Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2008

September 2008

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:54, 10 September 2008 [1].

---

Mario Power Tennis

Nominator(s): Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs

Basically, I feel that this meets the criteria as it's well written, comprehensive and neutral. I realise that it's a relatively short article, but relevant points are covered in sufficient detail. The article has undergone peer review, which has hopefully ironed out any remaining issues. Any comments are appreciated. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Anything about the audio/music? Who composed the game? The Prince (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The best I can manage is the stated composer in the infobox. Beyond that, there doesn't seem to be any info available except reception to the music. Thanks for the suggestion. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• The external link looks to be dead and should probably be removed. The Prince (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...Link checker tricked me. I've removed it now—I don't think it contributed anything new anyway. By the way, thanks for the clean-up, Prince. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per lack of amusing nomination statement. Image comments:
  • Image:Mario_Power_Tennis_box.jpg could be reduced to 256px in width per NFCC (also it would look better in the infobox, as scaling always seems to look like crap.) Source for the image?
  • Image:Mario Power Tennis.jpg - no issues.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh—humour doesn't come naturally to me unless I'm hating on somebody else's article in the process;-). Fixed image size. I'm actually really clueless about images, so I'm not sure about the source. Somebody else uploaded it—who I believe is still active—but I don't know where they got it from. What should I do? Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, one box art image is pretty much as good as another, so all you really need to do is find a similar one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good gosh, Fuchs; what a way to mess with my head :-) If everyone does that, it's going to become kind of hard for me to sort through 40 to 50 FACs per day :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't bold it 'cause I figured that would mess you up even more :P By the way I've resolved the issues at Bone Wars with the images (yeah this has nothing to do with this FAC but I dont feel like posting at your talk page right now.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User: Jappalang kindly fixed the remaining issue with the box art. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, images are all okay, then. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed this during its peer review and I feel that Ashnard resolved any issues I was concerned with. I did bring up a comprehensiveness concern and subsequently searched some databases—I did not find additional print sources that offered more information than what the article presents. --Laser brain (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comments
• Are we missing a word like "mode" or option" in these sentences: "Power Tennis supports four-player multiplayer" and "In general, the game's multiplayer was"
• "Also accounting for the delay of release was a willingness not to update the graphics only without exploring advancements to concepts and gameplay..." Huh?
• "When questioned about difficulties noting the game..." Huh?
• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've addressed the points adequately. For the second and third, I'm assuming you have a problem with some awkward wording and/or lack of clarity. I'm not exactly sure, so I've changed the wording into something that should be clearer and more straightforward. Specifically for the third, if you have a problem with the circumstances of the questioning, then the context is explained at the beginning of that paragraph. If I've misinterpreted how you wanted the sentence to be fixed, then please let me know. Thanks for the comments. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Giggy

• "Power Tennis was developed simultaneously with Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour, which shared similar technology and concepts with the tennis game during production" - could the second part be reworded, maybe to something like "and the pair shared..."?

• Reworded to suggested version

• "This mode can be completed either in "doubles" or "singles"" - wlinks to relevant tennis articles?

• I've linked "doubles" to Types of tennis match, which lacks heirarchical headings. It also contains a bit of info on "singles", but I didn't want to link it twice.

• "while this was the first appearance for Wiggler as a playable characters." - shouldn't that be singular? ("as a playable character")

• Oops; didn't see that.

• "with one being offensive and the other defensive" - this phrasing is slightly awkward... remove the "with" and play around with it a bit

• Reading further on, I feel that this part is redundant considering it mentions scoring or defending a point later on depending on the shot chosen. There doesn't seem to be a way of rewording it without reiterating that, so I deleted this part.

• "Eurogamer's Tom Bamwell welcomed Power Tennis's style, which emphasised gameplay over realism" - can you emphasise that this is his opinion and not necessarily reality? ("...which he said...")

• Done

• Japanese and Australian sales figures... no American data?

• There's also the small matter of Europe;-). Looking for American data, I only seem to find NPD data posted on forum sites by forum members. There's also VGchartz, although I'm reluctant to use it.

• Yeah. Europe. Scoff. ;-) Giggy (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's about it. Nicely done. Giggy (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 12:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. Giggy (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Further comments by The Prince:
• Is Power Tennis a usable shortening?

• I don't see a problem with this.

• ”The range of courts includes the standard three types of tennis court” – Isn’t it "three types of tennis courts"?

• Maybe it's me, but I thought there would be variants (plural) of a court(singular), but I'd need a grammar expert to certify or dismiss this.

• "Tournament mode" – Shouldn’t it be ”Tournament” mode? Is “mode” a part of the name?

• Yeah it is, but upon checking I realised that "mode" should be capitalised. Thanks

• Should “Gimmick” mode be in quotes after the first time it’s mentioned? “Special Games” isn’t.

• Done for all other examples. Made execption for lead – text transition.

• "Exhibition mode" – Same as point 3.

• Done

• Inherent in each character is also a set of two unique moves known as "power shots". – Power Shots is capitalised in the rest of the article. Needs to be consistent.

• Done

• Headed by Hiroyuki and Shugo Takahashi. – Maybe you could say that they’re brothers the first they’re mentioned by writing "headed by brothers Hiroyuki and Shugo Takahashi"? It may be obvious, but confirming it two sentences later seems weird to me.

• Done

• Apparently, Camelot had been working… - Is ”apparently” really necessary?

• No. Done

• The opening sequences, developing the special games, and animations… - Here, Special Games is not capitalised.

• Done

• No Metacritic score?

• Added

• Stating "When you put it all together, you have a broad cast of characters, each of whom offers a different feel." – Should the first word in the quote be capitalised? It’s not in the beginning of the sentence, but maybe this is how it’s done? I honestly don’t know.

• It's in the beginning of the sentence that's being quoted, so I believe this is correct. Also just to clarify, the full stop is within the quotationmarks as it's a full quoted sentence.

That's it. The Prince (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 07:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. All my concerns have been addressed. The article is well-written and easy to understand, even though I haven't played the game. The Prince (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support - Nice little video game article. This was all that I found during a full reading.

• "Other varients include "Gimmick" courts, thematic courts with components and properties that directly affect gameplay." A slight redundancy with two courts in three words.
• Metacritic could be linked in the lead.
• Gameplay: "Inherent in each character is also a set of two unique moves known as "Power Shots". Either move also to the beginning of the sentence or get rid of it; it's not doing any good where it is.
• "can be applied any time in the match." Very picky, but this could be "can be applied at any time in the match."
• Development: "and began again using ideas and technology used for Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour..." Another little redundancy with using and used.
• Reception: In the Michael Cole quote in the first paragraph, move the period inside the quotation mark.
• "The game's "Powers Shots"... Powers?
• "although GameSpot's Ryan Davis commenting that... For tense purposes, change commenting to commented. Also fix the logical punctuation here.
• "The mechanics of the tennis gameplay was were also popular..." Plural should go with plural here.
• Logical punctuation again with the Nintendo World Report quote in the last paragraph.
• "from October 16 to October 29 in 2005." I'd rather see "from October 16 to October 29, 2005." Giants2008 (17-14) 18:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've addressed all of your points now. Thanks for the comments. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments I'm not comfortable with the number of sections. Is there no information on its music, for instance? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I couldn't find any info on the game's music. Is there any other section that you feel should be there but is not present? Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway), this article is shorter than most because the game doesn't have a plot section. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:54, 10 September 2008 [2].

---

Thriller (album)

Nominator(s): Realist2 (talk)

previous FAC (20:43, 3 July 2008)

I'm nominating this article for FA, I'm the main contributor. — Realist² 12:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• What makes the following sources reliable?
  • http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/Current/A543.htm
    • I removed the source and the info supported by it, it was added a few days ago by a newish editor, I was always dubious about it but didn't want to be bitey. — Realist² 13:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'll admit to being utterly puzzled by current ref 39 (Uncut presents NME originals ...). I'm not sure WHAT is being referenced here. Needs to be clarified.
  • Sure, this is a magazine by NME about 80's music. I bought the online version specifically for this article (as suggested by WesleyDodds). It doesn't contain an ISBN therefore since it's online. I will look to see if there's any more attribution details on it to add to the reference. I might be able to wikilink to the article. — Realist² 13:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Here is the article NME Originals, obviously I used the 80's version. Hopefully that helps you understand it a little better than I can explain it. Will still look for more details on attributions though. — Realist² 13:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I think you'd just use {{cite journal}} to make it work correctly. I think. Try that and we'll see. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
        • OK, I've never used that template before, I must confess. I'm not sure what I should reference. Should I reference the specific review by Melody Maker or do I source the NME magazine from where the review is found (or at least from where I found it). The NME magazine is basically a collection of reliable album reviews by different organizations. I have a feeling I need to give details on the review attribution's and the NME magazine from which I found it, thus I am royally confused how to use that template. Sorry for being a little retarded on this. — Realist² 14:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
          • No worries at all. I have to run errands, but when I get back I'll walk you through it on the article talk page, how's that? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
            • OK, the album review itself was by Melody Maker, Paolo Hewitt, December 4, 1982, page 22.
            • I found the review in...
            • Uncut presents NME Originals 80's. Steve Sutherland. (2005). p68
            • That's the info I have, hope it helps, and would very much appreciate help with that template, yes, thank you. — Realist² 14:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Okay author=Maker, Melody, coauthor=Paolo Hewitt, title=(title of the article, is it Thriller Review?), journal=MNE Originals 80's, editor=Steve Sutherland (may have to add (editor) after that in the field to make it clear), year=2005, pages=68. Plop those into the template and see what you get! And no, you're not a problem at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
                • Hmm, that wasn't much good, maybe it's better if we write it without templates? :-( — Realist² 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
                  • {{cite journal | author=Maker, Melody |authorlink=Melody Maker |title=Thriller Review |journal= Uncut Presents NME Originals 80's |year=2005 |pages=68}} gives Maker, Melody (2005). "Thriller Review". Uncut Presents NME Originals 80's: 68.. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
                    • OK, that looks better now. — Realist² 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Because it's the theme of the day, please spell out abbreviations in the footnotes. Examples include, but are not limited to, RIAA.
  • DONE, some are still abbreviated but according to their related article they are always abbreviated. Hope that's better. Don't think I missed any that needed changing. — Realist² 14:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look good. The links checked out with the link checker tool. I was unable to evaluate the non-English sources. (Which, however, were nicely noted as non-English in the footnotes, thanks!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images and media files

• Image:Michael Jackson Thriller.ogg - There is no fair use rationale for the Thriller article.
  • DONE, but I don't understand fair use so I'm probably talking B.S. — Realist² 15:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I added a bit more. Awadewit (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Image:Michael Jackson 1984.jpg - The source link does not work.
  • Originally comes from ({{Information |Description=President Ronald Reagan and first lady Nancy Reagan welcome pop singer Michael Jackson to the White House. |Source=NARA |Date=1984 |Author=White House Photo Office |Permission=White House Photo, PD |other_version) as seen in Image:Michael Jackson with the Reagans.png but don't know how to change it. — Realist² 15:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • You just had to search the archives for the photo. Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Image:Mjthriller.jpg - It would be nice to have purpose that is a little more clearly articulated than the equivalent of "best video ever". :)
  • DONE, I think, again, probably talking a load of B.S. in the world of fair use requirements. — Realist² 15:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Far better. Jackson sounds like a revolutionary artist here. He's Pablo Picasso. :) Awadewit (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • He is a revolutionary artist, he's changed a lot of things (not just music) ;-) — Realist² 21:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC) These should be easy issues to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Media concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for going out of your way to help. — Realist² 21:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Take a look at [3].  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  02:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means and I don't claim to be psychic either lol, could you clarify what is wrong and I'll do my best to fix it? — Realist² 02:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It means there are several links to disambiguation pages. Per {{disambig}} these should be fixed so they point to the right page. —Giggy 11:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And I've gone ahead and fixed one. The other is in the template at the bottom, so ignore it. —Giggy 11:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments I know I promised to ce this, but sadly I have minimal access to a computer these days. The way I see it \, this article still has some way to go before it can be FA:

• Highly publicized events: this section is largely unnecessary (and the heading a little unclear and ambiguous). You can transfer the content to the other sections maintaining an an approximately chronological order. Further, some of the stuff could be down as they are only tangential to Thriller : "Written primarily by Jackson, with help from Lionel Richie . . . Jackson was perceived as a humanitarian"
  • Can I just remove it entirely, it helped the album sell but it's really not important to Thriller — Realist² 13:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It's been deleted by Wesley. — Realist² 14:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• "In a Melody Maker publication Paolo Hewitt gave Thriller possibly its worst review." -- how do you know that there weren't other reviewers who rated it even worse?
  • Changed — Realist² 13:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• "Off the Wall combines the genres . . . "Workin' Day and Night" and "Get on the Floor"." -- its hard to see why this stuff is in the Thriller article instead of Off the Wall. I'm confused why Thriller's music is mostly discussed in comparison with its predecessor.
  • Gone — Realist² 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• "When Rod Temperton wrote the song "Thriller" . . . did not have the "edginess" of other album tracks." - why in this and not the "Thriller" article?
  • If your talking about - When Rod Temperton wrote the song "Thriller", he originally wanted to call it "Starlight" or "Midnight Man" but settled on it because he felt the name had merchandising potential.[16] - then I would argue this Merchandising potential extends to the album title not just the song title. — Realist² 13:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• "Eventually, they found Eddie Van Halen of the rock band Van Halen; Van Halen did not inform his band mates about the collaboration until the album was released" How can a band tell its band members anything? :P
  • Removed — Realist² 14:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• "Taraborrelli describes "Human Nature" as the most moody and introspective song on the record, with the lyrics, "Looking out, across the morning, the City's heart begins to beat, reaching out, I touch her shoulder, I'm dreaming of the street"." -- seems like an incomplete sentence to me. A description should follow since you have "with the lyrics" in there.
  • I can't see it, but I think that's my English, I agree it doesn't quite run but I don't know why. Could you clear that up for me? — Realist² 00:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Autodate links are out of fashion . . . are they really required here (there are so many)?
  • DONE — Realist² 14:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a copy-edit from the likes of music editors such as Ceoil or WesleyDodds should bring this article really close. I'll comment more later in the week.

• Article has been besieged by Wesley and Ceoil (thanx you guys/gals), hope that helps. — Realist² 14:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

indopug (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - the lead is awkward. The first paragraph basically does a "super-summary" of what a lead normally includes, and then it sort of goes back and summarises the article again in the next few paragraphs. Take a look at some other album FAs and try and format it based on those... —Giggy 11:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I basically over viewed the article, taking the main points of each heading. If it's just the first paragraph that is annoying I can cut it? — Realist² 15:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm reading your assessment of the first paragraph of the lead and I have to disagree that it's a "super-summary" of the article. The lead first paragraph reads...

Thriller is the sixth studio album by American pop musician Michael Jackson, released on November 30, 1982 by Epic Records. Recording sessions took place between April and November of 1982 at Westlake Recording Studios in Los Angeles, California. Assisted by producer Quincy Jones, Jackson wrote four of the album's nine tracks, a production budget was set at $750,000. Thriller was Jackson's first studio album since the critically and commercially successful 1979 record Off the Wall. Reviewers believed that Thriller shared similar genres to Off the Wall, featuring funk, disco, soul, soft rock, jazz and pop ballads. Thriller was darker than his previous release, covering themes such as paranoia and the supernatural.

This paragraph only covers the details up to the end of the "Themes and Genre" section. At the very most the first paragraph is a summary of everything before the album was actually released and in that context I see nothing wrong with the first paragraph or the similar style I have chosen for the descending paragraphs of the intro.

I don't see the problem but I'm not really bothered about the lead, feel free to do with it what you like. :-) I just don't know what your looking for. — Realist² 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I played around with the lead a bit and I think it's looking better. I'll come back for a close look at prose at some point. It's really close to FA, I think. —Giggy 01:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Suits me, cheers. :-) — Realist² 01:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Taking a section at random to look at the prose...

• "was written a few years before 1982 and has a similar sound to the material of Off The Wall" - "a few years prior to 1982", "material on Off The Wall" - see if these rewords make it sound better.
  • Done — Realist² 13:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• ""The Girl Is Mine" tells of two friends' fight over a woman, arguing over who loves her more" - that's almost obvious just from the song title. You could go into more detail on what Jackson was talking about with that particular song (if there was more to it).
  • That was really all there was to it, like the article says, when that was released as the first single some people had concerns about the album. It's a very simple song by Jackson's standard. You would think two legends like MJ and McCartney would have been a little more creative. The title really does sum up the song. — Realist² 13:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• "was described as, "the closest Jackson has come to crooning a sexy, soulful ballad after his Motown years", according to Taraborrelli" - change "according to" to "by" and remove the commas
  • DONE — Realist² 14:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• "This is evident on the songs "Billie Jean" and "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'"" - use his full name for the Allmusic ref
  • DONE — Realist² 14:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Midway through paragraph two of Themes and genres you talk about "Beat It"... then the title track... then "Beat It" again. It gets confusing; put the two "Beat It"s together for a start.
  • Done — Realist² 14:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

—Giggy 11:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The personnel need to be reformatted; see WP:ALBUM#Personnel.
  • Done (I think) — Realist² 00:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Okay. They should probably be alphabetized (by last name) and the first instance of each instrument should be linked. See what I did in Off the Wall (album)#Personnel.

• Done — Realist² 01:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support I see no problems now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Prose is of a high quality, other issues are resolved. Well done. —Giggy 03:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'm still working my way through the article and it looks pretty good so far. I am worried about the lack information on the recording process, especially given the critical attention given to the sound of the album. I understand Jackson has given few interviews about it, but what about Quincy Jones? He's not interview-shy, and he wrote an autobiography that should probably be checked out. What about the other people who worked on the album? WesleyDodds (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • All the major players (bar Jackson obviously) talked at detail about it on the audio for the 2001 reissue (which I've already used), I think everything that's noteworthy is there, further information would become disinteresting, if it even exists. Quincy Jones mutters some crap about it being all about god all the time, really it's a load of B.S. — Realist² 01:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It would add some balance of viewpoints to include what Quincy and the others thought of the recording process. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll look into what other players say, Jones never offers up anything intellectual.— Realist² 02:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
        • On the 30th August, I left a document on your talk page with lots of info, I'm still awaiting a response as to what, if anything, is worth including in the article from that document (noting for transparency). — Realist² 15:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Better Looks much better than when it originally got here. But, why is the contemporary sales/charting info of the album split across two different sections? (Release and Commercial reception) Boring MoS doubt: why is the "thriller" song sometimes written as Thriller? I think just "Thriller" throughout would be better, because it cons\fuses with the album itself ("The choreography in Thriller has become a part of global pop culture") indopug (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the Thriller music video (which has it's own page), it's a short film, thus is in italics. The album and video are italics the song it in brackets "...". We have 3 articles dedicated to Thriller lol. — Realist² 15:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

DONE - I moved a lot of the release info info the reception section. I then realised the release section would be quite small as a stand alone, so made it a release and reception section. I moved all the info on the re-releases to the legacy section. — Realist² 16:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• its very odd to see "It ranked number 20 on Rolling Stone magazine's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list in 2003" right after "Thriller was not universally praised."
  • Moved. — Realist² 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Since so much text has been moved around, you should check whether everything is linked the first time or not.
  • Checked, few alterations, seems to be OK. — Realist² 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• I moved stuff in the R&R section around and now I guess I'm happy with the overall content of the album. A couple of runs from uninvolved copy-editors (to make the prose exemplary and the MoS perfect) should see this one through. Good work! indopug (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Will try to get it copy edited, but Wesley and Ceoil have already given it the once over, as have a few others. Don't know who else to turn to. — Realist² 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Copy edited again by Kodster and Ceoil. — Realist² 22:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose— for now. I would love to see an expansion of the music section, with more information on the instrumentation and styles of the song, as opposed to mere mentions of the their lyrical content. What are some of the musical achievements of this album? Did Jackson help to popularize any new sounds? etc. Also, unless copyright concerns hinders it, I'd love it if more sound samples were included. This would help to address my previous points. Orane (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • We have 3 samples now, hope that helps. — Realist² 22:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Support. I agree with Journalist that the music section could be expanded; its mostly a collection of quotes at the moment. Also, Walter Yetnikoff's "Howling at the Moon" gives great insight into Jacksons hunger for world wide fame at the time, his obsession with perfection during the albums's production, and his relationship with Jones (Not actioble as such, just a tip). Ceoil ^sláinte 22:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • While I don't own anything by Walter, I think the background section already establishes Jackson's determination for perfection and power and his displeasure with the result of his prior record as somehow substandard. The article also mentions how he almost pulled the album when Quincy jones told him it would be a flop. I think the article already establishes him as a perfectionist, maybe without saying the words specifically. I've left a document on Journalist's talk page which you (Ceoil) are obviously open to read and pick out anything useful that I should include. — Realist² 22:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It mentions it but there is no colour. Its documented, yeah, but there is no real sence of the personal dynamics at play at the time. Anyway, was just a suggestion. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I hate to have to do this to the article, because I think that it's very good. But I'm afraid that I'm still not quite satisfied. Sound samples are o.k, but they are meaningless if the body of the article does not adequately address their significance. I just need more in depth info. There are so many things that the section could still improve on. Did Jackson use any samples, for example? I was reading the article for "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'" and it talked about the African chant, which was taken from Manu Dibango etc. What about his voice/vocal arrangements? A few other featured articles on albums exemplify what I'm talking about: Be Here Now (album), Loveless (album).

