics where everything known can be covered in 600-800 words, maybe less. These should have no problem passing GA. I don't even have a major concern with FA status for a short article if there is a good argument against merging, and the case is made that it's everything we know (for Adrastus you can cite historians making statements not only that we know X, but that X is all we know). But appearing on the main page is something more. My general impression is that "short" articles rarely appear on the main page unless they are "traditional" encyclopedia topics. Gimmetrow22:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"during the Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) world tour" I think this is too much for an infobox? It is better if mentioned in the main text.
"9.0: Live peaked in the top twenty in album sales in Australia and the United States and was certified Gold in the United States." Too much "in"?
"the band recorded concerts" you mean a video footage?
”Crahan said the band was encouraged to pay more attention to detail than usual” Is Crahan part of the band? Sorry but I don’t know of Slipknot. Also, the detail refers to?
”Crahan said the band was encouraged to pay more attention to detail than usual, saying, "when you've got a microphone hanging onto your every note, you tend to give maybe 115 percent instead of 110 percent." I think this part breaks the flow of the paragraph?
”In October 2005, Slipknot promoted Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) during a world tour, which included 233 concerts spanning 28 months in 34 countries.” Is this part of the promotion of 9.0. Live?
”9.0: Live peaked in the top twenty for album sales in the United States and Australia” The table says that the album peaked in Australia at number 26. Maybe its Austria.
I removed the Nuclear Blast label as there was no citation, if it's true can someone re-add it and clarify where they released it. I don't know what to write about the producers, most don't even have their own articles. From my understanding there was very little mixing, the tracks appear as they were recorded. Everything else has been adressed. Blackngold2905:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Johnny Loftus of Allmusic complimented the band's "relentless touring".
I think this should be removed in the lead. Maybe you can summarize what was the reviewers say about the album. Also, the lead can be divided into paras? --Efe (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article's prose summarizes all information about the album's commercial performance in one sentence. Even if all the available sources were used in the article, it should at minimum summarize the information in the "Chart positions" table. But it doesn't, and there are sources out there that give further information about the album's chart history, which aren't used in this article. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is reflected in the final sentence of the reception section. If there are additional sources please feel free to add them or leave them here. Blackngold2919:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now by karanacs. I think the article is a good start but it needs more polishing to meet the FA criteria. I am completely unfamiliar with this band and this album, and I felt a bit lost in a few places because of that. I've tried to detail those below.
This article needs a copyedit by an uninvolved editor. I made a stab at the lead, but the remainder of the article needs a bit of work.
For example, many of the sentences in Recording and production don't currently flow well.
You should also watch your word choices - "first ever " is not very encyclopedic - why not just "first"?
Done
There is a lot of passive voice - "the band was encouraged to pay more attention " - encouraged by whom or by what?
Altered
watch for repetitive wording. All three sentences in Promotion say blah blah "was released" blah blah.
Done
"and the rare track "Purity" which was removed from debut album Slipknot due to copyright issues" - were the copyright issues resolved? how?
Is there any information on why they chose to use songs that are rarely played live rather than there more popular material? I believe most live albums contain more popular material, and that might deserve a mention.
"The vocal introduction to 9.0: Live informing the audience that the band would not be performing was staged by the band to incite anger in the audience" - huh? This needs a bit more explanation.
I altered it slightly, but what do you want to know? An annoucement was made that "Slipknot will not be performing this evening" to make fans angry and get them pumped up for the first song. Blackngold2919:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"commented that the fans' relationship with Slipknot " - is there any detail on what he means here? I don't get it.
The Allmusic or the PopMatters review? Both mentioned the fans. In a few reviews, such as the Allmusic review, I tried to show the band's relationship with their fans, because that's obviously a large part of their shows. Blackngold2919:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me, there just doesn't seem enough info here to establish a relationship. We are told that one exists, but it would be better to be shown examples of what these reviewers are meaning. Karanacs (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please double-check the Reception section to make sure that there is a citation at the end of each sentence with a quote, even if that means citations are duplicated in consecutive sentences. I see at least one issue there.
Done
I don't understand why the lead uses the quote about "relentless touring". That is not really as much about the album as some of the other quotations that could have been used.
I think this is a poor choice of quote for the lead, as it doesn't really seem to fit. Use one that specifically describes the album instead. Karanacs (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reaching GA status in February and A-class status from WP:FILMS earlier this month, I would like to make my first attempt at an FA with this article. The article is well-sourced, comprehensive, and up-to-date. I'm ready for the additional fixes that I'm sure will be required, and would appreciate any and all feedback. I will try to address any issues as quickly as possible. Thanks for taking a look and happy reviewing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Could more be said about the themes or style (pace/tone) of the movie? There is a gem in the "The pageant" section: It's about being out of place, it's about not knowing where you're going to end up... and this review provides more analysis [5]. Many reviews typically touch upon these elements. --maclean07:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I just went through and added several quotes from Arndt (the film's writer) about the themes of the film along with several reviewers reflecting on the themes of the film. Although there could be a central section covering the themes, I think that where I just placed the quotes in their respective sections provides for a better transition to each section while also expressing the themes relating to each topic. If you think it should be expanded/corrected, let me know and I'll work on it further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is a blog, it has an interview directly with the directors of the film. The interview is not published elsewhere and it is used for sourcing multiple statements in the article, including several in the casting section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't determine any other mention of the blog in other sources, but I believe the direct personal interview to be reliable. This is the only location where the interview is located, likely since the author is the one who conducted the interview. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have some trouble proving that some of these sites are reliable sources. What you need is a bona fide other reliable source (such as a newspaper) that quotes them or out-and-out declares them reliable. For example, an interview in The Evening Class blog is quoted in the San Francisco Bay Guardianhere. That might cut it, but if you could find others it'd go a long way to helping this FAC. SteveT • C20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This site to me wouldn't normally be reliable for anything else besides the production notes they host. The production notes were provided by Fox Searchlight, and this site merely hosts it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took another look at this site, and in its Copyrights, Notices and General Information section, it states "This site contains movie-related information compiled by Visual Hollywood as well as links to reviews on external sites that are not affiliated with Visual Hollywood in any way. The information compiled by Visual Hollywood as well as the links to reviews are provided "as is" with no warranty, express or implied, for their accuracy or reliability." The site looks like it copied the production notes (these are usually provided in press kits and are posted on various sites word-for-word). Would something like this work better? It goes directly to a PDF file of the production notes. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a copyvio; the document was made freely available. As for the hosting site, www.terrassa.cat is the official website of the municipal government of the Spanish city of Terrassa. What the hell they're doing hosting that document, I have no idea. SteveT • C20:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it is a educational site (in Spanish), but I can't determine too much more beyond that. I found the exact same production notes on several other websites and they are probably just as reliable as Visual Hollywood or this site. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. If someone who speaks Spanish can verify it's an educational site, it'd work fine as a reliable source. If it's verified as such, I'd put a small note (Spanish educational site from the city of Terrassa) somewhere in the note to help readers out. Ealdgyth - Talk14:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just added this link yesterday, and the site includes video interviews with a variety of people. The link for the citation links to an hour-long interview with the writer which is used for several cites throughout the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This other reviewer hasn't a problem with the content from this site (at least, this particular video). The writer is blatantly identifiable on the video; common sense should apply here. SteveT • C20:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site is hosted by the San Francisco Film Society, and has an interview directly with the writer of the film. The interview is not published elsewhere and it is used for sourcing multiple statements in the article, including several in the production section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article from this site documents the major acquisition deals at the Sundance Film Festival prior to and in the year of LMS's release. If this still isn't considered reliable, I can try to find another one to replace it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a site about various movie coverage, and used it since it had an interview with the actors related to their experiences while filming within the van. Several of the sourced statements in the production section are from this interview and couldn't be found elsewhere. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Rotten Tomatoes, the author writes only for MovieWeb and is used for citing several reviews for the site. The interview is only available on this website and I could not find it published elsewhere. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's an interview, but there is always the concern that interviews might be slanted and/or distorted, which is why interviews done by large newspapers/etc. are preferred. Personally, I lean towards unreliable, but I'm a bit more strict about interview reliability than most folks on Wikipedia, so I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site has an interview directly with two of the actors of the film. The interview is not published elsewhere and it is used for sourcing a statement in the production section. If this is not determined to be reliable, I can remove it, as the DVD commentary source right before it states the same thing. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rotten Tomatoes uses this website for a source for its reviews. I've looked for the location of the interview elsewhere, but the author only writes for movieweb and posted the personal interview there. I also found one newspaper source that used the site for a reference here. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site has an interview with the directors of the film. The interview is not published elsewhere and it is used for sourcing a statement in the pageant section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the site being used as a source in several newspaper stories but only for the reviews the site posts. I am using this site for a source as it is the only location of a personal interview of one of the authors with the directors. According to Rotten Tomatoes, the author has written for Empire magazine and has other reviews with other celebrities. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline but probably okay given the nature of the information being sourced. (Production details don't need to meet a BLP type standard). Ealdgyth - Talk14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site has an interview with the directors of the film. The interview is not published elsewhere and it is used for sourcing a statement in the pageant section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rotten Tomatoes uses this website for a source for its reviews and interviews. I've looked for the location of the interview elsewhere, but I believe the author only writes for movie-vault and posted the personal interview there. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards not on this one, without any other supporting information that the author is used elsewhere or other sources use this site as a source. Ealdgyth - Talk14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This site is similar to Box Office Mojo and has comprehensive coverage of box office receipts and DVD sales. It is used here to cite the DVD sales figures. On the site, it says it got the figures from "...estimates based on studio figures, publicly available data, and private research on retail sales carried out by Nash Information Services." --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found the site being used as a source in several newspapers including this and this, along with the "About Us" page saying the research used for determining its box office/DVD figures is "used by many independent producers, investment companies, web sites and entertainment companies." --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is a blog it is the most comprehensive list I have found so far for the list of awards of the film. If it is deemed not reliable, I can start looking for other sites that cover the awards. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced at least half of the previous citations used for this site, but can't find any other reliable sites for the other awards, except for the main page for the film at Fox Searchlight found here. Would this be a better replacement? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fox site is fine. Yes, it's a primary source, but this isn't contentious information here, just awards. Any that you can list directly from the awards site would be better done so, but for anything you can't find, the fox site works fine. Let me know when you replace them and I'll strike this one. Ealdgyth - Talk14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed this was a newspaper service, but looking at our own article on the site, it appears that individual people write guides on various topics. It also states: "The content is written by a network of over 700 journalists, called Guides, who have some experience in their particular fields." Would you consider this to be reliable, if the author is a journalist who likely has experience in film award coverage? I've sourced the same author four times throughout the article (including the three links below this one). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this bio for Rebecca Murray ascertain her position as a reliable author? She belongs to several professional journalism/critics' associations and is an approved critic for Rotten Tomatoes, a reliable source used within the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Vancouver Film Critics Circle doesn't have their own webpage, there aren't too many reliable sources covering its nominees/winners. The only other source I could find was the main page for the film at Fox Searchlight found here. Would this be a better replacement? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is for a local newspaper. Looking at its press room page it states that "Newsblaze draws from articles and press releases from the United Nations, NATO, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Iraqi government, environmental groups and other organizations." I didn't find anything on the site stating it was just a local newspaper. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is being used in the "Filming" subsection of the Production section to cite that nine theaters were used to premiere the film at the festival. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that .. I think we're okay with going with it. Just be aware that if anyone challenges that oh-so-uncontentious information, you probably want a better source to back it up. I doubt it gets challenged though. Ealdgyth - Talk14:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per the MOS, all capitals shouldn't be used in link titles.