• I'll make a promise. If the music section is rewritten without the over reliance on quotes (you could extrapolate, while quoting where necessary), then I'll support, even if my suggestions aren't all addressed. I realize that this album is still pop/rock, which means that musical elements such as significant riffs, crescendos, and other nuances aren't exactly the strong point. I won't fault you if you can't find any information on it. Orane (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• As a little thing. I've checked the booklets for Thriller (2001 edition), HIStory (double disk), The Ultimate collection (Box set) and none of them credit any sample for the Thriller album. Unless the official album booklets give the credit, I feel uneasy about claiming there were samples. Does anyone have the original 1982 release? Maybe there are credits in there? — Realist² 15:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I added some info on his vocals. I don't understand how I can remove the quotes and still keep the article NPOV. In-fact at a prior review of this article I received an oppose because the claims were not attributed to a writer in the text. Since every positive comment ever made about Jackson it attacked as POV, almost everything said about him needs a name next to it otherwise it's tagged as POV. Are there any statements you/anyone thinks I can cite without having to quote it and still remaining NPOV? I think I'm gunno need some help with this one. When it comes to Jackson, I'm so used to having to quote things to maintain NPOV, I almost don't know how to write any other way lol. — Realist² 16:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Added a few extra things, removed some of the quoting and rearranged some of the text. Of to bed soon. — Realist² 23:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not happy. The music section is largely a collection of direct quotes of how various journalists described the album. You need to search for unrefuatable facts, ie "influenced by funk", "played in the key of G", "uses such and such effect", whatever, and state facts without mentioning the specific journalist's name (the ref is enough if its obvious or fact). eg: Christopher Connelly of Rolling Stone magazine argues that with Thriller, Jackson would begin his long association with the subliminal theme of paranoia and darker imagery.[21] This is evident on the songs "Billie Jean" and "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'", Stephen Erlewine of Allmusic observed.[20] is a simple fact attribituded four times. That said, I think this is an easily fixed problem, and the recent additions are generally strong. And I found Yetnikoffs book in a dusty corner this afternoon. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Thriller was certified 27x platinum in 2005"; eh, what does '27x platinum' mean? But thats a small easily fixed thing, and I'm combing through the prose for final ce issues but fairly happy now given the extensive editing since my last comment. I'm pleased to lend "support" on this basis; its very interesting article, fairly treated and covers all sides, well and engagingly written. Thanks for all your hard work, more please. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It means that it has shipped at least 27,000,000 copies in the US. I'll c;clarify that. — Realist² 00:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've struck out my oppose. I like the new additions to the article;they go along the lines of what I'm looking for. Works for me. Don't know about Ceoil. I was reading the WP article on Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, so I understand where Realist is coming from. Orane (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Support: --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:46, 9 September 2008 [4].

---

Last of the Summer Wine

Nominator(s): Redfarmer (talk)

previous FAC (03:57, 12 June 2008)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because there has been significant improvement since the last FAC including copy editing and peer review and I now feel the article is in much better shape. Redfarmer (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

comment Image:LOTSW-title.jpg shouldn't have channel idents Fasach Nua (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program or station ID. I don't understand why you think this tag is incorrect. It seems that the tag is used to identify a non-free television screenshot, not something specifically related to a channel. Can you say more? Redfarmer (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to have the screenshot from the BBC transmission of the show, which is without channel idents Bluap (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the screenshot with a more recent one, which does not have any DOGs Bluap (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

comment The function of Image:Lotsw.jpg can be achieved using the image Image:Last of the Summer Wine Novel.jpg, for minimal use of non free content Fasach Nua (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No it can't. Image:Last of the Summer Wine Novel.jpg is the front cover of a novel based on the series. Image:Lotsw.jpg is an actual screen shot from the show. If anything, Image:Last of the Summer Wine Novel.jpg should be deleted to minimized use of fair use images. If that is what you think, I will be more than happy to delete Image:Last of the Summer Wine Novel.jpg, as I never thought this was truly necessary to begin with. Redfarmer (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• http://www.summer-wine.com/indexbackup2.htm We discussed this at the last FAC. It's... borderline at best in my mind, but pointing it out for other reviewers to be aware of and to decide for themselves. I do note that its not relied on very heavily. This is an informational post only, I'm not actually watchlisting this FAC.

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I still contend you're wrong. This was a semi-official news source endorsed by all members of the cast and crew. There's no reason to think this is unreliable other than you thought it looked like a fan site. Bad web design does not indicate the source is unreliable. Redfarmer (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As an occasional FAC contributor, and occasional contributor to this article, I agree that www.summer-wine.com should be allowed as a reliable source. It is the official website of the official fan club for the series - a fan club that frequently collaborates with the producers of the series, and has contact with the cast and crew. In terms of accuracy, I would suspect that it's more reliable than the newspaper articles used elsewhere in the article. As Ealdgyth pointed out, it is not relied upon very heavily, so I feel that it is acceptable as a source. Bluap (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment isn't the navigation box above references supposed to be at the very bottom?  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  16:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the catch. Redfarmer (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Last of the Summer Wine premiered as an episode of Comedy Playhouse on 4 January 1973, with the first series of episodes following on 12 November 1973." I always find the "with" additive link awkward, try: "Last of the Summer Wine premiered as an episode of Comedy Playhouse on 4 January 1973, and the first series of episodes followed on 12 November 1973."
  • Done. Redfarmer (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• "The cast has grown to include a variety of supporting characters, each contributing their own unique subplots to the show and often becoming unwillingly involved in the schemes of the trio." "unique" seems unnecessary coming after the word "own".
  • Done. Redfarmer (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• "Initially Clarke was not enthusiastic about the BBC's idea for a programme about three old men, and nearly turned the job down. Then he decided that the men should all be unmarried, widowed, or divorced, and either unemployed or retired." The change in ideas from the first sentence to the next is confusing and abrupt.
  • I'm not sure how this can be fixed and maintain the idea they are trying to convey. Redfarmer (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added some wording that will hopefully make this idea clearer. Redfarmer (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• "BBC producers hated this at first, and insisted that it remain a temporary working title, while the cast worried that viewers would not be able to remember the name of the show." "not be able to remember"-->forget.
  • Done. Redfarmer (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• "He was asked to play the music faster for more comedic effect, but eventually his original slower version became the well-known theme." "became the well-known theme"—is there a better phrase than that? "Was accepted", maybe?
  • Done. Redfarmer (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• "Brian Murphy was chosen as Nora Batty's neighbour because of his work on George and Mildred, where he played the hen-pecked husband to a strong-willed woman." The description "hen-pecked" doesn't mean much.
  • Not done. I don't think I could have said it better than Bluap below. Redfarmer (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Perhaps an interwiki link to Wiktionary then (for hen-pecked? It's not a commonly used term. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. Redfarmer (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Butler and Martin were, however, dropped as major characters after the first series." Put "however" before "were", I think the sentence will read better that way.
  • Done. Redfarmer (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• "Last of the Summer Wine is the longest-running comedy programme in Britain." I would think that such a statement needs a reference.
  • Already done. It does have a reference...at the end of the sentence...two references actually... Redfarmer (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, didn't see that. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll finish out the comments later. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To comment on one of your points, "hen-pecked" does have a very specific meaning - see [wiktionary definition] for an example. Bluap (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Classic redundancy: "In the late 1980s, Roy Clarke wrote a number of novels featuring Compo, Clegg and Seymour."
• "After the first series of Last of the Summer Wine did not do well in the ratings, the second series proved to be a success and achieved the top ten programmes of the week with two episodes." Unwieldly, achieved is not the right word here.
  • Fixed. Redfarmer (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Re point above, see if "did not do well in the ratings" can be pruned a bit.
  • Reworded. Redfarmer (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Last of the Summer Wine has been nominated numerous times for two different British television industry awards." It's assumed that the two awards are different.
  • Fixed. Redfarmer (talk)

Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• BBC is overlinked.
  • Fixed. Redfarmer (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• In the infobox: "Sydney Lotterby (1976–1979, 198r2–1983)" I'm assuming the "r" is a typo.
  • Fixed. Redfarmer (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Additional supporting cast members have been added throughout the run of the show." With the word "added" in the sentence, "additional" is unnecessary.
  • Fixed. Redfarmer (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• "He directed all but two episodes of the third series, though Ray Butt directed 'The Great Boarding House Bathroom Caper' and 'Cheering up Gordon'." The "though" contrastive link is not needed. How about a spaced en dash: "He directed all but two episodes of the third series – Ray Butt directed 'The Great Boarding House Bathroom Caper' and 'Cheering up Gordon'."
  • Fixed. Redfarmer (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• • A spaced en-dash would be preferable for a UK article... Bluap (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that's what I meant. I use American English, so I don't know the nuances of other variations. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Would it be possible to combine some of the related short paragraphs in the Other media section? It just makes the paragraphs look fuller. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Redfarmer (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)))}}

• Support. I see that this article has gone through multiple stages of review, which has served it well. It was an excellent and enjoyable read. It is thorough, very well-cited and well-written. I just went through and fixed up the three fair-use images used so things are a bit more clear on the image pages. Other than that, everything else was fine. Nice work. Cirt (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comments (these are more nitpicky suggestions than oppose-worthy criticism, but I'd like to finish copyediting the article before giving my wholeheart support)
  • "and a behind the scenes look at production" - or should it be "and a behind-the-scenes look at production" (I can't tell, see WP:HYPHEN). Or you could simply use the word "backstage".
    • Done. Redfarmer (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I noticed a few quotation mark usages that are not logical quotations (WP:PUNCT), e.g. "Getting Sam Home," (it should be "Getting Sam Home",). I fixed some of them but you should check again.
    • Done. Redfarmer (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Does a film feature or did a film feature (see Episodes section, maybe elsewhere)? I usually use the former style as a film never ceases to feature something, but a case could be made for films that aired once and haven't re-aired and haven't been released on DVD.
    • I think the tense here is appropriate but will change if others feel it is inappropriate. Redfarmer (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • This is something I will always have difficulty with as a non-native speaker, but is it "the trio explore" or "the trio explores"? Google hits suggest the singular should be used, but this may be just an AE/BE thing.
    • I think the singular is appropriate here as there is only one trio. If I'm wrong, someone correct me and I'll correct this. Redfarmer (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

– sgeureka ^t•c 08:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments, leaning support, just a few things:
  • "...joined the cast as the quirky war veteran Foggy when Bates left in 1976 after two series. The three never seem to grow up... " Two series? or two seasons? Also, what three are we talking about; Bates included or the newcomer?
    • In Britain, television is divided into series rather than seasons. It's purely a cultural thing. Fixed the confusion about the three. Redfarmer (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "Other noted guests on the series have..." just merge this as it's a lone sentence standing in for a paragraph.
    • Done. Redfarmer (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "Last of the Summer Wine focuses on a trio of older men and their youthful antics." I feel like this is just repetition and clunky, given its been stated earlier in the body.
    • This was specifically added in response to comments from the last candidacy. Not all the information is stated earlier. The text in the lead focuses only on the original, most famous, and current trios, and the person making the comment felt that expansion was necessary to give the full gist of who has been on the show. Plus, the user felt that it helped remind people who are not regular viewers of the show who the main characters are. If there is still felt a need for this change, I would be happy to make changes. Redfarmer (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "In 1981, "Whoops" gained 17 million viewers and was beaten only by Coronation Street for the number one spot." Perhaps it should be stated "Whoops" is the 1981 special? The reader has to make the connection.
    • Done. Redfarmer (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Change the british spelling to american throughout (I kid :P)
    • Believe me, as a native American speaker, it would have been much easier to do it in English. hehe Redfarmer (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:46, 9 September 2008 [5].

---

Scattered disc

Nominator(s):--Lord₪Sunday, Serendi^podous

I'm nominating this article for featured article status because it is an excellent article, and extremely well done. It was a Featured article team collaboration, with excellent help from uninvolved users such as Geometry guy, who gained some new experience from this article. It has pretty much been the WP Solar System focus since Oort cloud was featured, until we got sidetracked and we featured 3 other articles. I think this article is well referenced and extremely well written, after all, it is Serendipodous! --Lord₪Sunday 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Article stats:

Serendipodous 244

Ling.Nut 105

LordSunday 84

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

LordSunday already has two a FAC running that requires substantial attention to unresolved issues; unless Ling.Nut is prepared to take primary and substantial responsibility for this FAC, it should be withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, two noms? i have one that is a co-nom, but then whatever, let Serendipodous take it over then. --Lord₪Sunday 20:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Corrected, one (name confusion); at any rate, the issues are substantial and unaddressed, so you shouldn't be adding another nomination, particularly at a time when some of the nominations that you have put up are stretching resources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, apologies Sandy, but I didn't really want to nominate that. It was really Editorofthewiki's doing, I don't want to pass the baton to Serendipodous but I think he'll do better anyway. --Lord₪Sunday 21:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, OK. I'll handle it. Serendi^podous 20:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to sandy) What about that FAC was unresolved. I myself have two FACs running at the same time, that and 1964 Gabon coup d'etat. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel bitten, ever since I've been here it just feels like Sandy doesn't like me. I mean like, since I was first at FAC, in June 2007. --Lord₪Sunday 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's better; I don't see any indication that Ling.Nut is aware. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ling.Nut removed. [6] [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've been using the toolbox, and got through the dablinks (all fixed now :) ), but the external link to uchicago.edu (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/338692) turns up "The requested article is not currently available on this site." Can this be corrected somehow? {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 22:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 'This makes scattered objects "among the most distant and cold objects in the Solar System". - why is this in quotes? If it's in quotes because it's a quote (which seems rather apparent), why would a quote be necessary or appropriate here?

  i believe Serendipodous was going to state this himself, but this quote is fine, it follows what the lead is about, summarizing the article. --Lord₪Sunday 01:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Eris, the largest dwarf planet in the Solar System, lies within the scattered disc." - This sentence feels random; it doesn't seem important enough to mention in the lead, and it interrupts the flow.

  Heh. I never liked that sentence. Added "somehwere", it seems like it has better flow to me. --Lord₪Sunday 01:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Due to its unstable nature, astronomers now consider the scattered disc to be the place of origin for most periodic comets observed in the Solar System, with the centaurs, a population of icy bodies between Jupiter and Neptune, being the intermediate stage in an object's migration from the disc to the inner Solar System, where perturbations from the giant planets will send it close to Earth, transforming it into a periodic comet." - this sentence needs to be broken up.

  done. --Lord₪Sunday 01:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• "cleared out over the age of the Solar System..." - over the "age"? How about over the "history"?

  chaged to growth. --Lord₪Sunday 01:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Indeed, some objects, like (29981) 1999 TD10" - better phrased as "Objects such as (29981) 1999 TD10".

  Changed to however. --Lord₪Sunday 01:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• "While" should generally not be used to indicate a contradiction between two statements. Other words ("but", "though") work equally well, and have no secondary connotation.

I haven't read the entire article yet, but the prose in general looks fairly good. I'm inclined to support. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• • The last and most important point has not been addressed. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Bit odd, but done. Serendi^podous 22:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Support - No more - someone must have taken care of all but one before you. Anyways, everything looks good. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Images - David Fuchs
  • Image:Tempel 1 Deep Impact 5min.jpg - free image from NASA, proper license and source
  • Image:Eris and dysnomia2.jpg - free image from NASA, proper license and source
  • Image:TheKuiperBelt Projections 100AU Classical SDO.svg - self-made SVG, author and source data noted.
  • Image:TheKuiperBelt 100AU SDO.svg - ditto as above (although you might want to move all the technical explanations to below the important licensing stuff?)
  • Image:Lhborbits.png - self-made, free, license and source present
  • Image:2003 UB313 near-infrared spectrum.gif - released by permission from author, or so the description states; can we get a source and verified permission (via OTRS, etc?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed Mike Brown about it, but knowing his schedule, I don't think I'll get a response for a while. Serendi^podous 07:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Haven't heard yet. And I'm not in a position to dictate to Dr. Brown when he decides to contact me. Serendi^podous 21:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.nineplanets.org/ a reliable source?
• Current ref 18 (J. Horner et. al) is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 37 (Joseph M Hahn) Is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 43 (David C Jewitt) is lacking a publisher
• The link checker shows a site that needs an academic subscription to access, please note that in the reference.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Refs fixed. Serendi^podous 16:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Support jimfbleak (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Comment The nearest distance from the Sun approached by scattered objects is ~35 AU, but they can reach distances ... observational bias due to their farther distance means that far fewer scattered disc objects have been observed to date.[4] Much repetition of farther and distance in this chunk, some can be trimmed, eg The nearest approach to the Sun by... jimfbleak (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Reworded. Serendi^podous 08:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

:*As of 2006, 96 scattered disc objects have been identified,[10] including 2007 UK126 This may just be showing my ignorance, but I assumed 2007 meant the year of discovery, i.e. after 2006. Also I've replaced another farther with greater, and lower-cased the c-cd link. jimfbleak (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The closest thing to an up to date reference for the number of SDOs is the Minor Planet Cneter's list. Unfortunately, not only does it not differentiate between SDOs and Centaurs but it also doesn't number its list. By my count (repeated 5 times), the list currently contains about 230 objects, of which roughly 100 approach the Sun closer than Neptune, making them centaurs. So I'd say, as a guess, that there are ~130 SDOs known now. Serendi^podous 10:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Subbed the MPC list with "as of 2008, over 100 SDOs have been identified." Serendi^podous 11:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Support I have added a few fact and clarifyme tags where I though the text might need them, but otherwise I believe this article is ready to be featurable. Nergaal (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good, apart from a "citation needed" tag for the first sentence under the heading "Orbits". -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 14:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Serendi^podous 14:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Support The article is scientifically sound. It does not neglect any major facts about scattered disk and is therefore comprehensive. The article contains necessary citations from reliable sources. There may be slight roughness in the text—some polishing may be necessary, though I am not an expert in the English language. So in my opinion article satisfies FA criteria. Ruslik (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from Editorofthewiki
  • Is a scattered disc a "distant region of the Solar System", or an object? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • According to WP:LEADCITE, "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." I count 4 cites in the lead, and the material doesn't seam that challengeable, except the quote which should stay. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This keeps changing. Every time I leave the lead uncited, people tell me to cite it. When I cite it, they tell me not to. Serendi^podous 20:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a nitpick. You can keep it as is. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• • The "Discovery" section seams a bit short being an important part of the article. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded it a bit but really there isn't much to say about it that isn't already mentioned in Kuiper belt. Serendi^podous 20:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Then incorporate a bit more that is mentioned in Kuiper belt. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's fair to Serendipodous, not that much is known about the scattered disc or the oort cloud, so this is pushing a bit too far. Kuipet belt is another piece of work, the dsicovery section is fine the way it is, IMO. --Lord₪Sunday 22:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• • "Although the Kuiper belt was initially believed to be the source of the Solar System's ecliptic comets, studies of the region since 1992 have revealed that the orbits within (what is now called) the Kuiper belt are relatively stable, and that these comets originate from the more dynamic scattered disc." This sentence is too long, and can be reworded a bit. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Serendi^podous 20:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Scattered disc objects come within gravitational range of Neptune at their closest approaches (~30 AU) but their farthest distances reach many times that." Do you know how far? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 22:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer to that is no we don't, because we've only discovered about 100 SDOs so far, and there is no hypothetical limit to how far they can extend. Serendi^podous 07:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• "A third reservoir of trans-Neptunian objects, the Oort cloud, is believed to exist, although no confirmed direct observations of the Oort cloud have been made." Excuse my lack of knowledge on space, but how can an observation not be direct? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Um, it hasn't been confirmed. I think that's fairly obvious, lol. --Lord₪Sunday 00:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Indirect observations are very common in science. You might not be able to see subatomic particles, for instance, but you can tell they're there by the effects they have on bigger things. Serendi^podous 07:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's fairly straightforward: you can observe the effects of something, with observing the object itself. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case; it depends on whether that text is a direct quote from a reliable source, or the wording tumbled out of some editor's late night coffee-stained scratch pad. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 07:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Some scientists use "scattered Kuiper belt object" (or SKBO) for bodies of the scattered disc." Why is this bolded? Also, "some scientits" is a bit weasely. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  Both done. --Lord₪Sunday 00:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, since all my issues are resolved, and this is one mighty fine article, Support. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support great article, and a promotion will turn all of the Solar System Topic into FAs. igordebraga ≠ 20:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Has the image issue been resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If it bothers you that much, we can take it down until it is. But in answer to your question, no, Mike Brown has not got back to me. I suppose you could always email him. Serendi^podous 21:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

These images are always "fun"; the underlying data are not eligible for copyright protection. The compilation thereof into a visual representation (i.e. graph) is the aspect which can be copyrighted. That being the case, an option to move forward on this would be to make your own version using either raw data or this image as a source. There might even be validity to an argument that this particular compilation is too simple to warrant protection. In any case, if Sandy is doing this follow-up, it means it is holding up promotion (and is apparently the only issue doing so); perhaps it would be easiest to just comment it out until OTRS receives permission from Brown and tags it accordingly? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 03:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's used in three featured articles, so resolving the issues would be nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't make the world move in my direction if it doesn't want to move. Serendi^podous 08:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Concerns - 1) "Image:TheKuiperBelt Projections 100AU Classical SDO.svg" is on the left and overrides the subheader "Scattered disc versus Kuiper belt". This causes formatting problems and other issues, and I especially can't stand them. Can this be moved down into another section or moved right? 2) "Image:2003 UB313 near-infrared spectrum.gif" Same concern, also the size is rather large, which causes other problems. 3) "See also" is present. Most FAs try to avoid these by placing the items into the article in some manner. 4) Second paragraph of "Composition" could be broken into two paragraphs for easier readability. Perhaps at "One explaination". 5) I don't think the "portal" tag is in the right location. Does anyone remember the MoS on portal usage? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  Portal placement is correct; per WP:LAYOUT it goes in See also. But the template at the end of the lead is incorrectly placed, because WP:ACCESSIBILITY changed about two weeks ago. And most of the images are forced to sizes, generally even greater than 300px, see WP:MOS#Images. Also, attn to WP:MOS#Ellipses is needed. Getting someone to do a thorough check would be helpful here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reordered the article a bit and commented out the image. Serendi^podous 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:25, 8 September 2008 [8].

---

1995 Pacific Grand Prix

Nominator(s): D.M.N. (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it mirrors the already featured article, the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix. The article has gone through a peer review, as well as a sources check. The external links check out with the links checker. There appears to also be no problems with the images as well. I have opted to skip the GAN stage and head straight for FAC. D.M.N. (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - All images are free, licenses appear to be good, no significant image problems. The image of Coulthard should probably be placed immediately in the "Practice and qualifying" section since it is talking about him taking the pole position through that (it might may the quote tight but I think it will work). Not a reason to fail, but any free images from race day itself? It may not be possible to find any free ones, and it reads fine without. --MASEM 19:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Moved the Coulthard image, it looks fine in it's new location. As for free images, I think it would be impossible to find a free use image given the fact that the event was thirteen years ago, and that the racetrack was in the "middle of nowhere" in Japan. A quick Flickr search shows no images with the correct license. D.M.N. (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• More image comments - David Fuchs
  • Image:Circuit TI (Aida).png - marked as requesting a SVG; license and source are fine, but it sorta leaves a boatload of empty space in the template... I'm not sure whether that's the image or the template, just a comment.
    • It's the way the template is laid out. Not much I can do about it. D.M.N. (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Damon Hill juillet 1995.jpg - free image claim, author and license present; fine
  • Image:David Coulthard 2007.jpg - free image claim, author and license present; could we get the author wikilinked, so we can verify he is the one who uploaded it?
    • Done. D.M.N. (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Michael Schumacher-I'm the man (cropped).jpg - cropped, free image claim based off Image:Michael Schumacher-I'm the man.jpg, licensed as CC by SA v2.5. The cropped image license and source layout is a mess, could you clean it up to more plainly state that it's a remix of another work, and thus licensed under the same terms (2.5?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I'm not experienced in that department, could someone more familar with images et al sort out the source layout? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I've used the standard information template to try and clarify things. AlexJ (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
          • My image concerns have been resolved. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support - I made a batch of comments already at the peer review, so I'll have to dig to find my usual nitpicks.

• "to close on Coulthard who was on a two stop strategy." Needs a hyphen for two stop.
  • Done. Fixed in other places to where "two stop" should be "two-stop". D.M.N. (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• "by lapping two seconds a lap faster than Coulthard..." Don't like lapping and lap together.
  • I've changed it to: "by lapping two seconds faster per lap than Coulthard..." - I've tried to move "lap" further away than "lapping". On that note, I've changed something else in that sentence, as there was originally repetition of "two" in the same sentence. I've changed the sentence too: "Schumacher opened up a gap of 21 seconds by lapping two seconds faster per lap than Coulthard, so that when his third stop came, he still led the race." ;) D.M.N. (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Report, Background: I'm never a fan of one-sentence paragraphs. I don't know how this can be expanded, but then I'm not a subject expert.
  • I'm not a favour of merging it, as that one-sentence para is talking about something completely different to the rest of the background. I'm pretty sure it cannot be expanded, I don't really want to start zooming off topic into how many the earthquake killed etc... D.M.N. (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• "Schumacher, his title-rival, said that Hill made 'half-hearted attempts' to overtake, which lead him to "getting into trouble." Perhaps change lead to led, and definitely flip him and to.
  • Done. D.M.N. (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• "after missing the European Grand Prix; resting because of a crash at the Portugese Grand Prix." Doesn't read that well with the semi-colon. This could be better: "after missing the European Grand Prix due to a crash at the Portugese Grand Prix."
  • I agree - I couldn't think of a better way to reword it. I've changed it to your version. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Practice and qualifying: "with Rubens Barrichello in the Jordan ninth, two seconds off the pace." I know it will look repetitive with the previous text, but this would look nicer as "ninth in the Jordan".
  • Done. It might sound repetitive, but it gets the point across anyway. D.M.N. (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Race: "Bertrand Gachot in the Pacific was the first person to retire from the race with a gearbox problem after completing two laps." I get what this is trying to say, but it sounds like he was the first driver to drop out on that lap. A minor rewrite would be helpful.
  • I've reworded it to "Bertrand Gachot in the Pacific became the first person to retire from the race with a gearbox problem on lap two." - Is that any better? I've dropped "after completing" as that probably sounded like he was the first person to retire on that lap. D.M.N. (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Number issue: "lap 5".
  • Done. D.M.N. (talk)
• "Schumacher made his second stop on lap 38, coming out the pits..." Missing a word after the comma.
  • Changed to "coming out of the pits..." D.M.N. (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Not in love with these back-to-back sentence openers: "The win meant that" "It meant that".
  • I've reworded both of those sentences. I've reworded it to: "Schumacher was crowned the 1995 Drivers' Champion as Hill could not catch his points total with two races remaining. He also became the youngest double Drivers' Champion in Formula One history." D.M.N. (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a little more that I haven't got to, but this is enough for now. I give you a lot of credit; you made me work hard to find these flaws. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! D.M.N. (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've finally come back to look at the rest. It's almost getting too busy to keep up, meaning that my replies have been delayed recently. Sorry about that.

• "Throughout the race, Barrichello and Magnussen engaged in a battle for tenth and eleventh positions,..." Number issue, especially considering the 11th two sentences later.

• Fixed. D.M.N. (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• "After his impressive qualifying" performance. At least that is what this should say in some form.

• Fixed. D.M.N. (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Post-race: The Coulthard interview has two instances of wished in a sentence. I'd like to see one changed.

• I've changed the first mention to: "Afterwards, he said that in hindsight he would have stayed on a..." D.M.N. (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• A similar problem: "with the track manager unable to keep the track profitable."

• I've changed that last bit to: "with the manager of the TI Circuit unable to keep the venue financially profitable." [User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is left over from the peer review: Is "insider" correct in reference 4? I'm unclear on that.

• Woops, it's meant to be "inside". ;) D.M.N. (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm done here. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Question - Is the French flag used for Sauber in the constructors championship table correct? I know they went under the Swiss flag in later years, but I'm not sure what they were registered as in '95. AlexJ (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, they were registered as Swiss. My mistake. I've changed the flag to Swiss. D.M.N. (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Support I have made a few edits to correct a few typos and a tiny bit of redundancy. [9]. The article is very well-written, exciting and gives a full account of the race and its background. I wish some of the heading intos could be replaced with before, but this is purely stylistic I suppose. I see all image and source issues have been resolved either here or the previous FAC. Thanks for an engaging read. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wow. Thanks for the support, D.M.N. (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. A great read on a complex topic, the technical bit of which is explained quite well the way the phrasing is worded. The article is also incredibly well-cited. Also was happy to see that all four of the images in the article are free-use and from Wikimedia Commons, I gave them a once-over and they all appear to check out appropriately. Excellent work. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:08, 7 September 2008 [10].

---

The World Ends with You

Nominator(s): MASEM

previous FAC (20:31, 31 August 2008)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: The article's prose looks to have tightened up since the last FAC. Quick question though, I couldn't find too much on GoNintendo. What makes it a reliable source? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC))
  • It is not as strong as IGN or the likes (it's just above blog quality). However, the point it is used for, the fact the soundtrack is on now on iTunes, I don't think is a very contentious point that needs a highly reliable source. --MASEM 17:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I did some more digging. Federated media calls them the "most up-to-date source for Nintendo news".[11] Never heard of Federated Media before but they seem legit/reliable enough.[12] GoNintendo has been cited on a CNET Asia blog posting.[13] Joystiq has cited them before too.[14] It is a little weak, but looks to be within limits. Though I'd be on the look out for another source should the article ever go up for FAR. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC))
• Support - It's definitely up to par at this point. TTN (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support: My main concerns were addressed in the previous FAC and my source issue above doesn't look to be of any serious concern. The article looks to be well written, comprehensive, and well sourced. Good job again Masem. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC))
• Neutral—I'm finding redundancies and misplaced formality/archaic words in the gameplay section. Everything below that will probably need more work. — Deckiller 06:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I ran through the suggested sections and made light copyedits. I think that the prose is in good shape. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Dabomb87 left some invisi comments that I dealt with; if there are still issues on the language, can you please point out a couple examples as to help ID the rest? --MASEM 14:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:08, 7 September 2008 [15].

---

Stigand

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk, User:Ning-ning, User:Ruhrfisch

Another medieval bishop, this time not a monk. Infamous in English history, Stigand got the blame for the "wicked and corrupt" Anglo-Saxon Church right before the Norman Conquest. He served six kings of England - Cnut, Harthacanute, Harold Harefoot, Edward the Confessor, Harold Godwinson, and William the Conqueror. He held both the Archbishopric of Canterbury and the Bishopric of Winchester at the same time, and amassed enough wealth that his estates rivaled the king's. Eventually, he was deposed and died in captivity. Certainly not a "nice" man, but clearly influential in history. Co-nom with User:Ning-ning who did a lot of the copyediting, and with User:Ruhrfisch who put up with my PRing this twice and helped a lot with making it clearer. User:Karanacs kindly helped with the copyediting also. Images were checked over by User:Elcobbola. Please tell me where I can improve the article! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

P. S. Oh, yeah, help me catch up to the hurricane writing people! They are taking over the world at this rate! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Just some picky points:
• DONEHe was pretty clearly born in the 10th century, but there is no suggestion of this in the article & the long lead does not give the 1020 date by which his career was well underway.
  • Unfortunately, no source says that he was "clearly born in the 10th century" or for that matter that he was clearly born around any time. The ONDB is totally silent on his birthdate. I've put in some indications of dates in the lead, which should help. I'd also point out (and this is OR which is why its not in the article) that it's perfecly possible he was only in his 20s when he became a chaplain. The canonical age for bishoprics was about 30 at the time (I'd have to dig pretty deep to find that) but priest of a church would fit with an age of about late teens or 20 or so, so it's not necessarily clear that he was born before 1000. We're hampered by the fact that we don't know how old he was when he died in in 1072 or so. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but surely something like "presumably born around the turn of the century" is justified? If he was much older than 72 when he died, people would have commented on his extreme age as well as his extreme wealth, no? Otherwise the puzzled reader is left to do the maths anyway, & guess how old a royal chaplain might have needed to be. Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think that's falling into the OR category. I mean it when I say that nothing I have seen speculates on his birthdate. There have been no serious biographies of him. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Reword removes the problem Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• DONE"Later Norman writers accused Stigand of uncanonically crowning Harold Godwinson as king of England after the death of King Edward in 1066" perhaps should not appear in the lead without a caution as to why they would say that.
  • This one is tied into the bit below about the uncanonical crowning, answered below. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Changed this to "Stigand was present at the deathbed of King Edward and at the coronation of Harold Godwinson as king of England in 1066." which avoids the whole propoganda claim. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• DONE"Although it doesn't appear that Stigand ever visited Rome.." bit informal.
  • Changed to "Although it does not appear that Stigand ever traveled to Rome,...", if that's not enough, please let me know. Thanks for catching that "doesn't"! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• DONE"However, a recent study of his wealth and how it was earned, shows that while he did engage in some exploitative methods to gain some of his wealth, other lands were gained through inheritance or through royal favour.." Why "however"?
  • Removed the however, it was a remnant of some of the copyediting. I tend to be a bit free with 'howevers' as well as commas... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• DONE"Modern historians views range from viewing him as a wily politician to being a horrible ecclesiastic" are these contradictory views? "Horrible" is not at all helpful here. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That's what I get for quickly adding something so that I could get in John's quotation... reworded to "Modern historians views tend to see him as either a wily politician and indifferent bishop, or to see him purely in terms of his ecclesiastical failings." which hopefuly shows that there is a range of thought on him, but without the "horrible" which you rightly objected to! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• DONE In general, apart from the Norman take on the AS church, they would be specifically keen to claim that Harold's coronation was illegitimate, as no doubt many of your references point out, but is not really brought out here.
  • One reason I haven't really gone into that here is that it really wasn't a reason that Stigand was deposed. It has more bearing on Harold and William, not so much on Stigand. Stigand's problems stemmed from his pallium issues and his holding of the two richest bishoprics in tandem. However, I'm open to suggestions on what and where you'd like to see a bit more? I'm presuming that you're looking for something along the lines of "Norman writers after the conquest often claim that Stigand crowned Harold. This is generally considered propaganda, and not true, as it was in William's interest to protray Harold as uncanonically crowned. If Harold was not properly crowned, then William was merely claiming his rightful inheritance, and not deposing a rightful king."? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well "This is generally considered propaganda, and not true" is more than I know, but otherwise yes, something like that. William had other reasons for claiming he was "was merely claiming his rightful inheritance, and not deposing a rightful king", but that would have helped. Especially I think the bald statement in the lead, perhaps not needed, should be given context. Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added that sentence into the correct section, and pruned the sentence in the lead as given above. Let me know if this works and makes sense to you? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• There are only 3 images. We must have some more relevant ones, no?
  • I'm open to suggestions, but Canterbury Cathedral isn't the cathedral he knew, his tomb isn't extant. The other churches he was involved with, I didn't turn anything up on Commons, mainly because they aren't extant. I'll get to the rest tomorrow, thanks, they are very helpful! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We have a decent C11 portrait of Leo IX at any rate. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That image has no source given, so I don't dare use it in the article, even though it comes from Commons. I was able to fix the Bayeux tapestry pic sourcing because I bought some books on the tapestry. I have no idea where they scanned that image from ... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OK

End of comments by Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Comments dealt with. Nice article. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod! Thanks for finding some issues that I'd missed! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• All images check out fine.
• Sources
  • http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/26523 redirected to http://www.oxforddnb.com/auth/login.jsp?url=%2Fview%2Farticle%2F26523 - login needed. Might want to note that alongside the inline ref (it's done in the refs section but if you click the footnote you don't see that).
    • Fixed, thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Note that I've requested an equivalent "format" parameter for the cite encyclopedia template. If it gets added, you can feel free to use that instead of adding the fee required note within the title (which is, in my opinion, a bit misleading :-) BuddingJournalist 09:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• Everything else seems good. —Giggy 09:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. As Eagldyth noted, I did do a copyedit of the article recently. I found it very interesting - these medieval church officials certainly lived unusual lives. I also did an image check - all are PD and look good. Karanacs (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comments - What are you doing, nominating your own articles? Get back to checking sources, slave! :P ...Anyway, some minor comments:
  • "Neither the year nor the date of Stigand's birth is known." Isn't the neither redundant ("The year and date of Stigand's birth is unknown." ?)
    • Removed the offending 'neither' Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Stigand did not travel to Rome to receive a pallium,[2] the band worn around a neck that is the symbol of an archbishop's authority,[44] from the pope. " - was this the custom? it's not really made clear.
    • Yes, it was the custom. Hold on while I dig out a reference for the bits I'm about to add. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Clarified with sourcing. (grins). Can't neglect the sourcing! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Stigand was later accused of simony, but all such accusations date to after 1066, and are thus suspect" - who accused Stigand of simony? If it was the Popes, I don't think their motives need be questioned.
    • Norman chroniclers were the accusors. I'll make that clear. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

-Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, above concerns resolved, I'm going to read over it again. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - some dense prose, but well-written and fairly interesting (at least, as interesting as it can be to a guy who doesn't have an interest in the subject :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:29, 6 September 2008 [16].

---

Phan Xich Long

Nominator(s): Blnguyen (bananabucket)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. This person is rather obscure and no picture appears to exist. He is a person who started his own religious sect and declared himself Emperor of Vietnam and tried to take power in an uprising fuelled by magic potions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments Overall a very interesting read. The prose could use some touch up work. For example:

• "Long's historical roots are unclear and obscure." Unclear and obscure are synonyms; pick one, delete the other.

Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• "while Chapuis records" It took me 10 minutes to figure out Chapuis is the author of a book about the subject. Perhaps state "while the author Chipuis records"

Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• IMO the quotes on "Coronation" in the heading should be removed. Might wait for a 2nd opinion as I'm not an english expert.

REmoved. I guess the reader can work out that it was a joke/fake coronation. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Be consistent. One place in text reads "golden plaque that read" with the caption in quotes, later on a similar statement "dragon's head with the words" with the caption in italics.

Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Potential MOS:DATE violation on the dates. Usually only complete dates should be wikilinked, partial dates (i.e. missing year, month or day) are usually not linked.

Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated, but they should be shown in appropriate order, presumably international (dmy) in this case.--Grahame (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, but I'm getting called away and I haven't finished the article. I'll finish my review later.Dave (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC) OK here's the rest.....

• mandarins Ton That Thuyet, reword or de-link mandarin. It's discouraged to have two linked terms next to each other, as someone could believe it is a single linked term.
• the {{Vietnamese name|Phan|Long}}template appears incorrectly formatted. On my browser renders wiht a {{{3}}}. My apologies for the split review.Dave (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Did these two. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Issues Resolved I'm happy now =-) Dave (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support as of this version, Comments on this version, Jappalang

Lead

• • I think it be better to remove the "magic" from "magic potions". "Potion" has an intrinsic meaning of mystical.
  • In light of the "jail attack" in the subsequent sentence, could "easily repelled the jail attack" be reworded to "easily repelled the attack on the jail"?

Did these. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Early career

  • The section starts off stating that Long's historical roots are unclear, yet the next sentence appears to be an unequivocal statement declaring his year of birth as well as his birth name. The only dispute seems to be regarding his exact place of birth.
  • Might I suggest changing "The genesis of their cooperation may have even originated before mid-1911." to a simpler "They may have started their cooperation before mid-1911."?
  • Was the trio's target Kampot, Cambodia, Kampot Province, or Kampot (district)? It is advised to avoid linking to disambiguations.

Did all these. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• • The 1909 uprising in Kampot seems to be unconnected to the article. Was there any connection between it and Sanh's movement, or did Sanh and his partners take inspiration from it? Was the trio's decision to stir a movement there due to some factor inciting the 1909 uprising?

Clarified this. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Coronation

  • I think "being" can be removed from "Being located in" without adverse effects.
  • Could "piastres" be linked, or failing that, an equivalent value in USD be provided?
  • "... the old man's remains became the object of veneration, providing further cover for political plotting and fundraising under the pretext of staging funeral rites. As a result, Sanh and his followers staged an impromptu coronation ..." I feel there is a mismatch between the two sentences. How does a coronation relate to funeral rites (even with the latter as a cover)? Is it a standard practice in Vietnam?

Tweaked all of these. Disconnected the uninttended connection. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I am uncertain if Sanh's adopted name (the article name) or alias should be at this time bolded. (MOS:BOLD?)
  • Maybe there should be a section or short paragraph describing the climate of Vietnam leading up to the main events in this article. Vasts crowds flocking to pay homage to Long begs one to wonder if the resentment to the French occupation was widespread and how strong was their hold on the country and populace. The revelation (assuming one is not a Vietnam history scholar) that the hier to the monarchy was in exile comes out of the blue here.

I added more information on the various bloodlines of the Nguyen Dynasty and their various activities. I also added some info on various precedents of other self proclaimed deities and mystics who made other nonsensical claims, got thousands of (gullible) supporters and made random rubbish uprisings (which more closely resembled a drunken riot) that were easily crushed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I feel "in addition to a royal seal" is better phrased as "and a royal seal".

Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I think changing "The 'Đại Minh'" to "The words 'Đại Minh'" would make it clearer that the sentence is explaining the origin of the words rather than its symbology.

Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I think the article should be "the" rather than "those" in "to those Chinese".

Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• • My thoughts on reading this sentence "the Resident of Kampot was to visit the temple and spot the collection of white robes" (particularly the "was to" bit) was that it was planned (or fated) for the Resident to visit the temple and spot the white robes. This slant strikes me as strange. Maybe it could be changed to use simple past tenses or is it just me?

Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Furthermore, what is the significance of white robes? Why should the Resident care over a bunch of white clothing? Is it some standard uniform of anti-colonial rebels among the Vietnamese?

Clarified the same style as the 1909 revolt. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Failed uprising

  • Why was Long in Phan Thiet (a location coming out of the blue in the article)?