Thanks for reviewing, I appreciate you taking the time. I'll work on removing the source I consider unreliable, but please let me know if my arguments for the others need further explanation or aren't good enough. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability 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 reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk21:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to determine the reliability of each site and placed my rationale for each site above. Please let me know for each one if the rationale is insufficient or requires more information. For the Alternate Film Guide blog site, I've done my best to replace its citations with more reliable sources, but still have 3-4 occurrences left that I can't find more reliable sources for. I'll keep looking, but let me know if the Fox Searchlight site mentioned above is sufficient. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:LittleMissSunshineCast.jpg - This fair use rationale claims that "The image has been published outside of Wikipedia, including the above source", but it lists no source and the image is self-made. Perhaps this part of the rationale should be removed?
Removed the line. What happened was that I initially had used a screenshot I found on another site, but I replaced it with a screenshot I made myself, and forgot to remove it. Good job catching that. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:LittleMissSunshinePageant.jpg - This image has a tag that says the image comes from a press kit, which includes the statement: "This tag should only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media." - Are we sure that this Flickr image came from such a source?
Looking at the image, and comparing it the film, there is no exact screenshot that duplicates this image, so it must be from a press kit (or some similar source). This is the only image I found like this, and I watched the pageant scene several times looking for this exact scene but different angles are used. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:LittleMissSunshinesoundtrack.jpg - As the CD cover is identical to the movie poster, I am unconvinced we need yet another fair use image. The article could simply say that the two images are identical - we don't need a visual image to show that.
We had a discussion about this at WP:FILMS which wasn't totally decisive on removing album covers (I argued that it wasn't worth it to create small stub soundtrack articles just to have a separate image.). However, I have removed the image and deleted it for now. If there is objection to readding it, I'll undelete it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from this, I don't see what use the image in the Volkswagen T2 Microbus section has. It basically shows what the cast look like, when driving a van, and the critical commentary supplied in the caption is that they filmed at different angles in different vans. Ideally you'd have an image that contains different angles/vans so the reader can compare. Just having one image doesn't really do much. —Giggy11:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I watched the entire movie with them in the van and this is the only screenshot of an angle that shows all of the characters. There are other various angles but they include at most four of the characters. I wanted to have another angle instead of through the windshield but there were no other alternatives. The quote in the VW section by the writer speaks about how he choose this particular type of vehicle due to its angles that could be used, including through the front windshield. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check repetition and overlinking of Sundance Film Festival (Ctrl+F is your friend).
I removed all of the links except the occurrence in the infobox and the one in the lead. Ctrl+F is one of my favorite things of Firefox. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"and later expanded to a wider release starting on August 18, 2006" - a worldwide release? Or am I confused by the terminology?
The film was initially released in a limited release which means fewer theaters (allowing the studios to test the waters of the marketability of the film), and after it had high earnings in the limited theaters, it had a wider release of more theaters. It could potentially include more foreign theaters as well but generally refers to more theaters in the U.S. in this case. Do you think that needs to be embellished more or should it remain as is? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's very little discussion of critical reception (as distinct from awards or $) in the lead. I dunno how movie articles always work, but on album articles (not too different...) this is a necessity.
Looking at a sample of WP:FILMS' featured articles, most don't go too much into the critical reviews. They generally mention if the reviews were positive/mixed. I had initially included the ratings at Rotten Tomatoes and MetaCritic but at the project's A-class review was suggested to remove those. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"When choosing the role of Richard Hoover, Dayton and Faris stated that they had initially settled on Greg Kinnear and went through several actresses before deciding on Australian actress Toni Collette for Sheryl Hoover." - starts off talking about one character, ends up talking about the other
I split this into two sentences, let me know if it should be reworded further. I think I had combined them both so that I didn't need to use two cites. No big deal. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Casting directors Davis and Baddely traveled to every English-speaking country to search for the actress to portray Olive Hoover, and the directors finally chose actress Abigail Breslin through an audition when she was six." - Every English-speaking country? That's a lot of countries. Also, fix repetition of "directors". Also, what makes this blog reliable? (Sorry if this is repeated.)
In the source it states "...they launched a worldwide search and they had representatives in every English-speaking country, in New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, all over America, Canada, South Africa. We looked everywhere." They may be speaking figuratively, so in that case, should I put quotes around "every English-speaking country" or instead list the above countries to provide a better example? I explained above that I thought the blog to be reliable as it is a direct interview with the directors and is not printed elsewhere. It is used to cite various statements throughout the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. With your copyediting skills, you can definitely help me fix the other sections as well. Let me know if you need further explanations on the issues above. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: The 'Table of Contents' lists "Wins" and "Nominations" but nothing happens when I click on them because they are in the hidden text. Would it be alright to change them from sub-headings to bolded text (like this ====Wins==== to ;Wins) so they won't show up in the TOC? --maclean21:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could we incorporate the themes into its own section? Most of the work is already done with the sources gathered, just need to consolidate it into a section. This is something that is now expected in novel-related articles, and films (as pieces of fiction) should soon follow. I can certainly help with writing and providing more resources that highlight themes (or story elements). --maclean20:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that while the WP:MOSFILM allows for a themes section, it is not necessarily a formal requirement - particularly with newer works which may not have enough in-depth critical studies to cite. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, I think it would be best to keep each statement discussing the themes individually included to the relating section. However, if there is more support for incorporating it into a single section, I won't fight it. Whatever we think to be best for covering the article is fine by me. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lead section: Mixed tenses. e.g. "Little Miss Sunshine is... it was... it starred..."—suggest present tense for all save the mention of Michael Arndt's writing of the screenplay. Some redundant words: "The film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on January 20, 2006, and its distribution rights were bought by Fox Searchlight Pictures for reportedly one of the biggest deals ever made in the history of the Sundance Film Festival." The second mention of the festival could be referred to as just that (i.e. "the festival"). As you're not claiming it to be the biggest deal, the use of "reportedly" is probably unnecessary. Either "ever" or "in the history of" is redundant. "...total international box office gross receipts" is a little unwieldly, could you lose "total" and "receipts" while keeping the meaning intact (i.e. "an international box office gross of...")? Overlinking of actors' names in third paragraph.
Plot section: Some overlinking of common terms (e.g. suicide, homosexual). Oh, and "is a homosexual Proust teacher" could be read in several ways. For purely selfish reasons, I'm not going to read much beyond the first paragraph of the section, but a quick glance reveals that the general comment about overlinking still applies (yellow?).
Could you elaborate on ""is a homosexual Proust teacher" could be read in several ways"? I've removed multiple wikilinks throughout the plot.
Certainly. While I'd assume most would read it as "a homosexual who is a teacher of Proust's works", the ambiguity renders the possibility of that being read as "a teacher of homosexual Proust". Hmm. Maybe I'm nitpicking. SteveT • C22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Casting" section: "...for the character of Sheryl Hoover, they went through several actresses..." should perhaps be reworded slightly to avoid certain, ah, sexual connotations the use of the phrase "went through" has in some UK regional English variations. Redundancies and overlinking: The second use of "casting directors" (it's mentioned barely two sentences above). Overlinking of Steve Carell. Inappropriate use of easter egg piped link to Michael Scott (The Office) (you might get around that one by including the preceding "the" inside the link).