None of the sources say anything at all about this, but I guess business or campaigning. The Vietnamese History Journal in Hanoi only has two pages on this fellow. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• • How did Long provide his followers with a detailed strategy from his prison cell?

Per above. Probably had sympathisers on the inside. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Why did the French anticipate the trouble?

Per above/not explained. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• • "The French continued their crackdown against his followers," Is "his" referring to Long or the other self-proclaimed mystic?

Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Judging that this took place in the early 20th century, did Long have an impact on later Vietnamese after he had died? Although one is likely not faulted to believe Long's motives were due to ambition, were there other deeper motives? Jappalang (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I made a slight copyedit (of 3 sentences) and I think the article generally looks good as of this version. Your changes and expansion of details helped to connect the events. However, I think I will hold off for a few days to see if others might know of other sources that can flesh out the jailbreak or other events before judging this article. Jappalang (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The books don't explicitly discuss causes and effect, but they mentioned a variety of similar movements with the same modus operandi, without saying that they explicitly copied each other. But I have added some bits. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC) }}

Although the article seems limited in scope, this could be attributed to the limited resources available. Trusting that the sources are extensive, this article is as comprehensive as it can get. As I pointed out earlier, there are some lacking details but most of these have been filled in with general information, which serves to give an overview of the situation (as this is an article focusing on the rebel, and not an article to be focusing on the reasons for anti-French sentiments or history of the revolution). I am led to believe whatever that could be sourced is in the article. The prose in this well-structured article definitely could get some sprucing up from a copyedit expert, but it is definitely readable, never bringing an overwhelming sense of disjointedness or confusion to the reader (well, me). I am supporting this. Jappalang (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• All sources check out fine. No images. —Giggy 09:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please put a defaultsort template and persondata before the categories; I'm unable to tell what naming conventions apply and where this article would go in alphabetical order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This article needs an infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not required by WIAFA or any other guideline. B1nguyen, so he's alphabeticized at P, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What percentage of FAs have them?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment on this version-

• Lead: The opening sentence is awkward- does "self-styled" apply to 20th century, Vietnamese, mystic, geomancer, or to all of these? This long string of adjectives is awkward prose. "Geomancer" is only mentioned in this sentence and is never cited. (Fortune-teller is cited later but is less specific, do these citations specify geomancy?)

The book also said this, I added it in the latter part. I removed the self-styled from the earlier parts since anyone can claim to be a magician- it's unverifiable whehter they can actually do anyting. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• The opening sentence and the infobox indicate that he was "Self-declared Emperor of Vietnam", but in the Coronation section it is stated with a citation that "Sanh's strategists declared that before the old man had died, he named Sanh as the rightful Emperor of Vietnam." Why is uncited claim that he declared himself emperor in the lead rather than the cited claim that another declared him Emperor?

I've changed it to "claim", as he did style himself as the Emperor. I removed the stronger wording, but as the strategists had already agreed to use the ruse of relgious cover, it's pretty obvious they had other motivations in mind, but I've culled it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• In places throughout the article, the tone tends to be more pejorative than merely descriptive, which can be an NPOV problem. In the lead, there is the accusory "He attempted to exploit religion as a cover for his own political ambitions, having started his own ostensibly religious organisation." There are similar problems in "In the meantime, the old man's remains became the object of veneration, providing further cover for political plotting and fundraising under the pretext of staging funeral rites." "Long took the lead in preparing the explosives, claiming that his experience as a fortuneteller, mystic and natural healer made him an expert". See also WP:MORALIZE.

No, I don't think it is, because he confessed that his real aim was to overthrow the government and take over the country. I've tweaked the latter two sentences. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• There were a long series of popular uprisings; this was far from an isolated event. Were there any continuing grievances against the French other than loss of sovereignty? An explanation of why this population was so prone to revolt is missing. The article is written to allege that Long's religion was entirely pretext yet presents the population's motivation to be primarily religious.

Well, as the article points out, there is a hisotry of people in Vietnam claiming to be royal descendants or magical religious figures; these people have often been able to raise large bands of supporters and then tried to take over the country. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• A wikilink to Resident (title) would be helpful the first time the title Resident is used

Done, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• The white robes- Was the 1909 uprising the first time such robes were used or was there a deeper symbolism? There's also some awkward repetition in the last paragraph of Coronation and the first paragraph of Failed Uprising, with the intervening paragraph out of chronological sequence.

I've rearranged the layout to remove the repetition and fix the chrono. No, the books did not explain the meanings of the costumes. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Was possession of white robes considered proof of intent to revolt, or did the French give some other reason for the arrest? How did the French link the robes found >500km from Saigon to this revolt?

Well considering the fact that Long engaged in public coronation ceremonies and circulated material publicly calling for an uprising, I don't think that they would have needed this. None of the books discuss the public legal minutae by the French authorities since it appears that they are concerned with the supernatural religious movements and their phenomena, rather than any threat they posed to the French, as these incidents had a large effect in mobilising peasants but little effect on the French grip on power. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Why was Long in Phan Thiet at the time of his arrest, on the far side of Saigon from his base at Chau Doc?

None of the books say anything about it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• A citation is needed for the statement that the revolt was scheduled prior to the arrest of Long- is this known or could the arrest have triggered the developing revolt?

Well I've sourced it, it was the same source for the next sentence. None of the books say when it was scheduled exaclty. I haven't stated or implied that the fact that the bombs were planted the next day was a change by the organisation in response to the arrest nor a deliberate ploy by the French to arrest him as late as possible so that his supporters wouldn't be able to adapt their plans. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is there some relationship between Long's name and the modern Long An Province that includes Tân An and Tân Thạnh?

I don't think so. Long is a very common masculine name in Vietnamese, names that mean "dragon", "strength", "mountain" etc and other metaphors of power are very common. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• How did this relate to the turnover of Siam's eastern provinces (including Battambang) to French rule in 1906? Again, it feels like part of the story is missing.

None of the books related any of this to any political rumblings in Siam/Cambodia so I can't speculate. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As a whole I find that some of the prose is awkward, the tone seems pejorative at times rather than encyclopedic, and there are parts where it seems like part of the background information is missing or the explanation is lacking.--Noren (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support with the addition of one picture (more would be nice, but beggars can't be choosers), I don't see anything obviously wrong. The bolding in the Coronation section could be removed, but thats it. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose lack of images. Sorry, but that is one of the things that make it a Featured Article and not just a Good Article. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Not an FA requirement per the criteria. —Giggy 07:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is. See number three: "It has images and other media where appropriate". This page is appropriate to have them. It does not. Sorry, but not all articles can become FAs, and ones without pictures are such. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There has to be images where appropriate; if there are no relevent pictures that exist, images aren't appropriate and are thus not a requirement in this case. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Criteria 3 is not asking an FA to be illustrated (ref). Jappalang (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If no pictures are available, then this is not actionable. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is actionable Blnguyen: ask me :D. Magnifier (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, up to now, no one had been able to locate his picture... Image is now inserted in the article, and this should no longer be an opposable issue, right? Jappalang (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, looks like it's fixed. - Mailer Diablo 01:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Giggy

• "His place of birth is disputed..." - in this sentence one historian is referred to just by surname, the other by full name, and it's slightly awkward. Can you be consistent?
• "Ham Nghi's Can Vuong movement battled against French ..." - can you not name Ham Nghi again here (repeated just above)?
  • And again in the next few sentences.... don't have to change it every time, but at least sometimes. And is "Ham Nghi" the correct naming convention for him?
• "Long also claimed descent from the Le Dynasty,..." - no info about his change of name...?
  • Oh, you go back to Sanh next paragraph. In that case, don't use Long here, I think.

Just some minor stuff. I also did some copyediting ([17]) and it's pretty close to being supportable. —Giggy 10:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. —Giggy 09:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Support with one caveat:

• The Early career section uses both "Long" and "Sanh" to refer to this person. It should be consistent in this section. I see that the next section has an explanation of when his name changed, and it makes sense to me that at that point the article begins using Long instead of Sanh.

Karanacs (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

comment I have retagged the image as {{PD-US}}, rather than fair use Fasach Nua (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image comments The article does look a bit bear, I dont know enough about the topic to add images myself, but it may be worth considering relevant maps such as Image:Indochine française (1913).jpg, or pictures of the places visited particularly if they feature buildings pre-1916. There should be a reasonable ammount of freely licenced material on commons Fasach Nua (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a self-created map showing the locations discussed in the article. Jappalang (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:29, 6 September 2008 [18].

---

Literature in the Hoysala Empire

Nominator(s): Dineshkannambadi (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it deserves a FA status. The article discusses an important period in the development of medieval Kannada literature. The article has completed a peer review by User:Ruhrfisch and User:Redtigerxyz and is well cited from reliable sources. MOS check was done by User:Epbr123 and copy edits by User:Michael Devore, User:Finetooth and User:Dank55. Image issues have been cleared by User:Elcobbola.

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Blocks of references need to be in numerical order. I noticed quite a few out of order. Calor (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I will take care of this. thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Looks to be a nice article on an obscure topic. I will be spending time reading through, but to indulge my curiosity more than anything. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hope you enjoy the read.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments Sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Nice job! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

• All images have correct licensing, descriptions, and sources.
• All of the images in this article on the right-hand side of the article. The MOS recommends alternating images for the best visual layout. See MOS:IMAGES and WP:PICTURE for advice on placement of images. Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Alternated images.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks better, I think. Awadewit (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I know it's frustrating when reviewers contradict each other, but you might need to rethink some of the repositioning, as it has placed several left-aligned images under level 2 (===) headers. This is something that MOS:IMAGES explicitly says not to do, whereas the left-right stagger is merely something the MOS says you "can" do. Is it possible to find a staggered arrangement that does not place left-aligned images under lvl 2 headers? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have assumed you took care of this issue, seeing your edits. If not please do let me know. Thanks a lot.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I just fixed mark-up stuff - no positioning. I assumed you'd know more about images' pertinence to the surrounding text; I didn't want to "wreck" anything. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I will look into this pretty soon.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Done Took the easy way out. Commented out temple images, kept inscription image.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support My issue fixed, no other issues raised, reads very nicely. Great job, Dineshkannambadi. Comment Please take a look at [19]. Once that's taken care of, I'll support.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  12:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  17:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Provided disambig links. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I see some things I missed while copyediting the lead and the first two subsections; tidying up now. I still need more when I read "Writers bilingual in Kannada and Telugu were given encouragement, which caused interaction between the two languages, a trend that has remained popular even in modern times". What encouragement? What interaction? What trend? I'd prefer to see either less or more. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Some writers who were adept in both Kannada and Telugu languages were very popular from the Hoysala period onwards. For instance, Palkuriki Somanatha, a writer in Kannada, Telugu and Sanskrit was one of the foremost writers of the 12-13th century and was responsible for many works that propagated the Veerashaiva faith in multiple languages. The Veerashaiva movement started in the Kannada speaking region of South India under the leadership of Basava. This multi-linguality helped redefine the readership boundaries across different regions within South India. Hence the usage of the term "encouragement". "Interaction" between literatures of Kannada and Telugu was much more than usage of words and terms from one language (Kannada in this case) in the literature of another (Telugu). The Akkara metre ( a native metre) which is considered peculiar to Kannada has been found in very early Telugu writings and inscriptions as well. Even non-bilingual poets were patronised across linguistic boundaries. For example, Hoysala poet Raghavanka, though a Kannada-only poet and whose famous works have been described in this article was honoured by Kakatiya King Prataparudra I. The Kakatiya's are a Telugu dynasty from the eastern parts of South India. This would not have been possible if literature in Kannada were not read and appreciated in Telugu speaking regions. There are examples to quote Telugu poets who were honoured by Kannada kings too. By "trend" I meant that the practice of not only writing original literature but also translations and adaptations from Kannada to Telugu and vice versa has remained popular into modern times. (Narasimhacharya, 1988, p. 27,28, 68).Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You could add a lot or a little of that. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Will do.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I will take care of this later today.thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hope this is a better description.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the first half of this article, so if Finetooth will support the last half, I'll Support. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The first sentence is odd. A large body of literature in the Kannada and Sanskrit languages survives from the Hoysala Empire. ????? The first line should introduce and the subject at hand, begin positively not talk about surviving literature. You can begin by introducting the Hoysala empire and their reign, and immediately mentioning literature patronage in the second sentence.
  • Thanks, you're right, it was vaguely negative. I tried to address your concern and comply with WP:LEAD. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
    • The lead used to be like this–Literature in the Hoysala Empire refers to a body of literature composed in Kannada and Sanskrit languages during the ascendancy of the Hoysala Empire, which lasted from the 11th through the mid-14th century. I can change it back if so desired.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• A claim has been -- by whom?
  • Dinesh, Belur Keshavadasa made the claim. Per WP:WEASEL, what you want to do is give the reader a clue why you believe this guy...it can be as short as "noted historian Belur Keshavadasa asserts [or suggests or whatever]..." If you believe this because a lot of people said it, not just this one guy, then say that and we'll figure out how to comply with WEASEL. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
    • DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC). I do not want to qualify Belur Keshavasada as either a historian or Bhakti scholar since the reference book remains silent on the issue, but the fact that the Sahitya Akademi panel has referred to his book says it all.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. Found from google search that Belur Keshavadasa is a 20th century Harikatha scholar and authored a book called Haridasa Sahitya, Mysore, Harimandira, 1944. His name also come us in newspaper articles.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• What is structure of Kannada used?
  • Changed to "language used" - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
• considered by D. R. Nagaraj -- you need to mention the authority of person to say so. Is he a historian, archaeologist, poet etc?
  • I browsed the book that refers to his research, but it does not provide me with info such as historian or epigraphist etc. It does tell me that Nagraj headed in some capacity the Literary Culture study group.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Done I have worded this carefully without assuming anything.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• In addition to the Hoysala patronage, royal...its literature. Can be summarised in one sentence. The "wide geographic" details are not needed. use terms like neighbouring.
  • If it's clear that the paragraph is talking about the spread of the Kannada language, then one sentence isn't too much, I think. We might want to fiddle with the focus of the paragraph. If this were an article on the origins of English literature, I don't think it would be out of place to give evidence that nobles in, say, Wessex and Wales and Edinborough were supporting the language in some way (I don't know if this is true, but it would be relevant). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
    • Done I have changed the wording to neighbouring kingdoms. If you feel there is no need to mention the names of the kingdoms, I can move that into the inline quote.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• There are several poets and writers from this period whose... -- sentence starts negatively. Begin with the court records, and then mention why most is unavailable.
  • I can't tell what you want; can you suggest a sentence that combines the first two sentences? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• wasted little time -- unencyclopedic tone
  • shortened it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)

• which caused interaction between the two languages, -- what is meant by this? How about exchange of ideas? If so, what is the influence of Telegu on Kannada?
  • I stumbled on that when I first read it, too. This is meant to be a topic sentence; the paragraph describes the interaction in detail. It's more than an exchange of ideas. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
• I see subtle mention of influences of Tamil, Sanskrit and Telegu, but its not explicitly mentioned in the text. Literature and language are usually heavily influenced by other languages. Are there some sources you can use to mention its influence?
  • In discussion. Normally, from what I understand, influence of one language on another is proportional to some factors; Seniority (as in Sanskrit literature being a clear senior to Kannada literature, but the reverse influence is also evident to some extent in the post Hoysala period), Socio-religious developments (Vaishnava, Veerashaiva movements) and political (conquests and imperialism). If a religious movement originated in Kannada speaking regions (such as Veerashaiva) and later spread to the Telugu speaking regions, the influence of Kannada on Telugu Veerashaiva literature would become a natural process. This is why Velchuru Narayana Rao (another expert on literary cultures, referred to by Sheldon Pollock) mentions that Telugu literature is heavily influenced by Sanskrit (general overall Kavya influence), Tamil (Vaishnava canon) and Kannada (Veerashaiva canon). However, let us consider the case of Tamil and Kannada. Tamil literature is accepted to be senior to Kannada literature by some number of centuries. But for about 1650 years, ever since the advent of the first native Kannada kingdoms (Kadambas) these two regions have been political competitors. According to Kamath and Narasimhacharya, the influence of Tamil and Kannada on each other is minimal though it is postulated by some that the Tamil Alwars of 7th-9th century did influence the Kannada Haridasas' in the 15-16th centuries, a period/topic that is outside the scope of this article. This minimal interaction, according to Kamath is also because of geographic barriers (Eastern Ghats) when he says free from encroachments of Tamil language. Sanskrit has however influenced every Indian language to varying degrees. But here we are talking about 1100-1350 period during which it is generally accepted that Sanskrit took a back stage to local languages (Kannada to be specific. Pollock has written a book called Death of Sanskrit...). In fact, I do mention in the lead itself that most of the textual production was in Kannada and that the switch from Sanskritic metres to local metres happened during this period. So that clarifies that beginning this period, the influnece of Sanskrit was, if anything, on the wane. So that brings us to Kannada-Telugu interaction. While the interaction started with Kannada works being adapted into Telugu, the high point of the influence going the other way, is only from the 15th century Vijayanagara rule onwards. In fact, the geographic boundaries of the two languages sort of blurred to such as extent that the noted 15th century Telugu writer Srinatha, called his Telugu, "Kannada" (Narasimhacharya (1988), pp. 27–28). I have also mentioned the later influence of Telugu on Kannada in the para before the last, in the "Overview" section. May be I should word it better. This topic is a tough one, because of the inherent "chicken and egg".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I other words, its easlier to size up the influence of one language on another over an extended period of time, say 1000 years, instead of a mere 250 years.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• The support of the Hoysala rulers for the Kannada language was strong --> Active voice: The Hoysala rulers patronised Kannada...
  • Finetooth (maybe) objected to "patronised", I think because of its various meanings, and I agree. And btw, this isn't passive voice. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• is called the "Augustan age" of --> by whom? Historians? Media? etc
  • Dinesh, I think the best way to deal with this is to add details on who says this and why if it seems important, that is, if some might disagree. On the assumption that there's no real disagreement on what to call the period, I combined the two sentences. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
    • Done. Noted scholar on Kannada literature and its evolution, R. Narasimhacharya.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• old Jain tradition of using the champu metre -- need to expand on this. What is champu and how is the ragale metre different? Similarly, sangatya and shatpadi should also have a mention.
  • This explanation exists in the last para of the lead. If more explanation is needed, it would be easy to add a paragraph without too much effort.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• perhaps the most famous scholar --> perhaps might be a weasel term
  • Just to clarify, Dinesh, some of us regret the name of the guideline ("Avoid weasel words"): it sounds like people are doing something particularly slimy when they're not (usually!), and it sounds carved in stone when it's definitely not. One approach to try would be "a great scholar"; another approach (but most people don't like this) would be to add a footnote clarifying what you mean and what the support is for this position; another approach would be to move this person into his own sentence where you can give that explanation and justification for the claim. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
    • Done. Removed "perhaps the most famous" and just made it "court poet". One has to be famous to become a court poet.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• Trailblazers????? -- I did not get the context
  • Agreed. What trail did they blaze? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
    • Done. They set trends in using native meters.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• The Hoysala map would be a good addition to gauge the extent of influence.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 06:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Done. The current Hoysala map only shows their "core" political influence, but I think there is a map that generally shows the extent of Hoysala and Seuna empires in the 13th century. As far as the Silharas of Kholapur and Southern Kalachuris are concerned, it gets more complicated. The Silharas were generally subordinates of the W. Chalukyas and later the Seunas. The Hoysalas themselves were subordinates of Chalukyas for a while (up to about 1180). The Kalachuris existed as an independent entity in Karnataka for only 30 years or so (and what a glorious 30 years it was for Kannada poetry!!). In short, putting a map togather that includes them all would be a tall order. Hope the map I have introduced is sufficient. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review, Nichalp, very helpful! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks Nichalp. I will go through your comments today, one by one.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My review was done in a hurry, so I did not check for typos or grammar above. I'll just clarify one sentence that you asked:

There are several poets and writers from this period whose writings have not come down to us. Most but not all of the information about these writers comes from records of the Hoysala court. can be rephrased to something like this: Most of the extant literature today come from Hoysala court records. Other poets and writers from this period have not survived. Its on the choppy side, and needs more context, but that's what I was trying to basically convey. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Done I have reworded that sentence. Most of the extant literature today come from Hoysala court records would not be accurate because the Kannada literature thrived in the Chalukya court till about 1150 and is available, and the Kalachuri period (1155-1189) was a glorious era of extant Kannada poetry.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have a question about "medieval" (Kannada literature), which you use above and also in the article. Mwos says that the word "medieval" means the period in Europe from roughly 500 to roughly 1500. There was no "medieval" period in China, for instance. Is the word used much among literate Indians to refer to a period in their history, and if so, what period? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • P.S. I get 50K ghits for "medieval Chinese" ... enough that I can't say "no one ever says that", but I would never use that phrase myself. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I have seen some variety in usage w.r.t Kannada literature.
      • Historian Shiva Prakash calls 9-11th century as ancient, 12th-17th century as medieval and 18th onwards as modern, basee on the style of Kannada and the language used.
      • Steever S.B.(1998): "The language shows three historically distinct stages: Old Kannada dates from 450 CE to 1200, Middle Kannada from 1200 CE to 1700, and Modern Kannada from 1700 to the present". He includes the 450-850 period, when Kannada epigraphs gained in popularity, as the Old period.
      • Krishnamurti (2003), p. 23; Pollock (2007), p. 81; Sahitya Akademi, Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature, vol. 2 (1988), p. 1717. (Quote: "The language of the Halmidi inscription, pre-old Kannada, later evolved into Old Kannada, Middle Kannada, and later Modern Kannada." So here 5th century Halmidi inscription is considered pre-old Kannada.
      • Other scholars see it purely from a Indian historical view point. Narasimhacharya and K.A.N. Sastri divide it into Jain period (from the earliest known works to 12th century), from 13-15th century as Veerashaiva period and thereafter as Veerashaiva + Vaishnava period, based on social trends and popularity.

So, the period under consideration in this article falls right in the Mwos period.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, but I'm not sure if you get what I'm saying. According to MWOS, which is one of the authorities for most American journalists, "medieval" means "of the Middle Ages", and "Middle Ages" means "the period of European history from about a.d. 500 to about 1500". Just like you wouldn't say "the Han dynasty period in French history", because France isn't in China, it might not make sense to say "medieval" in relation to India, but you would know better than I would. This isn't just some dry question of definitions: there are many people who are offended by defining the world and its history completely in terms of what was happening in Europe at the time. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand now. If you can point me to where "medieval" is used in the article, I can consider adding a bracketed disambiguation and explain that it is from the Old/middle Kannada period, so as not to offend anyone. This is again a tough issue. In the Eastern world, the classification is often based on styles, metres, social movements etc. For example, consider Raghavanka's classic Harichchandra Kavya dated to about 1200 (and hence from the old Kannada/medieval period) in which the author established the native Shatpadi metre. I have mentioned this in the article. But the earliest mention of Shatpadi is from Nagavarma's extant 990 romance classic Karnataka Kadambari written in champu style (from the so called classical period and classical style). So Shatpadi existed in Kannada in the 10th century, except no works in that metre are available from that period. So here to one could argue that Raghavanka's work uses a metre that originated(?) in the so called classical period though it was written in the Old-Kannada period. This list with similar examples can quickly grow, ofcourse.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

They're both in Age of Harihara. However, two of your references have "medieval" in the title, so maybe it's fine, I don't know. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. "Medieval" is a term that is used routinely in Indian historiography. Sarvagnya 18:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed one to "Hoysala era" and left the other as is. Adding a disambig may or maynot help.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - Great read! Sarvagnya 18:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments Okay, I'm going to continue copyediting where I left off, at Age of Harihara. User:Finetooth copyedited from here down and generally did a fine job; I have just a few comments.

• "physically abused" is one of those "Whaaa?" phrases. Did he hit him over the head with a stick? Did he beat him day and night? The phrase asks more questions than it answers. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
  • According to legend, Harihara, the guru, abused Raghavanka who lost five teeth in the process!! (Sahitya Akademi). To expiate the sin of offending his master, he wrote five classics, one for each fallen tooth, in the Veerashaiva tradition of "not" eulogising mere mortals, but only saintly Veerashiavas. I felt it is better not to go into details of the legend and kept to Pollock's "abused" wording. I can change the wording if you like.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer if you say that he struck him, or you can be more descriptive. "Physically abused" might imply a long-term abusive relationship to some readers. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I don't care enough to change them all, but when you mention both an author and a specific work, it would be better to put the date after the work rather than after the author. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
  • DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The last two works are considered lost" I don't follow. Are the works lost? Are most of the words lost? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
  • Done. The entire writings are lost. clarified this with usage of "classics".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• "in the 1217–1235 time frame" if we know it was between 1217 and 1235 inclusive, then it's better to say so; "time frame" generally implies fuzziness. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
  • DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Hoysala country" Hoysala lands? I changed it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
• "called haridasa literature" antecedent is not clear. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
  • Could not locate this phrase:)Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Done Found it and clarified what it meant.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• "He defeated many scholars and philosophers during this time" I don't know what this means. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
  • Done Successfully debated.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Both "the god Vishnu" and "Vishnu" are fine; "god Vishnu" is not. If you feel pretty sure your readers know that Vishnu is a god, it's fine to say just "Vishnu", so you may want to change some of my edits. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
  • Will change it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• I've changed my mind on patronised; you use it a lot, and it's fine.
  • Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• After you've had a chance to look at this stuff, I can support (with caveats). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support with caveats: I generally don't do endsections or images, and I don't know anything about this subject. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• Beginning with the 12th century, important socio-political changes took place in the southern Deccan. - Are you trying to point at the southern part of Deccan or the entire deccan. If its the first one, then context for Deccan is missing.
  • Done clarified. Deccan, south of the Krishna river.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• LEAD first line. You have put literature last and Hoysala Empire first. I think the empire should be mentioned last.

Can you suggest a sentence? I've tried 3 different sentences already. - Dan

Dank55 (send/receive) 19:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you mention: The Literature in the Hoysala Empire has produced some great Kannada and Sanskrit works like blah blah. Kensplanet (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dinesh, what do you like? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel its better to write: writers and poets produced great works rather than the literature itself producing great works. But, thinking about it again, I dont see anything wrong if one views literature from the point of view of a "literary movement" which would produce great works. I initially generalised it (before copy edits began) that the "period of ascendancy of the Hoysala empire produced important writings". In short, this can be said in various ways, just a matter of choice.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what was there earlier and we can go back to this version-Literature in the Hoysala Empire refers to a body of literature composed in Kannada and Sanskrit languages during the ascendancy of the Hoysala Empire, which lasted from the 11th through the mid-14th century. This is more like Kenplanet's version. Shall I switch to this version?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked at WT:FAC. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Dvaita in LEAD 2nd para needs to be italicized. Kensplanet (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Was it italicized because it's a non-English word? Why italicize just this one and not the others? I'm not sure, but I think if an article is full of terms from another language, they tend not to be italicized...I'll ask around. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, I asked around, and the level of italics you have in the article (for non-English words) is fine. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I will deal with all these issue later tonight.thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dern it, Kensplanet is right in the sense that the advice not to italicize most links (unless they're titles) keeps dropping out of WP:MOS and WP:ITALICS. I'll go get this fixed in the guidelines. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Also, this one As in earlier centuries, Jain authors wrote about tirthankars (saints), princes and other personages important to the Jain religion. tirthanakars here...is it necessary to mention tirthankars here. Kensplanet (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, the refered books repeatedly use the term Tirthankar and good majority of the Jain writings are about their lives. E.P. Rice even lists the writer, time, book and Tirthankar in [[20]].Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• In his book Karnataka Bhaktavijaya, Belur Keshavadasa, a noted Harikatha scholar, claimed that the movement was inspired by saint Achalananda Dasa of Turvekere (in the modern Tumkur district) in the 9th century - I think this looks better Belur Keshavadasa, a noted Harikatha scholar, in his book Karnataka Bhaktavijaya claimed that........ Reason being there are already 2 or 3 authors mentioned above this line. It looks like they have written the book. Kensplanet (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Changed to above style.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I peer reviewed this as noted and felt it was close to FA then, I find the copyedits and changes since have only improved the article. I am not an expert on the period or its literature, but I think this meets the FA criteria. I always like to see zero red links in an article at FAC, but that is not an actionable request, just a suggestion. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Great article about literature in an ancient empire. Also, Please modify the first line of the lead.Kensplanet (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have asked about the first sentence at WT:FAC#Quick opinion on lead sentence?. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Does anyone else see a large empty space to the right of the "Kannada poets" graphic?

Comments: Excellent article. Couple of quick points:

• The last sentence of the lead para seems to suggest that Madhvacharya was a member of the the Hoysala court. I was a little surprised to read this, because I haven't ever heard this to be the case. Am I misinterpreting the sentence or was Madhva infact part of the Hoysala court?
  • No, Madhva was never part of any court. This is why I mentioned "monastic" literature implying it was written in a monastery. perhaps I can reword it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• There are a few sentences about the impact of Hoysala literature on the literature of Vijayanagara, when Karnataka and S. India in general reached a peak not since seen. There's mention of Vaishnava poetry and the influences Madhva and Vidhyatirtha. Are there any stylistic elements in prose or poetry that were first used in Hoysala literature that became major influences in Vijayanagara literature? Also, would there be enough material to construct a separate paragraph to close out the article by detailing Hoysala literature's influences on future Kannada dynasties? Thanks AreJay (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I see your point and I will try to give an answer later tonight. Thinking from the top of my head, the establishment of shatpadi and ragale metres in Kannada literature (native metres) led to the virtual dethronement of Sanskritic Champu in the Vijayanagara period. In fact, the Vijayanagara period went on to become the age of Shatpadi bringing Kannada courtly literature into the realm of "folk literature", in all three types of literatures; Vaishnava, Veerashaiva and even the Jaina literatures. Dasa Sahitya was directly influenced by Madhva's philosophy and was written in sangatya, another native metre. Interestingly, the very revolutionary Veerashaiva folk poetry that "errupted" into popularity in the northern Karnataka region was translated into Sanskrit bringing it into the Sanskritic order (something unthinkable in the 12th century socio-politically charged atmosphere).Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I will be done with this last section today. Thanks for your patience. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Anybody there? This article has had an inuse template on it for 24 hours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • yes, I will be done in the next hour or so.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Done I have added a section on "post Hoysala period" and requested Dan55 to copy edit it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• On it. If there was a period known widely as the "post-Hoysala period" (it needs a hyphen, because "post" isn't a word, or at least not in that sense), then that's fine. If not, and you just want to refer to the time after the Hoysalas, then maybe we can go with "Literature after the Hoysalas" for the section name, unless some notable Hoysalas were still around; were they? "After the Hoysalas" is not as good because WP:MOS prefers noun phrases. "1400 – 1600" is a possibility because WP:MOS says not to repeat elements from the title in section headings when possible; on the other hand, people often don't read articles linearly, and I'm concerned that since the article is about the Hoysala empire, someone will assume that's a period in the Hoysala empire if we don't give them a better clue. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "Literature after the Hoysalas" sounds good to me.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Done, no problems found. I'm not sure what this means: "bringing it into the sphere of the Sanskritic ... cultural order". If you think the typical reader of this article will understand this, then it's fine. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:29, 6 September 2008 [21].

---

2007 USC Trojans football team

Nominator(s): Bobak (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe its ready: after reaching GA status, using Wikipedia:WikiProject College football Peer Review and the general GA review process, it has since undergone a solid peer review. The only precedent for a FA college football season article is the exceptional 2005 Texas Longhorn football team. This article mimics the 2005 Texas style fairly closely; both articles are very long due to the nature of summarizing a 12+ game season. The extra size in the USC article is due to a more extensive "Before the season" outlook and storyline. Beyond the length-issue inherent to these topics, I feel the article is strong and look forward to this process. Bobak (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved, Giants2008 (17-14) 22:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC) |content=

Comments - I certainly can't claim that this isn't comprehensive. This is a huge article. My method of prose nit-picking will probably not work well with this, but I might as well offer some advice. —This is part of a comment by Giants2008 (of 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

• "After the season, USC players did well in the subsequent 2008 NFL Draft..." Don't like "did well", because they didn't really do anything at the time. They were selected based on past performances. Oh, and "ten players" could be changed to "10 players". Depends on how you feel about numbers. In fact, I'm seeing some inconsistent number usage throughout the article.

• Reply - Fixed sentence accordingly. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Pre-season outlook: "and were expected to again be in the running for the National Championship." The general reader may not know that the Trojans are an annual national power. Some background would be helpful.

• Reply - Great suggestion, I created a sentence before that talks about the previous season and puts it in perspective. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Booty, along with returning senior-starting tackle (is hyphen needed?) Sam Baker, are ranked as two of the "Top 20 Players Heading Into 2007" by Sports Illustrated." Change are to were.

• Reply - Fixed as suggested. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• "nine of which were Prep Star all-Americans..." Which should probably be whom.

• Reply - Fixed as suggested. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Move second use of current ref 6 after semi-colon.

• Reply - Fixed as suggested. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• The Mitch Mustain picture should be moved. Pictures below level two section headers can't be on the left side. Either move it to the right or have the photo come on the second paragraph of the section, where it could stay on the left.

• Reply - Fixed as suggested. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• My eyes are glazing trying to read all of this, so let's get to the good part: The biggest upset of the year not involving a I-AA team. (excuse me, Football Championship Subdivision. Whatever.) Jim Harbaugh should be linked. More importantly, I'd swear that his comments about USC were sarcastic; correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, this should be reflected in the article.

• Reply - Added another wikilink as suggested (wasn't sure if I should do it after already using one earlier in the Pre-Season section). His comments were never clearly outlined as being sarcastic: his first comments were simply stating rumors that offending Carroll, and his second comments appeared to be meant to cover up his faux paus on the first --while they may not have been entirely genuine they were never considered sarcastic --rather a "fine, lets just drop the subject." --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that there's too much secondary information here. For example, Notre Dame has a whole paragraph devoted to their season before the USC game. What is this doing in an article on the USC Trojans? A brief statement or two on an opposing team is great, but I fear this is too much.

• Reply - In this case I disagree because storylines really color college football, particularly the key games (something that is also reflected in 2005 Texas). In the case of Notre Dame, its a serious rival, and the back stories put the game in the context of that rivalry: the first game at the stadium since the Bush Push, the decision to pre-announce the green jerseys, and the complete FUBAR situation at QB leading into the game, etc. I tried to keep each game section around the same size with some variation for the major games. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• The Rose Bowl people were criticized for inviting Illinois before the game. Most of it dealt with the fact that they wanted a traditional Big 10-Pac 10 game at all costs. Saying the controversy came only after a blowout is not entirely accurate.

• Reply - Good observation, I've rewritten to reflect that point. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• "the season ended in calls for some form of Football Subdivision playoff." There was tremendous controversy last year before the bowls even started, due to the number of teams with a title-game claim. Some people thought that USC should have played in the title game, though most were put off by the Stanford loss. Maybe the pre-bowl controversy could be discussed briefly, since USC was involved.

• Reply - I see what you're concerned with, I've re-written the sentence to reflect that it added to a continuing call for playoffs, wikilinking the article on BCS controversies. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My primary concern, however, is the size. Our readibility tool shows 62.0 KB of readable prose and over 10,000 words of prose, a massive total. I worry with articles like this that the size makes it harder to keep the writing, style etc. tight. Good luck with it, though. I may come back to look at more later, but will probably not check the entire article. There's just too much for my style of reviewing to cover in a timely fashion. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Reply - Yeah, its hard to cut down on prose in any meaningful way, especially compared to 2005 Texas, which broke out some very large single-game articles like the 2005 Oklahoma vs. Texas football game and 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game. These articles are like the blue whales of Wikipedia. Thanks for the input. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)}}

Support — I'm going to offer my support for this article, but I do have a few comments and suggestions. The article is well-written, extremely well-cited, and comprehensive. It's comparable to other featured articles of a similar type, and there's no deal-breaking reason that I can see to deny support at this time. Comments follow: —This is part of a comment by JKBrooks85 (of 09:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

• Out of necessity, you use a lot of football terminology and jargon. I've run into problems with that in the past in my CFB FACs, and I'd suggest having a non-American Wikipedian read through the article and simply list points where they don't understand what a term means. I wouldn't have them go into more detail than that to avoid being overwhelmed by the sheer size of the article. Have someone look it over and simply write where they got confused.

• Reply - I've tried wikilinking the most common, confusing words; and from your earlier recommendation I followed the basis of 2005 Texas and 2005 USC in adding See Alsos to articles on American football rules, American football strategy, American football positions and Glossary of American football --I hope the combination of wikilinks and see alsos will cover all aspects; otherwise this article would get even longer. Its a difficult balance. But if anyone sees anything that could use an additional wikilink, let me know! --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I see that you've made an effort to do that, for which you deserve a lot of credit. But I'd still strongly suggest you find someone who knows nothing about football to do a quick readthrough and pick out points of difficulty. They may not be wikilinkable items -- simply things that need a bit more explanation as to why they're relevant here. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• There's a few niggling non-encyclopedic phrases that bothered me; "improbable victory" was one that came to mind. I've been going through and changing them as I run across them, but watch out for that sort of thing. Though it makes the prose a bit more boring, it's usually necessary to sacrifice adjectives in order to achieve full impartiality.

• Reply - I noticed you've made some of those changes, thanks. It was the most difficult surrounding the Stanford game which, like the Boise State-OU Fiesta Bowl, just begged for strong adjectives. I'm fine with the changes, though. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• The biggest grammar problem I've found in it is hyphenation; the most notable example of this was things like "33–yard run," which should just be 33-yard run, using a hyphen because you're creating an adjectival phrase describing the run. There's a few other odd little hyphen problems, but I'm going through and fixing them as I run across them, and as I said, they're minor. You've done a good job copyediting it; it's much better than a lot of other articles I've seen put up for FAC.

• Reply - Thanks, I'll take a look for any more. I admit I found the WP guides confusing on this point and simply looked for what was done in 2005 Texas (where I actually found several minor errors). --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• For numbers, you'll need to spell out numbers less than 10 in order to follow the MOS. I've gotten a few of these, but I'm sure there's more in the article, lurking around.

• Reply - Gotcha, I've taken a pass through for the others --I believe they're all taken care of (by searching " X " to get the single digits). --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• The link-checking tool also returns one dead link entitled "Biggest Upset Ever?"

• Reply - Right, on this one I was hoping the "accessed on" date would vouch for the fact that I read it when it existed, but it appears its going to be a problem. I'll eliminate it as the facts are covered in the LA Times articles on the game (number of rushing yards, etc). --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• As I said at the start, these are all (with the exception of the first comment) minor stylistic considerations and don't keep me from giving you my support for what is an extremely good article that ranks among Wikipedia's best. Congratulations and good work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.scout.com/ a reliable source?
• Likewise http://rivals100.rivals.com/?

• Reply - Scout.com is one of the most notable recruiting websites (along with Rivals.com); its article here currently is a redirect to its corporate owner, Fox Interactive Media. It has had tie-ins with Sports Illustrated to cover college recruiting, as evidenced here. Actually, ESPN and SI have flipped and now ESPN uses Scout and SI uses Rivals for their high school recruiting information, their college analysis is similarly acceptable. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I also will vouch for the authority of these two sites. They're pretty much the biggest names in the business, and Rivals is in partnership/has been bought by Yahoo! as well. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• And http://bigrednetwork.com/archives/2007/09/view_from_the_sideline_usc_vs.html?

• Reply - The sentence it was sourcing was mentioning celebrities at the game, and some of those celebrities were present in pictures on the page in question (the rest with the other two citations for that sentence). There's no issue of reliability in this situation. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm curious why you think that there is no issue of reliability. We have to rely on the site's reliablity to be sure the pics aren't photoshopped or are of the place in question, unfortunately. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Reply - I was actually going to write in my previous answer "unless we believe they would photoshop it, which is exceptionally unlikely" but stopped because I didn't want the reply to get too long --guess I should have: I included two other reliable sources in that citation string that, taken in with the photos, only add to their authenticity. Rush Limbaugh actually uses the same photo from the Husker Nation site in his own entry on his visit. The LA Times covers the other photos. I did not base the sentence off of that one source, when I felt one was weak I tried to double it up with something more reliable; but at the same time its nice to have an additional source with photos. --Bobak (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a photographer. I KNOW how easy it is to do photoshop tricks. It's a professional hazard you have, I don't trust pictures any more, unfortunately. Anyway, works with the backups you've given, striking it, you're done! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.petecarroll.com/index.cfm/pk/view/cd/NAA/cdid/400829/pid/400654 says it's a blog.

• Reply - USCRipsIt.com (despite the odd choice of URL) is an official website of the USC Athletic Department, run in conjunction with HC Pete Carroll's own professional website. Proof of this is available on the Athletic Department's football page (look at the bottom); USCRipsIt.com redirects to petecarroll.com for hosting. Thus the positions on these associated websites are official statements, direct from the source. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• http://fannation.com/blogs/post/65375 deadlinks. Also, what makes this reliable, it's got a blog right there in the url.

• Reply - Since I can't find any archive of it and have removed it --but this one was by Arash Markazi, which I would've wikilinked if I could've found the archive of the actual post (thus it would've satisfied the exception under WP:SPS). The information was covered in the LA Times articles on the game (number of rushing yards, etc). --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• The mere fact that a person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article isn't enough to make them a reliable source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Reply - The point I meant to imply is that a person would read that Arash Markazi is a reporter for Sports Illustrated who covers college football, thus there would be no additional legitimize his postings on college football since he would satisfy the exception under WP:SPS, that "in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." --Bobak (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.ticketcity.com/Top-50-College-Football-Tickets.html a reliable source?

• Reply - A PR release by an established broker, the statement that they're observing certain games are trading higher than others does not appear questionable, and I decided to source it directly after reading about the high prices and demand elsewhere. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Double check all references for last access dates. I noticed a couple missing (current refs 230, 231) but don't claim to have caught them all.

• Reply - Fixed --those two slipped out when I did a citation review on and off between May and July. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Does the uploader of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz_U3WtAIjY have permission to put this video up? Most stadiums restrict videoing, so I'm not sure we're allowed to link to it. (Video copyright is not an area of specialty here!)