Wow, that didn't even cross my mind, but I could see what you mean. I've replaced it with "considered". Removed casting directors, removed link, and included "the" in the wikilink for further clarification. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Script" section: suggest rename of section to something more appropriate, as it concerns some of the post-script development of the film too. The last paragraph focussing on the post-Sundance deal is out of place in the section. Would this be more appropriate as a lead into the "Release" section? Suggest replacing second mention of the festival in this paragraph with, er, "the festival".
Does "Script and development" work? I moved the paragraph to the release section and titled it "Sundance Film Festival" (unless you think "Premiere" would be a better title?). I also reworded the statement about the festival deal. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Filming" section: "...was shot... in sequential order..." doesn't convey what I assume you mean (that the scenes were shot in the order they fell in the script). Needs expanding slightly.
Struck. I've attempted a quick reword myself, as the change pretty much said the same thing using more words. Feel free to tweak. SteveT • C22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Volkswagen T2 Microbus" section: "Five different VW Microbuses were used for the family car as some were modified for various filming techniques. Three of the vans had engines, and the two without were mounted on trailers for various scenes." The use of "different" is redundant, as is "for various scenes". Maybe replace the first "various" with "different" and replace "various angles" with merely "angles" (the plural covers it). "...that writer Arndt experienced in a childhood trip..."—"on a childhood trip", or maybe "during"? Perhaps lose the mention of Mission Impossible; the meaning and joke is clear without it.
"Release" section: Generally speaking, I'm not too keen on the film ratings infobox; it seems a bit indiscriminate to list everything there, when anyone can go to the IMDb for the same information, but I'd not oppose on its inclusion alone. As previously mentioned, I also suggest moving the Sundance paragraph to here, and perhaps you could move the mention of the United States up to the first sentence in the "Box office" section.
It seems several WP:FILMS members don't like the ratings box, and if there is further opposition, I'll remove it. I've moved the Sundance paragraph to the Release section. Could you clarify what you mean about moving the mention of the United States? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes. The section doesn't mention that these details relate to the film's release in the United States until the third sentence. It's sort of presumptuous, I guess, to assume readers will know when skipping to the section that it was released in the U.S. first (even if that's almost a given with an American film). The ratings infobox I'm not going to oppose for; at the moment it's a personal preference thing that isn't enshrined in the MOSFILM guideline. SteveT • C22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Box office" section: "Little Miss Sunshine remained in the list of top ten films measuring domestic box office performance until its 11th week of release." I'm just not sure that sentence makes much sense. Is there a word missing near that "measuring"? Maybe replace "overseas" with "internationally" or similar, to avoid a US-centric voice?
I've reworded it a bit, please take another look. I also reworded "overseas" (I had initially used it to avoid the redundancy of the "internationally" in the prior sentence.). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That bit still reads oddly. Try removing that whole "when measuring" bit and reword, see how it parses: "Little Miss Sunshine entered the list of top ten highest grossing American films in its third week of release. It remained in the top ten until the eleventh week, when it dropped to eleventh place." The duplicate "eleventh" is unfortunate, but screw it, them's the facts. SteveT • C22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Critical reception" section: It might be worth expanding slightly upon Rotten Tomatoes' and Metacritic's methods; I think the uninitiated reader would have to follow the links to avoid confusion as to what "92% positive" means. See Hancock (film)#Reception for an example. There's also some mixing of tenses ("X called the film... Y writes that it...") and while not mandatory by any means, I'd like to see a comment or two from non-American critics to help cover the "comprehensiveness" requirement of this FAC.
Erik had referred me to this article for rewording this statement during the A-class review, and I think I have modified it further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added them, sorry I overlooked that statement the first time. I added a positive review from BBC News and a negative one from the Globe and Mail. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Awards and nominations" section: Suggest rewording "for 'Best Screenplay' for Arndt" to something less clunky. And is there anything that needs to be considered with the use of the "hidden" section? As opposed to an online navigation aid at the bottom of an article page, this contains bona fide article content, and as such should perhaps be permanently visible. This is especially relevant if you consider that articles are supposed to be hard copy-friendly. Again, I'm happy to go with precedent on this one should my concerns not be shared by others.
Reworded, please take another look. I can't find anything directly opposing the hidden section but if someone knows of a policy stating it can't be included then I'll rework it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine, pending any clarification on hidden sections. I can't see it being a problem; the minor awards information is supplementary at best, so is maybe better unrevealed. SteveT • C22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Academy Awards' producers controversy" section: What's that apostrophe doing?
"Score and soundtrack" section: "The soundtrack reached number 42 on the "Top Independent Albums" and 24 on "Top Soundtracks" in 2006."—which country? The section itself could perhaps do with another quick copy edit; it doesn't quite flow as well as the rest of the article (e.g. "Super Freak"... was introduced during post-production by a suggestion from the music supervisor.")
It's amazing how different things are seen by different editors. Thanks for taking a look, I'll get to working on these later today (should probably get some sleep first). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very long list of issues with Reliable sources above; how are editors supporting the article when WP:V policy hasn't yet been cleared? For a film of this stature, there should be better sources than about.com for awards, and there is still a long list of other outstanding issues on sources such as blogs. Were any academic sources or databases consulted? Please resolve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking your time to take a look. I have been working on replacing the majority of the sources deemed unreliable, and the article has improved because of it. I did search academic sources/databases through my university but didn't find too much beyond what is already included in the article. If you are able to find any further sources, I'd appreciate it. If possible could you weigh in on the discussion above about the reliable sources, it appears Ealdgyth would like a second opinion on some of them. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Edwin dies from a heroin overdose during the family's stay at a motel; they smuggle the body out of a hospital and take it illegally to California because they are in a hurry and a hospital administrator refuses to let them temporarily leave it behind." run-ons like this need to be fixed.
"...and is about a family's road trip to a children's beauty pageant, with a large portion of the film focusing on the family vehicle, a Volkswagen T2 Microbus." the film doesn't focus on the VW, much of it revolves around actions while they are driving in it.
"Volkswagen T2 Microbus" beside MoS image issue (should not be left-aligned under level three heading), seems to suffer from advertising-type content (not to mention the paragraph doesn't explain what "the vehicle" is.)
I moved the image to the right (I thought it was a better balance to alternate the two images). Could you specify what the advertising-type content is (I think mentioning the numerous mechanical issues with the car would have the opposite effect!)? I now briefly mentioned the vehicle type in the opening sentence. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:LittleMissSunshineCast.jpg - image checks out as above, however the image's caption in the article is hardly short and pithy.
Would you recommend that I remove the cast line (they can visit the image's page to see that as well) to reduce the caption's length? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:LittleMissSunshinePageant.jpg - I'm not sure if the rationale for this one is really that strong. The content is being commented upon in the text, which is good, but do we really need a picture to show us a padded suit?
The image is for not only illustrating the padded suit of the character in relation to the professional pageant girls but also examples of the costumes that had been provided by the contestants' parents for inclusion within the film. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In re to above: the grammar is still going to need work, I'll point out examples later when I have time for a more thorough review. I'll leave the pageant image up to others to decide, as for the caption I think either the camera angle thing needs to be axed or shortened, or the cast removed. It's your choice. What I mean by "advertisement" is there's what seems like an inordinate amount of material on the specific car. Is the fact its a VW really so important that it must be mentioned by full name in the lead? Do we need the full title as a heading? Oh, by the way, to keep things less fragmented, can you respond to all my stuff in block and not between lines, so I can keep track of what you say easier? Thanks :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)01:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I've just been replying between the lines for all of the other reviewers and figured that was common practice or preferred. I've removed the cast line from the image, and renamed some of the occurrences of the VW bus to "van". I think it is important to mention it in the lead since it is an important part of the film, almost a character in itself. If you can think of a better name for the heading, I think it could be changed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:06, 30 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.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has achieved GA status and has had enough work done it to and is a significant enough film to merit FA status. I've tried to cover all important aspects of this film and include its emerging cult film status as well as importance in pop culture. J.D. (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Image:Biglebowskiposter.jpg - I would just make sure the FUR is clear that it is for identification of the film via its movie poster, but all other aspects appear ok.
Image:The.Big.Lebowski.1998.Screenshot.1.jpg - Image is not low resolution, can probably be reduced by half. FUR does not indicate why it is being used on the article page; and I believe this to be duplicating what Image:The.Big.Lebowski.1998.Screenshot.2.jpg shows (basically, it's a shot of the Dude, not much more there, so it can be replaced). Suggestion: find a critical/well-known scene in the movie that the article talks about that shows more than just one actor (a unique set, a unique tableau of actors, something like that) and use that instead.
Image:The.Big.Lebowski.1998.Screenshot.2.jpg - Same issue on resolution as well as lack of reason for its use. However, that can be justified here (it's showing the three primary characters of the film). Make sure to add this.
Image:Biglebowskisoundtrackalbum.jpg - I'm not sure if this image is needed (the rationale is otherwise fine). As the artwork mirrors the poster, there's nothing new there, but on the other hand, it is offsetting a separate article for the soundtrack itself. I've not seen anything consistent on how a built-in soundtrack album is dealt with in an article, so my inclination is to say leave it, though others may challenge this.
Thanks for the comments. I made the FUR clear for the movie poster image. I removed Screenshot.1 for the reasons you stated above and kept Screenshot.2 and justified the reasons for its existence. I'll keep the last two images but if someone has a problem with the Soundtrack album art I wouldn't have a problem getting rid of it.--J.D. (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barring any other further input on the soundtrack/dvd covers, the images in this now appear to be fine, all issues resolved. --MASEM17:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The article needs a pretty intense copy edit. I already did some work to the lead. Since I love the movie, I'll try to help go over the rest of the article a bit later. I recommend reading through it several times and trying to remove any ambiguities or strangely formed sentences. I also saw some contractions, and I don't believe they belong in WP articles (unless they are part of a quote).
I also think we need to discuss who is mentioned in the lead. I added John Turturro, he was billed fifth so he definitely belong there. You should probably mention that the story is narrated by "The Stranger" (Sam Elliott) in the lead. I think Tara Reid has the least justification for being in the lead, since she's more of an off-screen object (and only has about three lines).--Elred (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have a dead ref in red letters, current ref 52. Ref named Russell?
Current ref 38 (Stephen Thomas Erlewine) has its publisher in the link title, it should be listed separately. Also, list the author of this as last name first to fit witht he rest of the references
Your last entry in the Bibliography is just a bare link. If its used as a source in the article, it needs publisher and last access date at the very least. If its not used as a source, it needs to go in the External Links section.
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done. Will check them in a moment. Ealdgyth - Talk14:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - This is my first-ever review of a movie FAC, so bear with me.
"After being mistaken for a multimillionaire of the same name, Jeffrey "The Dude" Lebowski..." His full name doesn't need repeating; just say Lebowski.
Million dollar needs a hyphen.
"Stranger," Watch the punctuation again.
Remove comma after "and has been called".
"The film's devoted fans have even spawned." Less is sometimes more.
Opposing because the prose is very poor. Here is but one example of many throughout the article:
While Bunny took an unannounced trip, the nihilists (her friends) alleged a kidnapping in order to get money from her husband (It is left unclear whether and to what extent Bunny was an active collaborator in this scheme). The Dude and Walter arrive at the Big Lebowski residence, finding Bunny back at home, having returned from her trip.
Attack of the prepositional phrases: The film begins with a short voiceover introduction by an unnamed narrator played by Sam Elliott to the character Jeffrey Lebowski as he is buying milk from a grocery store in 1991.
Verb disagreement: Days later, the Big Lebowski contacts the Dude, revealing that Bunny has been kidnapped and asks him to act as a courier for the million-dollar ransom, the Dude being in the unique position of being able to identify the rug-soiling thugs, the suspected kidnappers.
Misplaced modifier: Upon returning home without any clue about the whereabouts of the ransom money, Jackie Treehorn's thugs return to bring the Dude to Treehorn's beach house in Malibu, where Treehorn inquires about the whereabouts of Bunny.
We're nominating this article for featured article because it is a definitely ready article. It took weeks of work, and is by far, one of New York State Route's best articles. This article also details Vermont Route 74, and all its history is into it. As a request, I would like to see Durova get credit for this as well, because she worked so hard on the article. Thanks. Mitch32(UP)18:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The route passes the entrance to Fort Ticonderoga along its 20.44 mi (32.89 km) length. "20.44 mi (32.89 km) length"? Doesn't work. Try "20.44 mi (32.89 km) route".
Beyond the eastern terminus Lake Champlain, a seasonal ferry carries cars across the lake into Vermont. "Eastern terminus Lake Champlain"? There seems to be a work missing.
Route 73 originally connected to the ferry and VT 74 ended at Route 73, but the alignments eventually switched, with Route 73 terminating at an intersection with Route 74, and Route 74 extending to the ferry to connect to NY 74. "With" is a poor connecting word.
There are a few local road intersections just south of Goosebury Hill, but Paradox Lake begins to parallel the roadway to the north. "But"? Those two ideas don't contradict themselves.
Beyond of couple mountains and hills on the southern side of Route 74, is where Cotters Pond is located. Would be much better as "Cotters Pond is located beyond of a couple mountains and hills on the southern side of Route 74."
Eagle Lake comes to an end, and the highway intersects with County Route 2, the first numbered highway since US 9. Huh? CR 2 is the first highway to be numbered since US 9?
The northern part of Route 74 shows the ridges leading up to Keeney Mountain, which peaks at 1,400 feet (430 m) high. Self-explanatory. If not, "in high" is grammatically incorrect.
The highway intersects with New York State Route 9N and New York State Route 22, which the latter becomes concurrent with 74. Link Route 22 and "latter" → "later".
There are some tree patches as well, but both soon dissipate into more of fields and farmlands. Unencyclopedic writing. First, "some" is a weasel word. Second, "dissipate" is a poor word choice". Third, remove "more of".
This does not last however, as the highway turns to the northeast once again. Unnecessary sentence. Aside from being poorly worded, we know nothing on the road lasts forever.
The beginning segment of Route 74 after the concurrency is moderately populated, heading eastward once again. However, the rural highway turns once again to the northeast, following this for most of the distance to Cornwall. If it's moderately populated, how can the highway be rural?
After Doolittle Road, the highway becomes straight to the east, intersecting with several township highways. "Becomes straight to the east" → "turns east".
The highway is passing through fields and homes, with the forests it once passed, in its wake. There are so many problems with that sentence, I'm not going to list them. Just rewrite it.
There were two toll gates erected for the highway, but the charter stated that there could be another toll gate approximately every ten miles completed highway. "There were two toll gates" → "Two toll gates were". Also needs a conversion.
Oppose 1) Lack of inline citations - "Google Maps. Overview Map of NY 74 [map]. Retrieved on 2008-01-30." is relied on for a primary citation on many paragraphs, and this is just a map. To apply this as a justifiable citation would amount to passive Original Research. 2) Concerns over placement of large picture in History section as a violation of WP:Accessibility or other MoS related problems. 3) Lack of information on who uploaded the image, cropped the image, etc, as the image does not match the link to the Library of Congress image. 4) No page numbers for "H.P. Smith (1885). The History of Essex County. D. Mason and Company.", which is the sole citation for section "Schroon and its early highways" 5) Sandwiching issues with image "New York State Senate journal, 1832.jpg" 6) Formatting issues with "East NY 74 reference marker edited.jpg" in which it overrides the subheading 7) Use of a map as a reliable source under citation "New York State Thruway Authority. New York Thruway [map]. Cartography by Rand McNally and Company. (1971" without proof that this is a reliable source for historical information 8) Use of another map, "Google Maps. Fort Ticonderoga-Larrabees Point Fry @43.854016, -73.385363 [map]. Retrieved on 2008-08-27.", as a reliable source which it is not. 9) Use of another map, "Esso. New York State Map [map]. Cartography by General Drafting Inc.. (1936)", in performing OR by determing when something changed. 10) Same problem as above for "United States Geological Survey. Clymer, NY quadrangle [map]. Cartography by United States Geological Survey. (1954) Retrieved on 2008-08-24." and "New York State Department of Transportation. Clymer, NY quadrangle [map]. Cartography by New York State Department of Transportation. (1978) Retrieved on 2008-08-24." 11) Lack of citations to third party, reliable sources, providing physical information that is not developed beyond the sources (i.e. not violating Original Research). 12) Lead is too large for the bulk of the material present. 13) Organizational problems including the history section at the bottom, and lack of connection with the Ferry and the Vermont highway. There are many more significant problems, and this page is not good enough for a Good Article status, let alone Featured Article. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maps are fine to use as sources for a number of reasons. First and foremost, they're used for nearly all other road articles, and have passed numerous previous FACs. Aside from that, they're fairly easy to gain encyclopedic information from. For one, on a Google map, one simply has to follow the route and write a description of what is shown on the map. For the history section, one can compare two maps from different years, and recover information about realignments or other pieces of significant history. For example, to determine that a realignment took place between 1930 and 1931, one can compare the two maps, and if there is a change between the two, then that becomes a cite-able piece of information. Hope this helps, –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone20:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please withdraw this nomination. Since people hate this article, I am not gonna go any farther.Mitch32(UP) 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry. Mental breakdown there.Mitch32(UP)20:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I take some issue with Ottava's comments above and agree with Julian about citing the various maps. I see no issue in using maps to cite the changes made in the alignments of a highway. Second comment concerns the integration of VT 74 into this article. The infobox is incomplete as it only lists the NYSR 74 name and shield at the top. The map should be redone to show both highways and it should include the brower for both states. According to the infobox, am I to assume NYSDOT maintains VT 74 as well? Please place a horizontal bar in the junction list in the infobox to represent the state line. I have not read the article yet for copy editing concerns, but the infobox needs work before I can justify this article being promoted. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, after a major discussion with the co-nominator, and how I'm acting over this, I wish to suspend the nomination until I can solve Ottava Rima's issues.Mitch32(UP)21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think the FAC can be kept alive. The only concerns are the addition of some stuff to an image and then adding additional refs without having to change the content. It is only FA structure, not content, that needs to be accommodated. Nothing big. If you are still struggling to find stuff, I can dig into news archives and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm rather surprised to see this here since Mitchazenia asked me to review it a few days ago before bringing it to FAC. I just got round to reviewing it and then noticed that it was already posted. Some things benefit from haste, but FAC is not one of them. --Laser brain(talk)03:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - The article is not quite ready and I feel the nomination was rushed without a wider peer review. Article requires major revisions but can still be salvaged. Initial comments on the lead section are below.
Paragraph 1: "Vermont State Route" is not a common name although not unknown. "Vermont Route" is a better choice; "...along its 20.44 mi route." needs a hyphen after the numerals; Some clarifications to avoid confusion are necessary. You already stated that NY 74 terminates at Lake Champlain then two sentences later you have "The highway continues...". You can either treat this as a single route or as two separate routes but please be consistent throughout the article; Be aware that Larabees Point (please check the actual spelling and use consistently throughout the text) is within the town of Shoreham; The last two sentences have issues with comma usage. You might want to comb through the entire text to check.