• Reply - Copyright is something I'm familiar with as an attorney, I was happy to find this clip (as opposed to a part of the actual broadcast) because this sort of usage is fine and will not bring any legal ramifications to this project. Thanks for reviewing all the links, I realize there's a ton. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'll take your word that the videographer had the right to video at the game. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Why is Trojans plural, but Cardinal singular? Also, see WP:MOSNUM, no ordinals in dates: On October 3rd it was ... <Go Cards>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I can answer that question. The mascot of Stanford is the Cardinal (source). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is; it's a team. Why is Trojans plural and Cardinal singular when referring to a team? The wording is awkward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The Cardinal are always referred to in the singular. See Stanford Cardinal; the nickname is referring to the color cardinal, not the bird. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not always; I see the change was made in 1981. So I guess there's nothing to be done about how awkward the text reads, mixing singular and plural. If any of those sentences can be recast it might help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

True, not always, but the article is talking about the game against Stanford in 2007, therefore at the time of the game, it has already been decided that the Stanford be referred to as the singular Cardinal. In any case, I defer to the nominator's (and main contributor's) decision; if he/she wants to change it, that's fine by me. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find any instance in the text where it is strictly necessary to refer to Trojans v. Cardinal; to make the text read less awkwardly, it seems these instances could just be switched to USC v. Stanford. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I've done that. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good; on a complete side note there's a fascinating story about how Stanford went from the Indians to the Cardinal, I recommend finding the story. But yes, they had their "want to be like Harvard" moment and picked the Cardinal (Harvard is the Crimson). The other nickname Stanford is called is "The Farm", an old reference to how it was founded on Leland Stanford's ranch. --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing: who knew anyone from The Farm ever aspired to "be like Harvard" or march in boring straight marching band lines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed all ordinals in dates. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images—This is part of a comment by Awadewit (of 16:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

• There are too many images in this article - in many places, the text is sandwiched between images. See MOS:IMAGES and WP:PICTURE for help on image placement.

• Reply - I've now shrank, moved and when all else failed removed the images to prevent squeezing and stackups. --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Usc football logo.gif - We need a link to the source website.

• Reply - Done; though the specific page where the image was taken isn't available, I linked to the football page (incidentally, that logo is only used by the football team). --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• What do you mean it isn't available? Is it a subscription only site? If so, we could still link to it and indicate that. We really need a source. Awadewit (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I mean I can't find the image file on the USC Athletics page anymore; they redid their website last season. The own the trademark and it came from them, and here are two ways to show it: (1) the USC Graphic Identity Program identifies (without the image) the "Trojan Football Helmet Head" (which is different from the general Trojan Head) and notes that "All the USC athletic marks are limited to the Department of Athletics", thus the source is the Athletic Department website; (2) you can see it on the sides of the helmets). The image file itself isn't listed anymore from what I can tell, post redesign. Thus I can correctly identify the source of the trademark as the USC Athletic Department, but I can no longer point to the exact file on their website. I hope thats satisfactory. --Bobak (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few more sources for the image's ownership from the USC bookstore: The Trojan Football Helmet Head on a helmet, a cap, a bill, a shirt, a DVD, and a pennant. --Bobak (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Would the Way Back Machine work for this? Awadewit (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't seem to work. I don't think there's an issue because I've clearly identified the trademark/copyright owner of the image, the original source and the only one with legal powers over it. --Bobak (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I checked with someone more knowledgeable than myself and this will work. Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Image:P-danelomario.jpg - Please list the copyright holder and explain in more detail why this image is necessary to the article. Why won't words suffice? I am unconvinced as of yet that a fair use image is necessary in this instance. The player is only briefly mentioned and his death is not better explained through this image.

• Reply - Photo removed. --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Image:PeteCarroll.JPG - It would be nice to copy this to Commons for the use of other users.
• Image:JimHarbaugh2007.jpg - It would be nice to copy this to Commons for the use of other users.

• Reply - I feel a bit uncomfortable uploading photos that aren't GNU or my own CC onto Commons; I've already been burned by people who've done that to my photos but forgot to actually write that mine are under CC. While I like that Carroll photo, I've recently uploaded my own photo of Pete Carroll to Commons if someone really needs one. Thank you for your input! --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I won't push it. :) Awadewit (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

These should be easy to deal with. Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• All image concerns have been addressed. Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Support as much as I loathe USC, I must say that this is an excellent article. Very well written and referenced. Dare we say too many references. I counted five references regarding the pre-season expectations. But that won't keep me from offering my support. Dincher (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The excess markup (example, bolding on "Reply") isn't needed and does not aid readability on the FAC; in fact, it makes it harder for me to scan to determine what has been done or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

*'''Reply''' - No problem, I'll stop --I was actually doing it to help myself keep track of where I'd responded... (Also based off of 2005 Texas' FAC). --Bobak (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't find a link anywhere in the article to USC Trojans football, which probably belongs in the lead. Maybe it's there somewhere and I'm just missing it? (It's in the infobox, but can/should it be linked in the article?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This was an instance where I copied the format of 2005 Texas Longhorn football team, which does not do that. I could link the "University of Southern California Trojans football" part of very first sentence, would that work? Otherwise I'm not sure where to place it (its currently linked in the infobox and the season box at the bottom). --Bobak (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments by karanacs. I think the article needs a bit more copyediting. I have copyedited the first half but recommend that someone go through the game notes. In particular, I see a lot of sentences pulled together with semicolons that really shouldn't be, and many times sentences don't flow well within a paragraph. I also think the lead could be fleshed out a bit with some information about the preseason stuff - player who died, how many players returned and left. Most of the sources look good to me, but is USCripsit.com a reliable source? Karanacs (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hello. Your copyediting has been excellent thusfar. I didn't want to include the player who died in the lede because, while it was tragic, it didn't make as much impact as someone like the head coach or starting QB (I'm also worried about it reading like its been padded). As was noted above, in the article and on the website in question: USCripsit is an official website of the USC Athletic Department, the just --for whatever reason-- picked a silly URL. I also don't get why, but there it is. :-) --Bobak (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I have read it through once and I think it is in excellent shape overall. I am reading it a second time to look for little things.

1. One small thing is an imprecise word in the last section. It says "several" Trojans were.... Can we count them up and give the exact number?

Johntex\^talk 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Changed "several" to "five". I see how that was confusing as it goes right into all-conference which is separate from all-American. --Bobak (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. Disclosure: I peer-reviewed this article and copyedited it pre-FAC, but I had nothing to do with the fantastic comprehensiveness and sourcing of this article. The prose is also much improved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Notes. There is a hidden table within the text; this doesn't work on mirrors, on printable versions, and causes WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues, see WP:MOS. Coaching staff has –Present, which is incorrect capitalization and also breaches WP:MOSDATE#Precise language (pls check throughout for similar). There is a left-aligned image under the "Idaho" heading, which breaches WP:MOS#Images, pls check throughout, there are others. Is "Comments" an encyclopedic section heading? The placement of the first "See also" template under "Before the season" is awkward. A question was raised at WT:MOS about the use of #1 vs. No. 1 in prose (versus in tables); pls inquire at MoS if that was sorted or added to MoS, as this article uses a lot of #'s in the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Regard the "Comments" section: I brought this up on the peer review, and Bobak referred me to the layout guide for yearly team pages according to WP:College Football. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• OK (maybe you can work on getting them to improve that to something more encyclopedic and descriptive :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Made the following suggested fixes: (1) Made hidden table visible; (2) fixed the coaching table, I actually removed "present" based off of my reading of WP:MOSDATE#Precise language; (3) fixed all photos to avoid the left-image issue, for ASU I followed an example used in 2005 Texas where an image was placed to the right of the box score; (4) combined the first two See Alsos to avoid the awkwardness; (5) caught an in-text instance of "No." versus "#", all are now "#" --I'm keeping all as "#" to keep consistent with the schedule box template. --Bobak (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Struck most of above, two points. The layout guidelines for football articles are unfortunate, with a section called "Comments" (unencyclopedic and not very descriptive) and the large amount of tables plopped right into the middle of the prose, interrupting the article, when they might be moved to the bottom. But if that's what they want, and no one here has objected, so be it. Also, you may have misunderstood my query about # versus No. For example: USC ended the season as #2 in the final Coaches Poll and #3 in the final AP Poll with one first-place vote. A query was raised at MoS about the use of # in prose, suggesting that # should be reserved for tables, while No. should be used within text. USC ended the season as No. 2 in the final Coaches Poll and No. 3 in the final AP Poll with one first-place vote. I don't know how or if that was resolved at MoS. I'm hoping you'll do the follow-up :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've made a request for clarification at WP:MOS, in the meantime I'm fine with switching all "#" with "No.". --Bobak (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the change is necessary; I really don't know how that was resolved, and the MoS archives are daunting. I left a query for Tony1 (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm glad someone found the old discussion, I'm leaning towards "No." over "number". Not only is it less confusing to American readers, considering all the rankings it could make this article even longer... --Bobak (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Swapped all rankings "#"s with "No. " --Bobak (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from a non-Football fan

• Great, you're the person we've been waiting for. --Bobak (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• "USC accomplished two major feats: The Trojans became the first team to win six straight Pac-10 titles, and became the first team in major college football to achieve six straight 11-win seasons." As the lead says the team can be called both "USC" and "The Trojans", the first part of the sentence reads funny. Read it as "USC accomplished two major feats: USC became..."or "The Trojans accomplished two major feats: The Trojans became".

• Went with replacing "USC" with "The Trojans" and "The Trojans" with "they" to cut down on repeated words. --Bobak (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the same sentence, "became" and "became"

• swapped second with "were" --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm unfamiliar with football terms, but does the hyphen in "4-3 formation" in the infobox substitute the words "to" or "and"? If so, WP:DASH says it should an endash. Also occurs in the prose, along with "3-4 defense formation"

• As far as I know, and in this instance I am not as familiar with the history and evolution of terminology in college defensive strategy, the terms for defense (3-4, 4-3, 3-3-5, etc) have not been used to substitute "and"; its hard to tell now as people simply say "three four" or "three three five". --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's practice at FLC to order references numerically. Is that usually done at FA?

• I don't know here, but the order I placed them in under the current draft was in order of relevance to the fact they cited. --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The Trojans ended the 2006 season with a victory in the 2007 Rose Bowl Game and a #4 ranking in both polls" what polls? I'm guessing the Coaches and AP polls mentioned in the Lede, but I can't be sure

• Fixed. --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• "As expected, USC was at the top of the first Coaches Poll" Who expected?

• The national pre-season polls mentioned and cited just two sentences earlier. --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• " Louisiana State University (LSU) with 4 votes, #3 Florida with 6 votes, and #5 Michigan with 2 votes." Why not "University of Florida" and "University of Michigan"?

• In college sports, teams are often referred to formally by the single name rather than the "University of" for the sake of simplicity. I have used all the most common and accepted names for teams. With that said, there are a few teams that are better known by their acronym, like LSU (or USC), and in the instance here I made sure to spell out the acronym the first time it was used to avoid confusion). --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Sports Illustrated online" should it be capitalised as in "Sports Illustrated Online"? Or maybe even "the Sports Illustrated website"

• Swapped to the website's actual name, which is apparently "SI.com". --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• The key in the table needs expanding. As a non-football fan, it left me confused:
  • What does RB, LB, WR, C mean?
  • What do the stars represent?
  • What is the ESPN number?

• Ah-hah... that table was just set stay expanded at all times, I see the resulting confusion: I've moved the See Alsos that were originally above the Roster to above the Recruiting section, which is the first instance of heavy references to positions and terminology. I've also added a third See Also for Recruiting (college athletics), which goes over star ratings. I have changed the college recruit template to clarify the ESPN number as a grade; it's out of 100, and I've changed the final part of the template to explain that. --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Mitch Mustain, who was 8–0 as a starter" what does 8–0 mean?

• Clarified with "8–0 win/loss record". --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• For Louisiana, Florida and Michigan, links point to the football team articles. The link in Mitch's sentence for Arkansas points to University of Arkansas. The next sentence mentions the Razorbacks, but it's not clear that this is the name of Arkansas's team.

• Gotcha, fixed link and swapped "Razorbacks" for "team". --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is the paragraph regarding Jordan Cameron necessary? Again, as a non-football fan, he doesn't seem notable to the 2007 team since he never did anything. <shrugs>

• I'm leaning towards keeping it since it was a part of the offseason for a team that effectively began in spring practice before the season. --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• What are the colours used to represent in the Schedule table?

• The colors are green for win, red for loss. I think explaining that isn't particularly necessary. --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• space needed in "Temple(1988)"

• Good catch --Fixed. --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• "1922-1929" endash for date ranges

• Fixed. --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• 3 columns with {{reflist}} isn't recommended. It was part of WP:CITE until today (Three-column lists are inaccessible to users with smaller/laptop monitors and should be avoided.), but it was lost when most of it was moved to WP:FOOT.

• Fixed --woo, doggy its even longer now :-)... --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I made these changes using two scripts. I checked them before hitting send so nothing should have messed up. Revert if you want to. Support UCLA. Ooops, I meant just "Support" :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:29, 6 September 2008 [22].

---

2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake

Nominator: Editorofthewiki (talk), --LordSunday

previous FAC (00:49, 15 July 2008)

The previous FAC raised concerns about the article's prose. I think that has been adressed via a peer review. While this is short, it's quite comprehensive, and I think it fulfils the FAC criteria. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 14:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• WeakSupport as co-nominator - Prose concerns have been adressed, but the article is still short. However, I'll co-nom again since I hjelped quite a bit with this article last time. This time I feel that there is a chance the article will pass, but I would have liked to dedicate more time to it. --Meldshal42? 15:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://www.iranmania.com/news/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=10815&NewsKind=CurrentAffairs&ArchiveNews=Yes a reliable source? I see it's got a (AFP) code at the byline, is that the French News Agency? Maybe you can find the same story in a newspaper?

I believe that the Iran News (their official newspaper-type paper) runs IranMania. But I think we could find it in a news article, let me check. --LordSunday 15:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am now sure that the source is reliable, as USGS uses it. I have also added another asource from iranmania. --LordSunday 15:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

How does USGS use it though? Or did you find that the site is run by the Iranian newspaper? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

AFP stands for Agence France-Press, one of the oldest news agencies in the world. See under "News Links" at http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/index.html It's the first link. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

THat link is dead, by the way. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong URL. It is http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2002/eq_020622/ --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 00:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't show that the usgs uses it as a source, they are merely linking to it, as one of several news links on that page. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why the US government would be linking to a source that is wrong. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. The US Government has no clue at times. But whatever... it'll do..

Otherwise sources look okay. Links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image check complete - descriptions, sources, and licensing look ok. Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Simple Comment - Current Ref 2 needs its accessdate formatted properly. It is currently a red link. --haha169 (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Sandy fixed it. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Excellent work. My concerns about prose from the previous FAC have been addressed very satisfactorily. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please have an independent collaborator verify this article's sourcing; it's rare that I have to correct sources in an article at FAC.[23] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • All the faulty URLs have been fixed. For the two you added, I was simply too lazy to type it in. Sorry about that. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

1b, comprehensiveness, and 1c, factual accuracy issues.

Please verify the following text via other sources:

The earthquake's epicenter was near the small village of Bou'in-Zahra (sometimes spelled Bouynzahra) ...

Sourced to an iffy source (which could be replaced): * http://www.iranmania.com/news/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=10792&NewsKind=CurrentAffairs Nowhere does that source back the statement that Bouynzahra is an alternate spelling of Bou'in-Zahra, or even mention Bou'in-Zahra.

First of all, that isn't even cited to that source. Second, The article is written by Agence France-Press, one of the oldest and most respected news sources, so it thus cannot be classified as "iffy". --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 02:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not any more, but it was :-) [24] Now there is a self-reference to Wiki in the footnotes, which is a no-no. And potentially issues with our naming conventions, as well as a breach of WP:LEAD, where alternate names should be mentioned in the lead. The fixes you implemented have moved away from guidelines, and haven't convinced me of either the name or the location of the quake. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

See USS Illinois (BB-65). FA, same deal. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 22:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I have reworded the note as to avoid a self reference and mentioned the alternate titles in the lead. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 02:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet, another reliable source disagrees, saying that Boi'in-Zahra is 60 kilometers from Qazvin, the capital of the province, and specifically saying that Bouynzahra was another city affected:

• ... la mayoría de las muertes ocurrieron en la población de Bou'in-Zahra, a 60 kilómetros de Qazvin, la capital de la provincia. ... La televisión iraní mostró ayer las primeras imágenes de la tragedia en las que los habitantes de Bouynzahra, otra de las ciudades afectadas, aparecían cubiertos de polvo y arrodillados ante sus casas destruidas. http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/500/muertos/2000/heridos/terremoto/Iran/elpepiint/20020623elpepiint_14/Tes

And yet another source says that Bouynzahra is a district, not a town:

• http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/23/world/fg-iran23

While one source appears to equate the two words, calling Bouynzahra a city:

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1398032/500-dead-in-Iranian-earthquake.html

Yet another spelling, Buin-Zahra, offered at this page,[25] and it's not clear that the article is comprehensive, considering all of the information available in all of these sources. Need to nail this down better.

Complicating issues further, our article on Qazvīn Province mentions Booin Zahra; this needs to be sorted.

Booin Zahra is wrong, corrected. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 00:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is determined that Bouynzahra, Buin-Zahra, Booin Zahra and Boi'in-Zahra are the same city, it would seem that a better source (like the telegraph, above) could be used, but it's not clear to me at this point whether they are the same. Worse, it doesn't appear that any of these are the official name used for the earthquake anyway:

Other official sources linked in the article call it the "Avaj Region Earthquake" or "Avaj Earthquake" or "Changureh Earthquake";[26][27][28][29] how was the article name chosen, and why aren't these alternate names included in the lead? Also, why isn't more of the information, history, geology from these sources included? I suggest more thorough research is needed here, and a closer look at comprehensiveness based on the info in the sources. Perhaps getting one of the Wiki geologists involved would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The article name was chosen because the official report placed the epicenter at Bou'in-Zahra. I will work on incorporating the sources into the article. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 00:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Another concern: searching google scholar on the correct name (Avaj earthquake) yields numerous scholarly sources. Have those sources been accessed? [30] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This source looks good: http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jsnds/contents/saigai_report/Changureh20020622.html. I would add it but I'm off to breakfast.

I've used the source for the article. There wasn't much to add, anyway. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 00:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have accessed the journal sources, and added anything of value. I think the article is as comprehensive as possible. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 02:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• The endnotes are all over the place. Clicking the [c] takes me to note a at the bottom; clicking note b at the bottom takes me back up to [a] (and many other random things). Please fix. —Giggy 11:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Huh? I just tried that out and none of that stuff happened. You should ask Sandy, she put them in there. --LordSunday 12:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

    No, I didn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

    • I put them in there, thank you very much. I think I've fixed the problem, as it works for me. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 14:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm interested as to what "relaticve" means. Nousernamesleft (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
        • It was a typo, fixed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Awesome, they're fixed. —Giggy 07:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Images -could use some images for encyclopedia purposes. Have you looked to see if USAID or anybody has any public domain images? I doubt that uploading fair use images would be permitted.

• Couldn't find anything, sorry. (I hate copyright paranoia as much as you do.) I wonder if we could take some images from the IRNA site, but other than that, zip. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"The small village of Kisse-Jin was the home of roughly 80 corpses following the rupture". "The home" of "corpses seems a bit crude and looks awkward, need rewording The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Changed to "In the small village of Kisse-Jin, roughly 80 corpses were recovered following the rupture." --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. I couldn't find any free images either although one site had some great eyewitness images of the disaster which would considerably help the article. Perhaps one day Iranian wikipedia will have one? The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• SupportComments
• The 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake (also known as the 2002 Avaj earthquake or the 2002 Changureh earthquake[a]) occurred on June 22, 2002 in a region of northwestern Iran which is crossed by several major fault lines. Wikilink Iran and fault line.
  • Done. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• According to the International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), the earthquake was felt as far away as the capital city of Tehran, approximately 180 miles (290 km) east of the epicenter, although no damage was reported there. Most houses in the region were single-story masonry buildings, and virtually all of these collapsed. Really needs to be split into two sentences.
  • Huh? It is two sentences. Please elaborate. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Whoops, I misread. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Image:Kharaghan.jpg confuses me. The caption in the article says the towers are seen after the 2002 quake, while the image description says the picture depicts them before the 2003 one.
  • There was a 2003 one, though I don't think it damaged the area. Apparently the pictures were before the 2002 one, which I fixed on both the article and the image. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• The earthquake occurred at 02:58 UTC (7:28 a.m. Iran Standard Time),[1][5] while most of those affected were in their homes. This sentence tells me most people were in their homes, while this sentence, Most of the dead were women, children and the elderly,[15] as many of the men were working in local vineyards tells me the men were outside? Which one is it?
  • Hmm, I seemed to have contradicted myself. Changed to "...while many Iranians were in their homes." --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Newer structures, many built in accordance with the Iranian code of practice for seismic-resistant design, survived much better. Is poorly worded
  • Changed to "Newer structures built in accordance with the Iranian code of practice for seismic-resistant design fared much better." --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• The 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake triggered many landslides over an area of about 3600 km2. We already know the earthquake was in 2002; no need to repeat it.
  • Removed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• According to Gary Oshea of International Rescue, the volunteersdid not have enough technical equipment, and the religious leaders seemed unwilling to contribute much. Is "volunteersdid" a word?