Paragraph 2: "name designations" is redundant. "Designations" is sufficient; In the second sentence, you probably mean "most of the roadway now known as 74 was designated as part of 73". There is a subtle difference and the current phrasing makes one have to pause and think to get it; The last sentence is misleading, implying that the current 74 was assigned as a result of the old 74 being renumbered to 474. The cause and effect is reversed. Please check the Hisotry section.
Paragraph 3: "Multiple alignments" should probably read "multiple realignments"; "Another alignment of F-9" implies that VT F-9 had more than one alignment at a single point in time. This whole paragraph needs to be rewritten to describe what F-9 and F-9A were in relation to modern VT 74. Right now, VT F-9A comes out of the blue; What do you mean by "real state route designations"? F-9 and F-9A aren't? Also, it is mentioned that "the alignments eventually switched". The alignments didn't switch, the designation did - and actually, only the western tip did. The current phrasing implies the route numbers for the entire highway were swapped. The last sentence is grammatically incorrect.
Overall comments on lead section - I think it tries to go into too much detail about the designation history. This can be summarized further and made more compact and compelling. Some history of the ferry crossing might be worth adding to the lead as well.
Infobox: Unlike say New York State Route 343, there is no dominant route here and a composite infobox (e.g. Rhode Island Route 121) is probably a better way to do this in my opinion. The second VT-only infobox is also bad stylistically. You might as well separate the articles if the preference is to treat this as two separate highways.
Third times a charm I think. After two previous (rightfully) failed attempts, all the previous issues in the former nominations have been dealt with. Numerous copy editors have looked over this page and made their appropriate edits.
So basically, this article has come to FA candidate. I and others ensured that it meets the criteria. It is well written in an appropriately attractive manner and includes all relevant information. I personally worked on all the referencing, which I am fairly proud of as this is the most highly referenced national team page on WP (even more than the Scotland page which is already a FA). Two possible issues which may occur:
1) Stability - due to a large amount of edits in the past weeks or so. I will say now, this has been solely due to the fact the article has been the subject of constant improvement as I and others have made all appropriate edits to meet the standards. The only things which will change on the page are the stats in the tables, which are just updated after every game.
2) Fasach Nua may once again bring up the issue of the national team logo used as the lead image. Again, I will say now that this is an ignored issue. It has been bought up numerous times and ignored by the larger amount of people who feel that the logos are indeed not able to be replaced, as opposed to using national flags instead.
Comments - Looks a lot better than the last two times. Let's see if the prose can be refined further...
*FIFA is still linked twice in the lead.
"Croatia has also defeated four-time world champions Italy on two competitive occasions..." Why is competitive needed? I know what this is trying to say, but it sounds redundant.
Pre-independence: "a Croatian team played another fifteen friendly matches..." Numbers above nine are usually given as numerals, but this can vary depending on the editor.
Move current reference 9 after comma.
I notice some inconsistent date usage; there's 2 April, 1940 and May 16, 1991. You'll probably want to go with the non-U.S. style.
1990s: "and went on to play their first modern day international in a friendly game against the United States..." Is this awkward, or this just British English again?
"Alijosa Asanovic counted as the first goalscorer for the newly established side..." Why not just "Alijosa Asanovic was the first goalscorer for the newly established side...".
Move ref 19 after comma and check for this throughout the article.
"Croatia entered the 1998 World Cup with victory over Ukraine in a qualifying playoff." "With victory over" needs an "a" inserted, but I'd prefer "Croatia earned a berth in the 1998 World Cup by defeating Ukraine in a qualifying playoff."
2000s: "The tournament did however see them earn a 2-2 draw against reigning champions France." Could be "However, the tournament did see them earn a 2-2 draw against reigning champions France."Giants2008 (17-14) 01:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In one of the previous edits, I believe that "competitive" is needed. There is a difference between competitive matches and friendly matches, and a team is normally "easier to defeat" during a friendly match because a team like Italy is not going to risk the state of its players in a friendly, while Croatia might due to image (or it might not, but the teams skill level is less relevant regardless). It might sound redundant, but in my opinion it's not. JonCatalán (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks a lot Giants2008! In respective order here are the points addressed:
Removed second FIFA link in lead.
Removed 'competitive'.
Fifteen is now 15.
Moved ALL the references after commas, I personally preferred having them before such but I've noticed its become more of a recommendation so I've gone along with it.
The date issues confuse me as well sometimes. I hope I've done it correct this time. I went through and fixed up all the dates, they are now named with the month first and then the day number.
I understand the confusion. It's difficult trying to get this specific statement across, I've done my brief best to reword it to something less confusing and difficult to read.
JonCatalán, I have found that 'competitive' is actually not needed since the statement already describes the type of matches the victories were achieved in, which are clearly sanctioned as competitive fixtures. So this is Done as well. Domiy (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The logo of a country's governing body for football is appropriate for the article on the national team. It acts, in a sense, as the logo of the team. —Giggy08:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Giggy (and everyone else!) please ignore him. He has bought this issue up numerous time on countless different discussions and they have all ended in a negative manner towards him. He simply doesn't understand all the legitimate points which have been bought up, any user will tell you that. Your simply wasting your time talking to him. Fasach Nua, your entering close grounds for a ban I think. You cannot just keep bringing up issues which have already been resolved and proven wrong. Had the flag been used in this article, it would look very out of place and incorrect as all other national team pages use the logo instead. There is no doubt that there would have been an oppose by now if the flag was used as it is simply not acceptable in the case. Therefore, you are bringing up a situation which will end in a loss either way. And it's getting to sound blatantly intentional right now, I am seriously thinking of reporting your mind-games. Please do not pollute this nomination page with useless debating as you have already been proven wrong! Everybody (including the directors/reviewers/admins please ignore him and get back to the real issues on the article article. This may sound extremely unacceptable but you have no idea about this situation and how many times it has been negatively resolved. He simply doesnt listen! Thanks for co-operation! Domiy (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[Again, please ignore him and carry on as per usual. I have left a message for the nominators/directors regarding this so don't treat it as a big issue. It will be dealt with but this isn't the time or the place.]
Comment Some of the editors on the page have also recently done some last minute changes, mainly just for statistics count and changed a few single words to lesser the amount of prose issues which anyone may have. Still open to anything, otherwise a simple support should be in order. Thanks! Domiy (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 108 has just plain numbered links. Links should have titles per the MOS.
Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. I was unable to check the non-English language sources. Ealdgyth - Talk14:10, 25 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.
On About.com see this archive from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The abbreviations are such as HR, UEFA, FIFA or similar.
On another note, it's a LOT easier for me to track FACs if you at least put your replies to me underneath my comments. Even easier for me is to put them interspersed (and indented) beneath my bullet points so that I don't have to do tons of scrolling to see what has been replied to.
DONE ON REFERENCES! Javno is reliable as they do indeed have an inclusion and submission policy. They work in both Croatian and English and have their own estblished and paid publishers. This is such:
On About.com, you need to prove that the person writing the information is an expert in their field, published elsewhere than about.com in reliable sources themselves. About.com doesn't really exercise much oversight over their writers, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk14:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
commentThe first match is listed as 1940, a reference need supplied that this team and the 1940s team are the same in the eyes of FIFA Fasach Nua (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The date notation changes between date first and month first.
Referencing should be placed after punctuation.
"Their FIFA World Ranking has been more volatile than any other nation, ranging from third to 125th" Needs a reference
"with Davor Šuker scoring one of the most skillful goals of the tournament;" Almost certainly true, but I think it needs a reference. I can certainly think of one other goal which could claim that title.
"12 yard mark" Hyphenate
"Referee Graham Poll was widely criticized for his inability to control the match and soon retired from international umpiring." Umpiring is wrong. I guess you've said so to avoid using referee again. I would suggest officiating.
"With the introduction of new players such as Eduardo, Modrić, Ćorluka and Rakitić," Give names in full.
Don't force image sizes
"Also used by league champions Dinamo Zagreb, Maksimir is remembered as the site of the Dinamo vs Red Star riot that took place in the lead up to Croatia's war of independence.[83] As well as football matches the stadium is used as a concert venue." What relevance does this have to Croatia national football team? I suggest these are details that should be in Maksimir Stadium but not here.
"Though violence between the two groups has marked fixtures in the domestic league, clashes are generally absent from national team games." Needs a reference. Peanut4 (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE - Reply to Ealdgyth These references have been bought up before. In respective order:
BecomeaCroatiafan is the English supporters 'unofficial' home page (because for non-Croats who support Croatia, they cannot use the actual homepage because it is in Croatian). This reference can be easily replaced (the first one I mean), but only with a Croatian source. WP states that English sources always have strength over foreign ones, and should be used where possible. The other sources from the same website are merely player profiles which just state basic quick facts.
RSSSF is an accurate statistics foundation used in countless articles on WP, especially football. It's even used on the Scotland national football team which is already a Featured Article.
I've seen about.com used on some other Featured Articles as well. Other than that, its already an established website. What doesn't make it reliable?
PlanetWorldCup has been replaced with a FIFA.com source, although I see no problem with it initially.
Dinamo11 is amongst the English supporters websites for the team as well. The same case applies. WP states English articles are much more preferred and reliable in any case, so Dinamo11 is used over a foreign source.
Croatiansoccerreport has its own authors, stories, and websites which publish all the up-to-date information about Croatian soccer. A lot of fans use it for information. Again, also note that it is a secondary source, not a primary reference. Its used to merely reflect the controversy of the match against Turkey even though a reference is provided before it containing similar (but not identical) information. I will remove it if you really want, pending a confirmation on such though as I have left it in for now.
Goal.com source has been replaced with a BBC Sport source. The only other time it is used is to list Croatia's squad in the tournament, and even then it is a secondary source.
Removed OleOle source.
Removed Soccerphile source.
Removed zagreblife source.
Removed World Cup blog source.
Javno are one of the leading news publishers in Croatia. They are like 'SkySports' in England or 'New York Times' in the US.
The derkeiler news story is clearly stated to be from 'The Associated Press', which is a reliable news site. Derkeiler are known to host articles from other sites with permission, as has been done here. The page states that it is from 'The Associated Press', however just on a different site. I've fixed up the reference to state the 'work' as such now.
The only abbreviations you may think are necessary to fix up are the Rec.Sports.Soccer. sources in the notes section. I know it looks like abbreviations, but that is the full name of the domain. They refer to themselves as the 'Rec.Sports.Soccer Statistics Foundation', Wikipedia shouldn't go against the domain name. Same goes for things like FIFA.com and BBC Sport - they needn't be listed as full names. They are consistently known and named by their abbreviations, most people don't even know what they stand for. Wikipedia is not expected to against the names referred to on TV, radio, and even the actual sites themselves! Why confuse people like that? Besides, the actual domain/publisher name is clearly listed as such, so changing it into a different full name will be going against the name of the publishing organization.
Fixed up reference.
DONE - Reply to Fasach Nua It's clearly an obvious fact that there was only one Croatian team in the year 1940. I dont know why anyone would need a reference like this, but it is sourced numerous time throughout the rest of the article. So that's Done as well.
I accept that there was only one Croatia team in the 1940s, I accept there is one Croatia team now, but I dont see any evidence that they are the same team, could you direct me to the specific reference for this. Ireland briefly had two FIFA recognised teams, both called Ireland, both selecting players from the whole country, both competing in the 1950 World cup, but they wern't (and stil aren't) the same teams. Wimbledon F.C. is clearly not the same team as AFC Wimbledon, although some people like to pretend they are, and I would like to see tangiable proof this is not the case with Croatia. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think you understand football fully if your asking a question like this. What other team could it have possibly been? National teams come from the nations themselves. Croatia was still a part of Yugoslavia at this time but they formed their own separate team which soon became official. FIFA recognised them as the football representative of a state called 'Croatia'. The only difference between the 1940 team and the current team is that the 1940 team was unofficial and unable to play competitive matches. Other than that, they were still both representatives of the state of Croatia and played football on the nations behalf. This is the most basic of sources. Others also state it clearly, you can get all such information by actually reading the article and looking at the references provided in this section:
Please don't bring up obvious questions. It again seems you are deliberately delaying and ruining this nomination. I also explained the situation and you seem to fail to understand it. Northern Ireland and Ireland are two different states clearly recongised separately by FIFA. There is only one Croatian state which has been the same since the first proposal of a sanctioned Banovina or Nation. Again, this is all explained in the article and backed up by appropriate references. Your just lengthening pointless discussions now to find any way to diminish this article. Croatia doesnt have any denominations like Northern Ireland does with Ireland. Croatia is just Croatia and always has been. Likewise, all the Croatian teams that were organized represented what people called 'Croatia'. If you dont understand this, then it has nothing to do with the Featured Article nomination but blatantly an issue with your understanding of the subject, so it has no place here. Domiy (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already opposed on ground of inappropriate use of images, and I now also oppose on the grounds, that it is unclear what team the artilce is even about Fasach Nua (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your image oppose has already been opposed itself by another user who initially told you it is an inappropriate alternative to use the national flag (just like so many other people have told you). Now your opposing because you simply cannot understand the clearly written subject? I have supported numerous FA candidates just by reading the articles and comparing them to the criteria, even though at times I have absolutely no idea about the subject itself. The article is about Croatia, I just told you that. You seem to think that new squads equal new teams all together. Stop your childish ranting and deal with the issue properly. You have no grounds for an oppose, therefore they are ignored, just like you are!Domiy (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE - Reply to Peanut4 I've addressed the issues you bought up. Again in respective order:
The dates have already been fixed up and are consistent in the current version. If you find some other instances of such, please point it out specifically. But from what I see, they should be fine now.
References are all after punctuation now.
Cited volatility in the lead.
Suker's goal is already cited at the end of the sentence.
'12 yard mark' has been hyphenated, it now reads '12-yard mark'.
Reworded to 'officiating'.
Full names now given for the new young players.
Images are fine, they have not been forced, not sure exactly what you mean about such.
The dates are far from fixed. There is a complete mish-mash of date first, e.g. 26 August 2008, or month first e.g. August 26, 2008. I can't provide specific examples, because it can interchange from section-to-section. Peanut4 (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not corborate the claim "Their FIFA World Ranking has been more volatile than any other nation," it simply backs up the range of 3rd to 125th. I find the initial part an interesting claim and worthy of mention if true, but I can't see any source in the article to back it up. Peanut4 (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't notice the dates in the 'Records' section and others. They and others have all been fixed up now to consistently go by the same format (thanks for your help there as well in some of the other areas).
Extra sources have now been included to cite the volatility specifically.
Reply to Peanut4 - It may be hard to determine such in 100% accuracy. You will never find an article which directly states than a nation has been more volatile than any other. The statement has come from heavy research and self knowledge of the editors. The sources provided make it much easier to understand such, and they do practically imply it:
The Croats have got the wind in their sails once again as they gradually work their way back up into the elite, as a glance at the most recent edition of the FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking shows. Despite a mere 4.5 million inhabitants, this country from the Adriatic coast has jumped from seventh to fifth place, overtaking South America's big two, Brazil and Argentina, in the process. - 1st reference.
Exactly two months ago before EURO 2008 got under way, Croatia were 15th in the world and looking to make it back into the top ten, a spot they had last occupied in January 2008. They managed this feat in July 2008 when they leapt up to seventh, and with Argentina and Brazil dropping points in the intervening weeks, the Croats find themselves in their best ranking since March 1999 - an indication of the progress that Bilic has made with this team. - 1st reference.
*It is not so long ago - March 1994 in fact - that Croatia were 125th in the world, and their average ranking is 28th, making the progress of this nation which only achieved independence on 25 June 1991 all the more remarkable. - 1st reference.
From July to December 1998, they were fourth in the world and crept as high as third during the first three months of 1999, so the new generation know that the record is well within their grasp. - 1st reference.
Yet less than a year ago, the critics were sharpening their knives after a disappointing campaign at the 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany™, when the team failed to make it past the group stage. The Croatian media described the early exit as a national tragedy and forecast nothing but doom and gloom for the country's football. Flying in the face of these naysayers, the team with the chequered jerseys have since gone on an unbeaten run in both the qualifiers for UEFA EURO 2008 and in friendlies. - 2nd reference.
This turnaround in fortunes has seen the men from the shores of the Adriatic go from 23rd in the Rankings in July 2006 to 12th in February 2007, their highest position since June 2000, when they were ninth. - 2nd reference.
That golden generation swept almost all before them between July 1998 and June 2000, firmly anchoring themselves in the top ten and peaking in 1999, when they occupied third place from January to March of that year. - 2nd reference.
Im sure you get it now. The articles state that they have variously jumped numerous times from rankings such as 125th, to 9th, to 4th, to 3rd, back to 12th and even worse after the 2006 World Cup, then to 7th and now to 5th. No other national team has such a volatile history in the rankings, few would disagree after reading the sources. FIFA describe it as a 'remarkable' feat, meaning that it is clearly one that stands out. These are the things that back up the volatility.
I'm really not convinced. You have had to use three sources and a long argument here to back up your claim throwing about a variety of numbers. While I find it an interesting statistic, I fear that nowhere does such exact information on volatility and the range of ratings exist, and hence is actually WP:OR. I'd simply remove the information and stick to verifiable facts that Croatia have twice been FIFA Ranking's biggest mover and ranged from 125th to 3rd. Peanut4 (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think it requires removal. I've gone ahead and re-worded the statement to something more specific and less challenged because you seem to be arousing all the craziest of possibilities (which is your right I guess). If you think that the statement may be challenged despite the references, I have little problems in re-wording it. I have now said that they are amongst the most volatile of nations in the FIFA world rankings, meaning that they are not specifically leading in the description.