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Duh, it was a typo, fixed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment If Image:Kharaghan.jpg is pre-earthquake description, then what is the necessaity of this image in this article? The image does not illustrate the effect of the earthquake. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, but it does show what the building was like, for illustration purposes. I wonder if I can use fair use images on the article. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 05:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Article is overall well-written and well-referenced. Support. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

More Blofeld comments

My main concerns like Sandy Georgia's about the article is comprehensiveness and quality of prose and the way in which the facts are presented and indeed their full verification. It could use a copyedit for style particularly with the removal of the stubbier sentences of which there are a lot into more flowing sentences which have a greater readability. I found the earlier sections of the article quite difficult to read and found myself having to reread certain phrases or sentences to make sure I understood it.

I;ve a little confused by reading in the introduction that the "area is known for destructive earthquakes" yet later down it appears that" Earthquakes happen less frequently in the Qazvin Province compared to the Iranian national average Earthquakes happen less frequently in the Qazvin Province compared to the Iranian national average". If this is the case then the area can't be particularly renowned for its destructive earthquakes which appear more commnly elesewhere. If you are referring to the extent of the damage or intensity of the quake then you need to reword this to avoid confusion. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, I don't think it is really all that confusing. The area experiences strong earthquakes, when it has them. --Lord₪Sunday 14:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"This particular landmass is believed to be "growing through a relict Neogene topography" -does nothing to explain to me what this is to me - WP:CONTEXT. Most people would think"What on earth is a "relict Neogene topography" -It is important the reader reads that section and doesn't have any grey areas of understanding. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave that one to Ed. --Lord₪Sunday 14:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have linked the word "Neogene". Hopefully that helps. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 14:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I feel there are too many citations particularly in the first few paragraphs of the Damage and casualties often three or four a sentence which seems to affect its readability and flow. The second sentence is particular is an example of Over-citation with what looks like 5 citations. The rest of that section is OK.I am always keen to improve citation but occasionally it does not often need to be done as oftne as one might think. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the reviewers here proposed that we add more references to touch it up a bit, so I really don't get this whole mess. I agree, with Blofeld, we are over-citing. --Lord₪Sunday 14:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

More citations? Its extremely well referenced. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am simply citing each fact, according to thesource. How do you propose I can change this? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 14:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Most of the dead were women, children and the elderly,[15] as many of the men were working in local vineyards" - problematic in that this seems to include the entire population pyramid of dmeogrpahics. Children, women, working men and the elderly. Information given seems a bit vague and not precise. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what you mean. I simply said who died and who didn't. Please elaborate. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 14:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You said that most of the dead were women, children, working men and the elderly which in any normal society would be pretty much stating the obvious. If a specific group such as women and children received far more deaths than any other part of society though or a certain group was most affected please assert this. If not, then encyclopedically that sentence has little value. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I just said that most of the dead were women, children, and the elderly. The men, for the most part, survived. I think this was clear enough. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 15:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Over 20 aftershocks were recorded, with magnitudes up to 5.1 on the moment magnitude scale. At least three caused further casualties and damage. Most of these had their epicenter within 25 km of the main shock. I would avoid short snappy sentences and keep this in two sentences to make it flow better. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Done by you. Heh. --Lord₪Sunday 14:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Damage to the historic Kharaqan tomb towers, which were in a good state of preservation before the event, suggests that the earthquake was one of the most powerful in the region for approximately 900 years". This seems like a speculative sentence and WP:OR. I'm not debating whether it is true given that the structure has remained intact for 900 years but doesn't the nature in which a building is affected depend on the precise epicentre of the quake and the geology in which the plates collides. Different angles or process can have a major impact on the way in which the surface is affected in different areas and damage to that building could have resulted from a different dynamics and the pattern of movement rather than the sheer force of the quake. "The most powerful in the region for approximately 900 years" is quite a statement and would require scientific expertise to back this claim up other than just speculation. The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked. --Lord₪Sunday 15:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This statement had a ref to a scientific journal, so it certainly wasn't OR. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 15:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats good I should have followed up that source, but it still didn't back it up by any scientific evidence in the article and seemed to be more a casual observation. Could you show me where in the Source that is provided it analyses the structural dynamics of the Kharaqan towers? Where does it back up this claim of the 900 years? The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That shows only the abstract of the article. I acessed the entire thing, which said that. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 15:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe you of course but if somebody else is verifying it they'd want to check it.

• Never mind, I have linked to a PDF document which shows the entire article. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Great job Ed. That journal is an excellent scientific analysis of the disaster. The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Abdarreh and Abdareh. Are these the same places or are they different? There is a variation in spelling if so and "vincinity" I take it you mean "vicinity"? If you are discussing Abdarreh and the other village I would keep that in one paragraph. The first sentence of that seems to have been misplaced in the preceding paragraph The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Both typos, fixed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 15:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

47 "fall and topple zones". Does a fall and topple zone have a formal meaning? What is meant by this exactly? Landslides triggered by the earthquake mostly occurred in the "most susceptible geologic areas", where there were many landslides before. Slightly awkward could be reworded and needs clarification. Do you mean the epicentre or along fault lines or what? If you mean areas of a weak geological structure as I think he do which are most "susceptible to damage" then it is pretty obvious that landslides will affect these areas most. Thats what I would think anyway as a reader. The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Linked and reworded. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 15:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"After officials launced an appeal for assistance". Do you mean "Other officials launched an appeal for assistance"? If so whom and what? The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Iranian" added. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 16:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• In the lead, it states 1,300 were injured. However, according to the source, 2000-4000 were injured. Another sources states 245 were killed, not 261. Which is right? how do you turn this on 16:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The source (BBC) says that 1,500 were injured. That was pretty much a final report, so I've used that. Likewise the 261 is from the USGS, and the info for 245 was preliminary. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 16:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Well the source in the lead says different to the text. Could it be fixed? how do you turn this on 16:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Did I get it? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 22:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• "There was great public anger" sounds like something out of a tabloid newspaper. What's wrong with "The public were angry"? how do you turn this on 16:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Actually that would be "The public was angry" :) Fixed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed :-) Forgive my atrocious Engrish skillz how do you turn this on 16:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Mine ain't oll korrect either. :) --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 16:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"A bridge failed..." What does that mean, it collapsed? how do you turn this on 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Yes, reworded. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 16:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Surface cracks were observed between the villages of Abdareh and Changureh, that suffered the heaviest damage, being roughly 25 kilometers from the epicenter." That sentence sounds incredibly awkward. how do you turn this on 16:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Changed to: "Surface cracks were observed in Abdareh and Changureh, the villages that suffered the heaviest damage, being roughly 25 kilometers from the epicenter." --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 16:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Supporting per request. how do you turn this on 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• What does "per request" mean? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• It means someone asked me to make a !vote, here. I wasn't canvassed, and since I commented here it makes sense for me to make a !vote in the end, right? how do you turn this on 21:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Each time I have looked at this article to see if it's ready for promotion, I find ongoing issues. There are citation cleanup needs still, there was overcitation, there are MoS breaches on units and missing conversions, there are accessdates when there are no URLs, etc. These are basic cleanup issues that should have been tended to long ago, and give concern about the Supports so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it my support you find concerning? If so, I'll remove it. how do you turn this on 19:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I have adressed the issues. If not give me a holler. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly won't strike my perfectly valid opinion at someone's concern; I'm unsure why you would, How. In defense of my support, I simply place a great deal less weight on the issues you mention than you seem to, Sandy. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I am rather new to this process, so I thought I'd made a mistake in supporting. I happen to agree with NUL that the issues aren't really concerning at all. As long as it is written well and is fully cited and accurate, that's fine for me. I don't consider the way the references or units are formatted as a big problem that can prevent this being featured. But this is a noob's opinion. how do you turn this on 23:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That basically summarises my thoughts as well. My last message, by the way, was probably badly worded - I'd strike it if the concern was rather important - such as the entire article being a copyvio - but I simply don't place much weight on those issues, as you said. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:29, 6 September 2008 [31].

---

Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games

Nominator(s): « ₣M₣ »

It's gone through a peer review and has received an copyedit. Timing may have been intentional, but in any case let the nitpicking begin! « ₣M₣ » 19:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "The game is known for being the first official crossover title" why "is known for being"?
• Why is it sometimes referred to as just "Mario & Sonic"?
• "as well as non-playable characters from either series" what series are these?
• "The gameplay involves use of the Wii Remote..." do you mean controls here?
• "at E3 2007" reader might not know what you mean by E3.
• "the game had gone gold" what does this mean?
• "these were omitted from the final product" do we know why?
• Was there any music in this game?

Hard for me to comment when I don't know much about subject having only played it once. BUC (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Since it is a lengthy title, its referred to "Mario & Sonic". Reception on music added. The wikilink doesn't suffice for 'gone gold'? No reason was given to why those events were omitted. « ₣M₣ » 22:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Why not say "the game" instead? people might think your talking about the characters Mario & Sonic. I did check the link, personally I was none the wiser but maybe I'm just stupid. BUC (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• The name is abbreviated to avoid repetition of "the game", "the title" or simply writing it out the lengthy name like "The Wind Waker". There are two style indicators to avoid the mistake you mentioned; the ampersand and italics. Besides press releases [32] and journalists [33] use it. If someone else brings up 'gone gold', I'll definitely alter it. « ₣M₣ » 19:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• "The two publishers were looking for " - no clear referent for "two publishers".
• "The idea of an Olympic setting for the mascots existed after Sega obtained the Beijing 2008 Olympic license." - it "existed"?
• "The game is known for being the first official crossover title to feature both Mario and Sonic The Hedgehog, along with 14 other characters from their respective series." - It's unclear what the sentence means. Is the game known for having Mario, Sonic, and the 14 others, or is the note about the 14 others merely an afterthought? If it's the later, then it should probably be split off.
• "The player can assume the role as one of these characters" - grammatically incorrect.
• "Overall, critics had mixed perceptions of Mario & Sonic's gameplay, with the multiplayer interaction of the Wii game and variety of events of both versions singled out as strong features." - the idea of the sentence changes suddenly in the middle. It starts out as being "mixed", but the rest of the sentence gives no hint of negative reception. In general, actually, the lead is not structured well - unrelated or contradictory sentiments will be expressed in the same sentence or conjoining sentences. You need to take a look at that.

These are just examples from the lead; I didn't look at the rest of the article yet. I may do so later. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look at the rest of the prose, I see it's basically of the same calibre as the lead formerly was. I won't provide specific examples, somewhat because of my laziness, but mostly because I trust you know what sort of things to look for - awkward wording, unnecessary words which only serve to lengthen the sentence, etc. I can't support unless you clean it up.

Support - prose is much better. Nousernamesleft (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Suppport
  • I'm not entirely sure whether the DS and Wii versions are adequately served in a single article, or whether they should be split. It can get confusing, for example, in the reception section when sentences jump between versions. This isn't a dealbreaker though, others may disagree and I can understand that.
  • There aren't enough screenshots, and the one that is there, a character selection screen, I find useless. If you think a character list is useful (I don't), list them, rather than using a fair use image. There should be ideally at least one gameplay screenshot from both versions of the game, to display graphics engine, HUD, gameplay, input methods etc.
  • Can we have a list of events? These should tie in with official olympic sports, and will define the gameplay. If it's too bulky, then hide it by default.
  • You've used quotes in the references section, is there any real need for them? I can understand when you're quoting a film script say, but the Eurogamer preview is only a page long.
  • Please make the EGM score reflect what was written in the magazine, so we have a clear indication of what each reviewer thought of the game. That 6.3 could have been 1,9,9, or 5,7,7.

hahnchen 00:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• There's no need for a split, as the reception states both are practically the same in design (control itself is the only real difference) so it'll basically be a copy/paste. The way reception is structured, the Wii and DS versions have their own paragraphs about control and gameplay. The only area in reception there is a "jump" is that last paragraph which compares the two in music, graphics and wi-fi. I did that because their practically the same in that as well. « ₣M₣ » 01:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I left reception structured as is per above. Also, I'm not too certain if adding a list of events are necessary. Besides these, all points have been addressed. « ₣M₣ » 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The simulation of events is key to the gameplay. I'm surprised you've decided to list the grouped sports such as athletics and aquatics without actually stating what these entail. Athletics is such a broad term, pole vault? Marathon? Discus? I only realised that trampolining and canoeing were in game after you posted the screenshot. Why have chosen to single out the DS exclusive sports? - hahnchen 21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Good points. Perhaps my subconscious is meshing list of tracks in racing games with this. Though a bit crude at the moment, the list of events is added. « ₣M₣ » 00:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Comments addressed, I'm fairly happy with the article, and reasonably confident that it encapsulates all relevant information to the subject. - hahnchen 11:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - As Olympic tennis is on the television in the background, here's my review.

• The first time International Olympic Committee is used, put the initials in parentheses like this: (IOC). I doubt anyone can get confused by this, but it's never a bad idea.
• Delink July 2008.
• Gameplay: "The DS game is the same in design however, its events are less physically demanding than on the Wii." I'd prefer "The DS game is the same in design, but its events are less physically demanded than those on the Wii."
• Some inconsistent number usage. Twice I see "twenty-four events", but later there's a 14.
• "The Wii version has in-game characters who are taken from the its Mii Channel..."
• "where brief facts of the Olympics can be found." I imagine it should be "about the Olympics".
• Development: The "young people love and are very iconic" quote needs a reference.
• "Over 20 characters were originally planned as well as some sports, such as judo; however, these were omitted from the final product." Could this be made clearer? I'm not sure if this means 20 more characters or if a handful were dropped.
• Reception: "The Wii game sold half of a million units..." Is of really needed?
• "that both versions have sold five million units worldwide combined." Watch for tense; have should probably be had.

I haven't gotten to the Critical Reception yet, but this should be enough for now. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hopefully I have addressed those concerns. « ₣M₣ » 16:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I must apologize for not coming back here for nearly two weeks. As promised a while ago, I shall now look at the Critical response section.

• I'd like a rewording of the first sentence, which now reads: "Mario and Sonic has undergone scrutiny for starring the mascots together for the first time in the Olympics instead of in a platform game, which GamePro criticized as being "a marketing tool to promote the upcoming 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing." Starring in the Olympics instead of an Olympic-themed game? Which sounds like it's referring to the platformer, and the Olympics are over now, so consider paraphrasing the quote.
• "GameTrailers gave the Wii game an 6.8/10..." Should be a.
• Check the X-Play quote.
• Don't need two IGN and Eurogamer links in the section.
• I think current reference 45, from MCVUK, has an incorrect title.

That's all. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm just glad for the comments. Ok, all done. « ₣M₣ » 01:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• what makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://kotaku.com/5026683/another-mario-sonic-collaboration-in-the-works

  This is explained on WP:VG/RS#List - that particular article was written by Brian Crecente. « ₣M₣ » 17:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  • http://www.vooks.net/index.php
  • http://www.kombo.com/index.php
  • http://www.charttrack.co.uk/

  Third-party sources that rely on them for information include: [34] [35] [36] « ₣M₣ » 17:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  • http://www.japan-gamecharts.com/
• Current ref 48 Weekly Famitsu issue 1020 is lacking all other bibliographical information.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked with the link checker tool. Note I'm on the road the rest of this week, so replies may be delayed somewhat. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Vooks.net removed. Famitsu expanded and JP gamecharts removed. « ₣M₣ » 22:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Kombo removed, unfortunately. « ₣M₣ » 16:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Maybe explicitly use the phrase "video game" in the first sentence?
• "Due to the atmosphere of competitive sportsmanship the Olympics had to offer, Sega received approval by Nintendo to include Mario in the game" - not seeing the connection between Mario and competitive sportsmanship myself. The entire lead needs some work; the structure is not the best. Have you looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20080409?
• "Both games closely follow the rules and regulations of the Olympics." - shouldn't that be the rules of the specific sports?
• "seen in its home console equivalent." - probably not necessary; comparison to Wii is implied earlier in the sentence.
• Trampolining isn't really the most popular Olympic sport. I know they're overused, but can you get an athletics/swimming image?
• "The events often require a combination of speed, timing, and strategy." - does this need to be said? Most sports do, and you've said (and continue to say) they replicate the sports. Seems like a meaningless idle statement.
• The structure is awkward throughout; eg. stuff like "Similar events have varying gameplay aspects; for example, getting a starting boost in the 100 m dash is more important than in the longer relay race, since it will not determine the outcome as effectively." shouldn't be given when you're summarising the ABSOLUTE basics of the game, IMO.
• Listing the sports include seems somewhat gameguide-ish (a la a vehicles list for a racing game....).
• "creators of Sega and Nintendo's mascots respectively" - not everyone will make the connection to these being Sonic and Mario. Just name them.
• Magazine publishers like Computer and Video Games and Market for Home Computing and Video Games need italics everywhere. Example.
• "with their newly acquired license" - doesn't really need to be said; it's pretty much a given.

This doesn't cover everything, but is should give an idea of stuff that still needs doing. I haven't looked at the prose everywhere, obviously. —Giggy 11:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've fixed numerous points. idk... Hahnchen did rise some good points for the event list. Hopefully the current lead will suffice. « ₣M₣ » 02:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Re comment on my talk page: User:FullMetal Falcon/sandbox looks good for the lead. —Giggy 01:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, its implemented. Image aside, is there any more awkward structuring? « ₣M₣ » 02:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support: the rest is looking pretty good, well done. —Giggy 07:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comments
  • Image notes and concerns
    • Image:Mario & Sonic.jpg - -I'd like a more fleshed our FUR here, stating why it's low resolution or why it's not replaceable.
    • Image:Wii Mario & Sonic trampolining event.jpg - source, FUR, license all good- though I think it's better to format the FUR via the template and put it above the license.
    • Image:DS M&S Dream Canoe.jpg - description, source, license all check out

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Taken care of. « ₣M₣ » 02:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Aye, images check out now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose: After reading through the article there were a couple issues that stood out to me. Through comparatively minor by themselves, I feel together they warrant opposition.

• This may be opening a can of worms, but my main issue is the list of events in the game. Though they are based on real events, I feel it is an excessive level of detail about a piece of media with a fictional setting. Also, because it is something that I'd would expect to find in a strategy guide or online FAQ, I feel it does not comply with WP:NOTGUIDE.
  I believe the whole section could be summarized in a brief set of sentences mentioning that each game had exclusive events.
• The prose could use a some massaging. Not a lot, but I felt some sentences could be tightened up and/or better clarified.
  • Some paragraphs jump right into descriptions without giving the reading the main idea. I think adding some would help improve the readability. For example:
    • For this sentence: "Both versions of Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games have three similar modes of gameplay." I would tweak the end like "...similar modes of gameplay: Circuit mode, Single Match, and Mission mode."
    • The "Development" section just starts off with the history of the game's origin. I would start the paragraph with a sentence that reiterates who the developer/publisher was.
    • The "Critical response" section also starts out this way. "Mario and Sonic has undergone scrutiny..." Scrutiny from who? I think adding a sentence stating how it was overall received by critics would help give some context to the rest of the section. Since the paragraph above it focuses on sales, take out the comment about "mixed reaction from critics" and move it to the start of the subsection.
  • Miscellaneous prose issues:
    • In the "Gameplay" section, "...are less physically demanded than those..." Demanded or demanding?
    • Also, "Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games has authentic Olympic events..." Instead of "has", maybe try "features". Just sounds better to me.
    • In the "Reception" section, "...the Nintendo DS version sold 325,647 copies in Japan, according to Famitsu." Is the "according to Famitsu" necessary? I think the reference already implies this.
    • In the "Critical response" section, "GameTrailers gave the Wii game a 6.8/10..." The score doesn't really add much, I would leave it off as the rest of the sentence explains more to the reader.
• Very minor style issue, and not a deal breaker at all. Does the X-Play review score have to use the stars? Personally, I like the "# out of #" over the stars. They look out of place, but that's just me.

Overall, this is a good article and can be FA. But I don't think it's current state is Featured quality. It's close though. I'll check back in later. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

• It could just be me, but perhaps listing elements such as events should be discussed and clarified when, if ever, they are appropriate. As for the stars, I was just following {{Rating}}. It never specified if it should only be used for movies (perhaps it should). « ₣M₣ » 00:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The prose looks better now. In regard to the stars, I've seen them before in some video game articles, but mainly music and movies. Like I said, it's no deal breaker at all. Just my personal preference.
    As far as bringing list issue to WT:VG, that sounds like a good idea, but I don't know if they can come up with a consensus quickly. The main reason I opposed was I felt the listing of individual events didn't further the readers' understanding of the game and taking it out doesn't hurt the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC))
    • Well, in that case and the fact it was brought up before - I'll comment-out the event list for now until more people can weigh in on this. « ₣M₣ » 21:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
      • That works for me. One last question before supporting. What makes wii.gaming-universe.de a reliable source? Everything else looks good. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC))
        • Nothing! Its removed. « ₣M₣ » 23:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I went ahead and made the full list of events hide-by-default, to the best of my ability (having never seen {{col-begin}} before). How's it look? Nifboy (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A list of events is game guide content in my view. Making it so it can be hidden, doesn't change that. Hiding unsuitable content isn't the way to go. We need to remember: advice given here doesn't have to followed to make an article featured. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments 23 little things:

• There's an empty "Rumors" section.
• I noticed it said who the publisher is in NA, Europe and Japan. What about Australia (since the release date is in the article)?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm unhappy about the hidden box of the list of events. If this article is being accessed from a printed copy, it won't be there. There's also WP:ACCESS to consider. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with the user above so I removed the auto collapse. Bernstein2291 (talk) 05:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you please comment on whether you feel the list of events is necessary in order for the article to be comprehensive? There has been discussion each way above regarding this issue. Some have claimed that it belongs to game guides, whereas I liken it to track lists on an album. - hahnchen 11:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I believe that it could be useful for people who would like more information on the game if they want to buy it. When I'm deciding to buy a compilation game, I always try to find out what different "mini-games" there are. Bernstein2291 (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

See this discussion for opinions on the event list: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#List_of_Olympic_events. Only Hahnchen is strongly pushing for the event list, dispite it being game guide content. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't bullshit your assertions when trying to illicit responses. I've asked an open question reflecting both sides of the argument, whereas you dismiss any other arguments, blithely asserting that your definition of game guide is gospel truth. Fair play there... - hahnchen 01:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

First off: there is NO need to swear about something this minor. The consensus is against you, but you refuse to accept that. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The question shouldn't be whether it is useful for people who want more information an a game if they want to buy it; it should be is it encyclopedic information? WP is an encyclopedia, not a buyer's guide. Now, I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be included, just that the reason has to be right. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Rob and Hahnchen, please keep your cool. I think it's best to keep this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#List of Olympic events. I'm sure Sandy doesn't want us making this FAC discussion longer than it needs to be.

Right now it's mainly been between a handful of VG editors. So comments from any and all editors would be welcome and appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC))

Seriously. FAC is already a daunting experience for first timers, and even those who aren't. How many people could be turned off if they feel they're gonna be abused? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is quite an interesting FAC, Matt I have taken care of the regional data you've brought up. « ₣M₣ » 23:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Has Guyinblack25's oppose been addressed to his satisfaction? The fact that it's been there for so long is the only thing preventing me from offering my support. Maybe somebody could ping him. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was moved to and has been going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#List of Olympic events. Right now a consensus does not seem to be forming because of the lack input from other editors. You thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

Sandy and FMF, I don't know if either of you want to weigh in on the matter, but you are both certainly welcome to along with any other editor. Any additional viewpoint would be welcome. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

• Support - the olympic events doesn't sway me one way or another; I think the prose has been improved enough to meet criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• With discussion in three different places aobut the list of events, no clear consensus has emerged to convince me I should hold off promotion over that issue. I do hope the involved Projects will work to develop a guideline for future articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:18, 5 September 2008 [37].

---

Bone Wars

Nominator(s): David Fuchs

Crooked scientists, looking for revenge. Rustlers. Cowboys. Guns. Bones. Explosions.

Hi, I'm David Fuchs. You might remember me from such video game FACs as Wipeout 3, Populous 3, Myst 3, and Spyro 3. This article is entirely non-game-related, due to a freakishly coincidental planetary alignment, so get your comments in now! I've done my best at copyediting (I contacted a few others for help, they must be busy...) and the article also went through a decent peer review. Cheers and drinks all around, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

A note on sources: For Lady Ealdgyth's edification, the following sources inquired about at the past peer review are explained below:

• http://dml.cmnh.org/1994Oct/msg00196.html Robert Baalke is a webmaster and employee at NASA.
• http://www.bookslut.com/features/2006_01_007441.php Colleen Mondor is an editor/author at Bookslut as well as Eclectica Magazine and Booklist (c'mon, we went over this last time... :P)
• http://www.levins.com/bwars.shtml Andrew Levins, according to his about page, is the executive producer for video news for Advertising Age
• http://palaeo-electronica.org/1999_2/books/bone_wars.htm The actual site isn't helpful, but its ostensibly "a refereed journal sponsored by the Palaeontological Association, Paleontological Society and the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The publisher is Coquina Press, a non-profit organisation “whose sole purpose is to facilitate the dissemination of paleontological information through the publication of an open-access electronic journal”.}}

• Comments regarding images:
  • Image:Cope-and-marsh.png - neither of the images from which this is derived have verifiable, if any, sourcing (WP:IUP)
  • Image:OCmarsh.jpg - needs a verifiable source ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • You mean sourcing as in where the images were found, or the artist who took them? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
      • If they're not the same, both. We need information to corroborate the copyright tag. If, for example, a tag is claiming PD because the image was first published before 1.1.1923, we need a source that tells us the publication date. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, they all died before the turn of the century, so they should be covered by the 1920-rule anyway... I'll get to looking for the precise dates... (unfortunately I don't have my books with me, it's going to be harder to track down on the web.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Publication is very different from creation. The creation date (or lifespan on the subjects) is not germane to that tag. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm looking for replacements, by the way. Want a picture of Cope when he was 10? ;P ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
            • That's fine by me, I'll take whatever images don't require me to sift through indices (damn whoever it was at peer review who recommended more images!) update - I've left a note with the uploader of the Marsh and co. image requesting the author and such info if he has them, if not I'll just remove it. Thanks for your help. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
                • I sent an email to the Peabody Museum inquiring about the photo on Friday, and will try a round of phone calls tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Update on the above: Peabody has not gotten back to me after two days (damn museums), so I've removed the image until its provenance can be verified. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Ridiculous oppose Support - The title of this article does not have a 3 in it, so is inconsistent with articles previously worked on by David Fuchs. Also, there is no "in popular culture" section mentioning David's work on this article and others. Other than that, it meets the FAC criteria. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Where's the gameplay section??? (omg joke)
• I think most people have heard of the USA. It doesn't need a wikilink in the first sentence.
• "possessed tons of unopened boxes of fossils between them after their deaths" - literally tons? This seems like slang and should probably be reworded.
• "Como Bluff and the West" - I don't think the W should be capitalised
• "Marsh sent Williston to the site, who sent a message to Cope that both the large quantities of bones, and the reports of Cope's men snooping around in the area were true" - not quite clear, probably due to the comma use etc. I'm thinking a reword to "Marsh sent Williston to the site; he sent back a report stating that the large quantities of bones, and the reports of Cope's men snooping around in the area, were true" will do the trick.
• "Cope's error in reconstructing the plesiosaur Elasmosaurus humiliated Cope, who tried to cover up his mistake by purchasing every copy he could find of the journal it was published in" - repetition of Cope, and the bit after the comma could do with a bit of a reword (maybe change comma to semicolon too)

More will come soon. —Giggy 04:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick observation: "Tons" definitely means tons here, and is almost definitely not slang. We're talking about two of the most prolific fossil collectors ever, and the fossils included stuff like Amphicoelias. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• WP:DINO should absolutely be notified of this nomination, as they will certainly want to add bits or observations. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I've dealt with the above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support as of this version, Comments on this version, Jappalang

• Lead

  • "The Bone Wars is the name given to a period of intense fossil speculation and discovery in the United States of America during the Gilded Age of American history, fueled by a heated rivalry between Edward Drinker Cope and Othniel Charles Marsh." Something does not feel right to me here. Is the Bone Wars the rivalry between Cope and Marsh, or is it a rush by many fossil finders including Cope and Marsh? The last clause "fueled by a heated rivalry" is a tad confusing to me here. If the Bone Wars is predominantly between Cope and Marsh, replacing "fueled" with "marked" would seem better to me.
  • "The Bone Wars have also been the subject of both historical books and fictional adaptations." Would "Several historical books and fictional adaptations have also been published about this period of intense paleontological activity." accurately describe this?

  Background

  • "Cope was known to be pugnacious and possessed a quick temper; Marsh was slower and more methodical, and despite his powerful friends was very introverted. Both were quarrelsome and distrustful." Eh... I do not quite get the bolded part. How would having powerful friends make a person less of an introvert?

  Como Bluff and the West

  • About "to set up his own quarry", Whose "own quarry" was it, Mudge or Williston? Maybe its just me, but I think "own" would imply being directly in charge and not sending out representatives. With that in mind, perhaps "to set up a quarry on his behalf"?
  • "Marsh sent Williston to the site, who sent a message to Cope that both the large quantities of bones, and the reports of Cope's men snooping around in the area were true. Without delay both Cope and Marsh sent their men to Como Bluff to begin digging ..." The second clause seems wrongly connected with "who" (as it is, linked to the "site"). Williston (or Marsh?) sent a message to Cope? If Williston was Cope's spy, that certainly came out of the blue at this point. When did he start working for Cope?
    • Changed version. "Marsh sent Williston to the site and received a message from his former student that confirmed both the large quantities of bones and the reports of Cope's men snooping around in the area were true. Without delay, both Cope and Marsh sent their men to Como Bluff to begin digging. The phrase "without delay" seem to imply Cope was aware that Marsh knew of his interest in the site. While that might be inferred by Williston's presence, it (Cope's sending of his men without delay) seems out of place coming after a sentence solely focusing on Marsh's investigation of Cope's activities. Would "Without delay, Marsh sent his men in a race against Cope's to dig for fossils at Como's Bluff." be accurate?
  • Might I suggest changing "The digging lasted fifteen years." to "The paleontological dig lasted fifteen years."

  Personal disputes

  • "... elaborate journal of mistakes and misdeeds that both Marsh and John Wesley Powell ..." The "both" referring to the two committed the mistakes and misdeeds together, or is a redundant adjective in pointing the mistakes and misdeeds were of the two?
  • "... series of newspaper debates between Marsh, Powell and Cope ..." The three debated each other, or is it Cope versus Marsh and Powell, or Cope versus Marsh or Powell?

  Legacy

  • "Cope issued a final challenge at his death." I am not certain one could issue a challenge when dead, perhaps "before he died", or was it an extraordinary circumstance (by the reading of a will)?
  • "Their animosity and public behavior ..." Is "their" referring to Cope and Marsh, or their peers and the entire field?
  • "Recent excavation ..." Best to state the time, the specific excavation(s) would not be recent twenty years down the line.

Interesting read overall, but I think a copyedit for prose is required. Jappalang (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • I've fixed all the above (the newspaper debates were free-for-all, not necessarily cope vs. marsh and powell.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I have struck most of the previous issues. There is still an issue left (see above regarding Como Bluff and the West) after performing a copyedit. I am also holding off judgment to see if the sources brought up by Nishkid64 would contribute to the comprehensiveness to the article. Jappalang (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Going over the changes (from the addition of source by Wallace), I have further questions (listing them below).

  Como Bluff and the west

  • "Marsh ordered Williston back to Morrison, where the small quarry collapsed and nearly killed Marsh's assistants and ending all of Marsh's digging for the time being." I presume the small quarry would be at Morrison. Was it Lakes' quarry ("Lakes' small quarry") or did Marsh set up his own there (which was never previously mentioned)? Why would the collapse end all of Marsh's digging (I thought earlier he had "bought over" the New Jersey's murl pits) ? Was Morrison his only source of fossils at this time, or was it due to some safety investigations by authorities?
  • "Marsh, attempting to cover the leak, learned from Williston that Carlin and Reed had been frequented by a man ostensibly working for Cope by the name of "Haines"." Would this also be "the reports of Cope's men snooping around in the area" previously. In that case, there is bit of redundancy between these two paragraphs.
  • "related to the weather, enemy workers, and attacks by Native Americans." Would "enemy workers" mean the rival's workers (Cope-Marsh), or other fossil hunters' workers? Can the threat be classified, such as sabotage?
  • "After being forced to abandon a collapsing quarry in a freezing blizzard, Lakes submitted his resignation and returned to teaching in 1879." Would this be the Morrison quarry talked about earlier? Seems to be a bit disconnected down here if it is.
  • "As the 1880's wore on," Just checking, is this phrasing informal?
  • "the disaffected Carline and Williston" Is "Carline" a typo for "Carlin"? Why did they become disaffected (i.e. resentful and disloyal to Marsh)?
  • "his chief worker's departure" I think it is a bit sudden to call Reed Marsh's chief worker since it was never stressed his contribution was the greatest among those working under Marsh. Perhaps this point could be stressed some place earlier, like Reed's sending back of fossils.

  Personal disputes and later years

  • "and his contacts with the rich and powerful" Just to clarify, this "his" would be referring to Powell, correct?
  • "Cope was much worse for wear" Is the phrase informal?
  • "alienated his assistants and even Williston" Was Williston not an assistant, or did he have some special position? If he was an assistant, the "and even" could be replaced as ", particularly".
  • "Cope used disgruntled workers to tarnish the Survey's image and searched for mining workers who would speak out against Powell." Are these two separate actions, or is "speaking out against Powell" part of the tarnishing of the Survey's image?
  • "relative duds" Now that is informal.
  • "mud thrown against" Informal phrase again.
  • "Compounded by western drought and concerns about takeovers of abandoned homesteads, Powell found himself the subject of larger scrutiny before the House Appropriations Committee." Why would Powell the person be "compounded" by drought and abandoned home takeovers, or is it referring to his situation (i.e. Powell's plight was compounded)? I am not too certain if I am ably describing my thoughts here...
  • "Exposed by Marsh's perceived extravagance with Survey funds, the Appropriations Committee demand the Survey's budget be itemized." This might explain it. To me, if I to shift the preceding clause, it will read to me "The Appropriations Committee, exposed by Marsh's perceived extravagance with Survey funds, demand the Survey's budget be itemized." which does not make sense to me.
  • "Marsh never rose to the challenge" would mean that Marsh never found the courage (,will, and ability) to meet the challenge. That seems a bit POV. Maybe a simple "Marsh never accepted the challenge" or "Marsh refused to entertain the challenge"?

(reset indenting for above list) That is it for the new revision. Jappalang (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've made most of the changes. Some were simply badly written, and others were ungainly so I streamlined them. Removed the informal phrasing. As to the quarries, they refer to seperate dig sites, and with the additional content added I've tried to clarify they were digging in multiple places. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Redented for comments based on this version,
  • "Williston struck a preliminary bargain with Carlin and Reed (who had been unable to cash Marsh's check due to it being made out to their pseudonyms), but Carlin decided he would head to New Haven to deal with Marsh directly. Marsh signed a contract with Carlin and Reed for a set monthly fee, Marsh signed a contract with Carlin and Reed for a set monthly fee, with additional bonus possible depending on the importance of the finds. Marsh also reserved the right to send his own "superintendents" to supervise the digging if needed, and advised the men to try and keep Cope out of the region. Arriving in New Haven, Marsh refused to haggle with Carlin and although he procured the two men's work, seeds of discord and resentment were sown in the bone hunters as they felt the paleontologist had bullied them into the deal. [...] During the winter of 1878 dissatisfaction with Marsh's infrequent payments fomented, and Carlin began working for Cope instead." I believe the proper sequence of events are jumbled up and interspersed within these sentences. They need to be sorted.

The contents are looking better with each revision. Once the final changes have been made, perhaps another round of copyediting should be done. Jappalang (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think content- and structure-wise, the article looks good now. Holding off for the moment to see if more new sources are to be added. Jappalang (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC) }}

After notification that there would likely be no new sources soon, I took a look and did a bit of copyediting. I believe the article as pointed above is as comprehensive as it can be for the sources used. The language is comprehensible and the layout and structure helped to make the reading experience enjoyable. I am less than expert with prose, so I will not criticize on it save that an expert copyeditor could further spiff up the text. Nevertheless, I think this article qualifies to be featured. Jappalang (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I am afraid I'll eventually have to oppose since it doesn't involve software, what WERE you thinking?? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment For such an important event in paleontological history, I feel that this article is pretty short. I came to this FAC expecting an article two or three times as long. I'll do some digging and check the coverage of this event in paleontological sources. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Some references that could be used to expand the article: The Bonehunters' Revenge: Dinosaurs and Fate in the Gilded Age by David Rains Wallace, Jaffe, Penick, Colbert, Osborn and Shor. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I've started to incorporate some of the book's info, I'll continue after I finish up classes today. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, I've added some fifteen or twenty citations from the book, as well as two other sources I found readily available. The article now stands at about 3,200 words, about 6-7KB larger then it was this morning :) Can you take a look over it now? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll be back at college tomorrow, so I might pick up some of the books above and help out with the expansion. I'll give you an update either tomorrow or Sunday. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Question I'm surfing through this FACs and found explosions, wars, theft and cowboys. Nice written and interesting game discription article. But my questions is, shouldn't the inline citations in their numerical order? (huh, is this the right word?) E.g. Como Bluff and the west '... including Lakes' discovery.[12][11] Marsh heard ...' and Personal disputes and later years '... in higher education.)[29][28] Cope began ...'. Thank you for your attention and patience with my bad English. Greetings Sebastian scha. (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Damn you nitpickers! :P No, you're right. I've fixed all the instances of miscalled refs where I found them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support from nitpicker Graham Colm ^Talk on today's version. There are some minor issues with the prose:

• While his father wanted his son to work as a farmer, Cope instead distinguished himself as a naturalist. - "while" is not the right word here- try "although".
• the reports of Cope's men snooping around in the area were true. I might be wrong about this but should this not be " the reports of Cope's men's snooping around in the area were true."
• I spotted two occurrences of "as well as" where a simple "and" would suffice.
• Spot the error here: Concerned about strangers invading Reed's quarries,
• And finally a little redundancy: while surveying his Como quarries in 1879, Marsh himself examined recent finds and marked several for destruction.

I enjoyed reading this fascinating account which is, on the whole, beautifully written. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the Cope part is correct; it's a report about Cope's men, not about the snooping of cope's men. I've changed everything else except the "Concerned about..." - I can't spot the error :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this needs an apostrophe - Concerned about strangers' invading Reed's quarries . And with regard to Cope's men, then you have to write, who were snooping around... Graham Colm ^Talk 15:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about either of those changes are necessary grammatically. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This is no deal-breaker; I've already added my support. If you have the time take a look here: noun plus -ing. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still want it to be right :P I'll take a look through Tony' exercises when I have time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I was a little concerned a couple of weeks ago, with the article getting rather "Marshocentric" for a while (at one point, Marsh's most famous discoveries were listed while Cope's were entirely removed). And someone kept rewording the article to state that dinosaur genera were species (I originally corrected it in November, corrected it again on August 1st and again on August 17th!). Despite these missteps, David and others have put together a fine, readable article. The prose seems clear, there are no disambiguation links, and external links are all valid. I'm not a big fan of the citation format (it doesn't match any of the dinosaur taxonomy articles), but that's a personal preference that has more to do with standardization than any criticism with the article itself. Well done! Firsfron of Ronchester 04:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:18, 5 September 2008 [38].

---

Utah State Route 128

Nominator(s): Dave (talk)

This is an article that has had many contributors and reviews. I think it's ready.Dave (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Considering the article already has a lot of high quality images (well done), are the external links at the bottom really necessary? —Giggy 09:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, although some of Dave Beeden's photos put mine to shame =-). I'm confident were he to CC license some of his, they would make featured picture. Prior to FAC there were 6 external links. There are now 4: 1 roadgeek site, and 3 photo sites. However the 3 remaining photo site have photos of incredible quality and in the case of Skez's photos of the bridge burning, are not available elsewhere. Please advise if you think this is not enough.Dave (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the non-English source. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking Dave (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Comments
• The first five sentences in the lead start off with "The...". Try to mix up the wording to make it more interesting.

Better now? Dave (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• The route was originally a trail called the Heavenly Stairway and was used to connect Moab with Castle Valley and larger towns in Colorado. When? Also, is there any more information about this particular aspect of the highway?

I re-read the source used for this paragraph, and was able to add more information. Thanks for the suggestion.Dave (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• In 1916, the bridge was dedicated with a strength test by having approximately 70 attendees attempt to be on the bridge at once. Surely there's a better word for "be on"?

Changed to "cross"Dave (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• The first two sentences of the last paragraph of From trail to highway start with the exact same thing.

Made minor changes to this section Dave (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• The FHWA has not responded to the application as of July 2008. Seeing as it's almost September is it possible to update this fact?

For now, I've removed the sentence, as that application could take years. Dave (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work overall. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the review.Dave (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Images are great, route description, lead, and history are all very detailed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComputerGuy890100 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Dave (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - An article featuring my professional images taken by my top-quality two-megapixel camera is more than deserving of FA status :D CL — 00:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

=-) thanks. Dave (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

---

• "Absorbed" seems awkward when referring to solid matter such as a road, doubly so where it appears in the second paragraph. Is there a less metaphorical verb you can use? — CharlotteWebb 16:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reworded Dave (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...filming locations for many western movies and commercials" ← This sounds interesting, though it seems to be attributed to an off-line National Geographic source. Can you check it again and see whether it identifies any specific films? — CharlotteWebb 16:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That source did not name specific movies. However, I found another source that does, although doesn't include movies made since the early 1990's. Dave (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And the best films were made before then anyway. Which products used this location in their TV ads? — CharlotteWebb 20:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found a source that mentions specifics so far. From personal knowledge I can state before my time General Motors had a big campaign filmed there, and some of the Marlboro Man commercials (most were filmed in Monument