My 'long argument' is basically a reworded summary of the content in the provided sources. You are right, no such exact information on volatility exists specifically in an article. Again, I'm telling you that it is the result of heavy research and slight self knowledge. I dont think WP specifically has to cater for some people's needs and difficulty to understand a subject. Volatility is clearly present in the sources provided and the sources themselves have explained it as a unique feat at the very least. Basically your giving me the idea that to satisfy your criteria in this case on this statement, I would have to find and include sources on the history of ALL national teams in the FIFA World Rankings. While I would have little trouble finding such, it would be completely inappropriate to have 100+ references on a single statement just to show that no other nation has been as volatile as Croatia. If this was the case, half the articles on Wikipedia could be torn apart with this criteria. The sources say they are uniquely rapid in their rising in the rankings, not so long ago they were ranked 125th and are currently 5th and have been as high as 3rd. If you look at all other national team pages, you will see that their rankings have been fairly stable. Italy have been in the top 10 for as long as anyone can remember, while San Marino have been amongst the bottom of the rankings since they began playing as a FIFA member. Anyone would know this as Italy just recently won the 2006 World Cup and San Marino have a worldwide reputation of never winning a match. Things like this are extremely commonly known, I'm just using a lot of arguments because you seem to lack the basic football knowledge, especially on the FIFA world rankings. They are known to be fairly stable and identical each time they are updated, so for any team to have jumped this much is an immediate sign that they are amongst the most volatile. Again, the statement has been slightly reworded to prevent further challenging. Domiy (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording is now just about alright. My problem wasn't that I was not only questioning the truth and the sources, but that since such exact information didn't exist, it is original research. Croatia's lowest ranking of 125th was a nominal ranking given to FIFA upon the side's creation, if I'm reading the article correctly. In that case, I would say some of the African nations, who have jumped from the low 100s to near the top 10, could also claim the title you claim. Peanut4 (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the exact same thing, specifically with African nations jumping high as well after their initial introduction. I guess the wording really helps now to convey the clearer message of such. And I dont mean to demand or beg, but is this deemed in your Support now or are there still any improvements you would like done? Domiy (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments regardingOppose per images (some may echo comments above):
The image page of the 1940 team picture states "Permission has been given to use it on here and nowhere else!" This is not permitted, the message on the image upload page (and probably found somewhere else but I can't put my hands on it right now) says "Wikipedia does not accept images that are licensed for "non-commercial" use, licensed only to Wikipedia, for which permission is required for reuse, or that do not permit derivative works to be created." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to imagesYour asking for a source on the custom created common soccer field image. This itself is an extreme request, yet I provided a clear source which is Nuno Tavares, along with other appropriate information as to where the soccer field image came from. Next, you asked for a source on Maksimir Stadium. It has been clearly provided on the image page with absolutely nothing missing. It was obtained from WorldStadiums.com, who (as per the copyright link provided) give complete permission for anyone to publish or use their images as long as it is for a free purpose. ALl this has been backed up with references to their permission etc, and I distinctly remember being granted permission from one of their admins who pointed out that anyone is free to use them once again. The source is WorldStadiums.com. I dont know what more you need on these two images. I went through the trouble to find all relevant links and sources and yet you oppose on the grounds of...well...nothing clearly. The images have sources provided and yet you change to an oppose? Similarly, I provided information on when the Croatian first team image was taken. The only thing you see wrong with the article is the copyright tags, which I have clearly requested suggestions on but you have denied to help me. Please note that any comments, in support or opposition of featured articles, can rightfuly be ignored if there is no constructive benefit which offers a way to solve the issue. This is clearly the case. Why dont you just tell me which copyright tags need to be added to the images (if they are not already correct, which I feel they are) and then we can solve this issue? Instead, you go on and oppose for reasons which have already been solved! Domiy (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The preclusion of non-commercial, no derivatives, permission required, etc. is indeed policy, but is only applicable for "free" images. Images claiming a fair use justification, as this one is, are not impacted (they, by definition, carry one or more of these restrictions). We do, however, need to know from whence it came (WP:IUP vis-a-vis WP:NFCC#6), as I said above. ЭLСОВВОLДtalk20:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Soccer.Field Transparant.png - is author (Nuno Tavares) the same person as the uploader (Squadoosh (talk·contribs))? If not, how can we confirm Nuno Tavares has released this image to the public domain? The copyright tag is also incorrect; this image is not PD ineligible.
You'll have to excuse me as I said earlier, I have somewhat smaller knowledge on images and copyrights. But alas I do have enough. Yes, Nuno Tavares is the same Wikipedia user who uploaded the photo. Since you seem to be worried about a possible copyright infirgement in some bizzare way, please read the tag which IS appropriate as another user already said. "This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." Pretty much says it all itself. The user who created and uploaded it takes no copyright towards it as it is a common content image which is ineligible for such. And again, since I am vague on copyright tags, perhaps you could just notify me as to which tag is most appropriate? You can determine this by looking at the copyright links provided, and noting that permission has been given to use the images on any domain so long as it abides by the basic copyright laws listed. What is the most appropriate tag for such? Domiy (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for the constructive efforts btw. Glad we got this sorted. Just waiting to see if there is anything else? Domiy (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problems (not a support, not really an oppose, but yes, these keep it from being an FA) - 1) Image:Croatian_first_team.jpg is on the left and formats a second level header incorrectly and sandwiches it against the infobox. 2) I believe the length of your captions could cause problems. 3) Your templates at the bottom should be in the "closed" position starting out. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 1 September 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.
Current ref 17 "Inside a Cloud" needs a publisher. Also is this the artists website?
It may be his website. This fact is not important for establishing notability. It is just a small fact that if necessary could be excised from the article. It provides some context by showing photographs of this subject have been commissioned.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got the following reply "Onewallaway.com is my personal website on which I present my photographic work. Currently, photographs from the series "One Wall Away, Chicago's Hidden Spaces" are on display in the lobby of the Sears Tower in Chicago."-Jan Theun van Rees--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd drop the fact, personally. It's a borderline source, but if you want to leave it in, I'd leave this source out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk14:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It means I won't strike the concern and it would be visible and still listed as a concern for all other reviewers to decide if it's a major concern for them or not. They'd see your replies and judge the merits on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk14:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has this image been deleted from the article? If so, it should be deleted altogether. Fair use images that are not used cannot remain uploaded. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Pre-buffing Bean'.jpg - The seams are very hard to see in this image - I don't think this justifies fair use, especially since there is an interior image that shows the seams as well as a completely different view of the sculpture.
You have both the omphalos and the seams in one image - you don't need another one. It was an excellent idea to choose an image that showed both of those together. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Cloud Gate (The Bean) in winter'.jpg - There is no fair use rationale for the Cloud Gate article and frankly I don't see how one could be written. We already have a good shot of the sculpture in the infobox. We hardly need another one.
I tend to agree with Awadewit on this image. It is really adding nothing new to the article, as we already have two shots of the east and west sides (both very important images when it comes to illustrating the sculpture). This one however, is simply a repeat of the east shot except with some snow on it. I cannot see a justifiable fair use rational being written for it. --TorsodogTalk07:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from west'.jpg - "Vivid illustration" is not a strong enough reason for fair use inclusion (see WP:NFCC #8) - this also replicates images already in the article and is probably unnecessary.
Artistically when you can see the same images reflecting on the surface from both the east and the west isn't that almost magical artistically. It borders on unbelievable or at least surprising. We have the image to document this odd feature.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from east'.jpg - "Vivid illustration" is not a strong enough reason for fair use inclusion (see WP:NFCC #8) - this also replicates images already in the article and is probably unnecessary.
Image:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg - This image requires a fair use rationale as it carries a copyright. Again, while it would be nice to have such an image in the article (to show how the sculpture is situated in its environment), we already have too many fair use images in the article.
This image is hosted on the Commons. The license used is within the acceptable free licenses that the Commons allows. Unless you feel that the Commons is remiss to host this image there is no need for a fair use claim. —Jeremy (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that since republication rights can be changed at any moment, fair use is required, but I will check that again. Awadewit (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has far too many fair use images. We have to remove some of them. Unfortunately, we cannot have a shot of the sculpture from every angle. Remember, that fair use is not a legal doctrine upheld throughout the world. Any CD versions of Wikipedia or print versions will not have any of these fair use images. It behooves us to have free images and to restrict our use of fair use images for these reasons. Awadewit (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article currently has (what would amount to) six fair use images. This is far too many. I would suggest leaving the two in the infobox (if we can come up with stronger rationales) and the seam/omphalos image. I would suggest deleting the park, pre-buffing, and winter images. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that going with a count is proper. The last two modern art FAs passed with seven images each (counting collage images separately). However, you can remove any image that will explain to the reader where the sculpture is if you think it is preferable unless you are willing to allow an image to depict a redirect. There is no need to show the reader anything that would help them understand where the sculpture is just because we have the images since we tell them in the text. That leaves us the winter image and the pre-buffing images. I don't think it is clear how much the work that we describe in the text needed to be done to complete the sculpture without either image. I am not comfortable removing either image without someone from WP:WPVA convincing me that not much is lost. As far as the winter image goes, I think it is extremely different from the other fair weather image and am not sure why it does not pass as minimal usage to depict a different part of the subject.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of my majors as an undergraduate was art history, so I do really sympathize with your predicament here, but I really don't think we can justify any more than these three legally. Unfortunately, the law does not always take aesthetics into consideration. :( Awadewit (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to oppose based on number of fair use images can you make some statement about your conclusion in this matter. Your complaint is semi-unactionable since there seem to be only two images at issue and you don't provide much current discourse on either.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize I forgot to cross one image out before. My opposition is based on the remaining image, which shows something that another fair use image already shows - the seams. There is no reason to have two fair use images showing the same thing. I have already explained that I believe the image showing the omphalos and the seams is the best one because it combines two concepts. Having a second image is unnecessary. Awadewit (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the article has two photos of the current completed work (an east and a west) and two images of the work in process (an interior and an exterior). I feel both pairs of images are important to the article and unless there is a WP:WIAFA or WP:NFCC concern. I believe this still upholds the WP:NFCC standard of NFCC 8. I think the reader would not understand the need for the fuss of closing the sculpture for two years to buff it if they could not see how much less striking the exterior was before all the work that is elaborately detailed. I have asked two other discussants in this FAC to give an opinion on this matter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Unindent)REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION at 21:23, 23 August 2008 User:Awadewit argued against saying the article has far too many images. At 23:48, 29 August 2008 he opposed for too many images. Upon reconsideration at 15:15, 30 August 2008 and 15:14, 30 August 2008 it seems he is saying he opposes because the article has one too many image. Am I understanding this opposition correctly? This just seems odd to me after all the progress that was made. One is free to oppose on whatever grounds one likes, but this seems to be a very slippery slope.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, progress has been made, but not enough. I do not believe that this article meets criteria 3 because I believe that we do not need two images showing the seams (in process shots). We discussed this but a satisfactory conclusion was not reached - that is why I am opposing. Opposing on images is a legitimate oppose, by the way. I am not going to repeat this explanation again. Awadewit (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand Awadewit's opposition to using both seam images, but as the primary editor of this article, I also understand how important it is to see the Cloud Gate with its seams, as the public saw the sculpture like that for almost a year (on top of it being tented for almost a year BECAUSE of the seams). I've been trying to come up with a solution or compromise to this problem. One compromise I have come up with is removing the image of of the entire sculpture showing the seams and replacing it with an image of the sculpture tented (either partially or entirely). Something like this. Would this be a suitable compromise? --TorsodogTalk19:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have consent for any such images and would it be considered fair use when it is largely covered? It is almost as good a depiction of the problem and so would sort of be a solution depending on how fair use is affected.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, I do not have consent for any such images, but if this is a suitable compromise/does not require fair use, I will actively pursue that image or one similar to it. --TorsodogTalk00:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed alternative would also be a fair use image. I'm afraid that I just do not see the necessity of having two images depicting the sculpture under construction. Please read WP:NFCC #3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" - This article already has an image that shows the sculpture under construction and there is no significant information that is being added by the second image. Each and every fair use image has to have a strong fair use rationale so that Wikipedia can protect itself from lawsuits. Awadewit (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose—<sigh>There's this overwhelming sense of deja vue: nothing ever changes; no one learns from past comments; the article is just shoved in here before it's ready. As I pointed out last time, it's just plain unfair to other nominators, the reviewers, and the director.
Breach of WP:CONTEXT, first bullet point, explicated in the footnote. Who on earth you think wants to click on "feet" and "m" I can't fathom. Breach of the same section in the linking of the name of a commonly known anglophone country.
I continue to disagree with linkages within the {{convert}} template. I link all measurements upon first usage regardless of commonness. This will always lead you and I to quibble about conversions for things like ft/m. That is my stylistic choice. I will just say that is my stylistic choice. As for the United States, I have moved the linked usage to the infobox and made it unlinked in the text. I can go along with you on this stylistic choice you have.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's nice and easy: it simply won't be promoted, since you refuse to fix the breach of the style guidelines (Criterion 2).
MoS breach in year ranges: en dash required—we should not have to point this out; do you simply ignore the comments from countless previous nomination pages?
Linking of "sculpture": breach of WP:MOSLINK—"In general, do not create links to the following:.. Plain English words". If the reader doesn't know what the word means, they should learn English. "Theme" is just too vague to bother us with a link. It's distracting and a breach. If you insist on ignoring WP's styleguides on linking, don't bother nominating articles for featured status.
The term sculpture may be common enough to warrant your objection. However, that fact that a term is vague is support for linkage to a separate article which explains the term in greater detail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"and visitors are invited to walk around and under Cloud Gate's 12-foot (3.7 m)-high arch"—I explicitly advised last time on how to recast this gobbledygook kind of expression, yet you ignore the advice. "Cloud Gate's arch, which is 12 feet (3.7 m) high". Avoid triple adjectives that involve parenthetical conversions—they're ugly to look at and bumpy to read. Are visitors invited explicitly in a written sign? Sounds like it.
It's not a matter of converting Tony's attitude; some style guides stress commas after all conjoined independent clauses, but it's not uncommon to see the comma omitted for short sentences. Granted, I prefer to use commas for all cases, but the opposite is also understandable. — Deckiller04:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not worried about Tony's attitude in general. The comment was more of a statement about a comment he made in my last FAC, which gave the impression of lack of understanding of what conjoining was and grammatical propriety surrounding it. He is more often than not spot on in his grammatical concerns. He just made me feel that using a comma between conjoined independent clauses was something only done on Mars in the last FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"great" is a subjective and vague word: it is not encyclopedic. "photo taking" needs a hyphen.
I recommend, again, that you withdraw this nomination and prepare it properly. I'm reading no further than two paragraphs until it's in a respectable shape. Get as angry as you like—that will simply demonstrate the veracity of what I'm saying. Tony(talk)08:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General ReplyAs for your oppose, thanks for your opinion. As for your death sentence on the candidacy, it is inappropriate. The article has been through WP:PR and WP:GAR where we have accepted feedback from a variety of editors. We have spent time with the article and are not throwing slop out here for review. Between our editorial efforts and two distinct review processes, I think the article has earned the priviledge of wider review and feedback from WP:FAC. Unless and until those processes work better, a few articles like this may appear here. I apologize if it bothers you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Specific reply: Well, I hope the Oppose, and those of other reviewers, isn't a bother you. But our patience is wearing thin, being used as some kind of cheap (free) article-improvement service when other nominations are more deserving, since their editors are willing to learn from the process and respond by working with us rather than fighting us. You're going to find increasingly that reviewers will oppose more readily under these circumstances, and they will do so with the full support of the criteria. Tony(talk)17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every type of review process is a free improvement service. However, so is every editorial process. I.E., my article creation and editing is also a free improvements service. I appreciate all feedback. I hope you appreciate all my editorial efforts, which are also free.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither; I guess you're talking about the paragraphs at the end of "Exterior maintenance"? At least, those are what I am referring to; I think they should be merged. GaryKing (talk)04:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? Looks good to me now. Why would you want to have the redirection notice for "Ameritech Plaza" when there's nothing more to say? Some articles have dozens of redirects to them but not all of them are listed – only the ones that have disambiguation pages are listed. GaryKing (talk)06:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this comment about the redirect notice. Ameritech Plaza never redirected to anything else. There is no real need to alert readers that they are being redirected to this page because, to my knowledge, there is no other Ameritech Plaza and they were most likely looking for this page. --TorsodogTalk06:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Some things I noticed in the lead alone. I suggest getting some fresh eyes to copyedit the whole thing.
I understand that you dearly love your images—and I'm not going to fuss over them. But are two pictures of the same thing needed in the infobox? It took me a while to figure out the difference between the two.
Inspired by liquid mercury, it is one of the most popular sculptures in the United States. Even though it's in the lead, it needs source to not be POV.
There are two styles of lead (cited and uncited). Half and half is the problem. A fully uncited lead is O.K. if all claims in the lead are properly cited in the text. This is common FAC convention.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the underside of the sculpture is the "omphalos", a concave chamber that dramatically warps and multiplies reflections. Remove "dramatically".
Eventually, a feasible method was determined, but the sculpture fell well behind schedule and was unveiled in an incomplete form during the Millennium Park grand opening celebration before being concealed for completion and a final unveiling. Needs to be worded better. As an example: "unveiled...for a final unveiling".–JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone19:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about Eventually, a feasible method was found, but the sculpture fell behind schedule, and was unveiled in an incomplete form during the Millennium Park grand opening celebration before being concealed for completion? It cuts out a small bit of information, but it increases readability significantly. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone22:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from Maralia Too many basic grammar and formatting issues.
1000 years - commas in large numbers.
Introduce Norman Foster so that his disbelief means something in context.
Wikilinking needs work: why link 'gate' but not 'tie rod'?
began the preparations to begin working on the structure's outer shell. - began to begin to begin.
About a third of plates, along with the entire interior structure, - missing article.
The plates were covered with protective white film and polished 98% - what does 'polished 98%' mean?
...were fabricated in Oakland and shipped to Chicago. The plates were covered with protective white film and polished 98% before being sent to Chicago via trucks. Once in Chicago, - I get it, they went to Chicago.
Unnecessary capitalization in the table (Equipment Used).
Why use scare quotes on "omphalos" throughout? For that matter, they're not even used consistently throughout.
Inconsistent use of serial commas, especially in the Praise section.
The sculpture contributed to Millennium Park being named - noun + ing ugliness.
On both occasions Cloud Gate was the focus of attention as the primary precluded attraction. - what is precluded supposed to be here?
Kapoor has a reputation for producing work in urban settings at a magnitude of size and scale that create spectacles - subject verb disagreement.
This is why removing all the seams from Cloud Gate was necessary - 'this is' is preaching to the audience.
Kapoor's objects often aim at evoking immateriality and the "spiritual" - unnecessary scare quotes.
Kapoor explores the theme of ambiguity with his work that places the viewer in a state of "in-betweenness." - logical quotation.
with such dualities as solidity-emptiness or reality-reflection, which in turn allude to such paired opposites as flesh-spirit, the here-the beyond, east-west, sky-earth - endashes here, not hyphens.
concave points of focus that invites the entry of visitors and multiplies their images when they are positioned correctly. - subject verb disagreement.
reflections of a larger than life size scale - hyphens for compound modifier.
The reflections from the sculpture distorts the entire skyline of the city. - subject verb disagreement.
This sculpture is similar to much of Kapoor's previous works - many works, not much works.
By reflecting the sky, visiting and non-visiting pedestrians, and surrounding architecture, viewers are limited to partial comprehension at any time. - misplaced modifier: viewers don't reflect the sky.
(registration require for entire article) - typo; required.
When footnote links are not in html format, the format needs to be indicated, be it through using the format= parameter in {{cite web}} or manually typed.
Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) I can see that that one also covers in some detail the promotion, the artwork, and musical and lyrical themes. I will take a look soon, but only based on these I think the article fails on the broadness criteria. Nergaal (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
_in_winter%27.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_from_west%27.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_from_east%27.jpg){kind=link}
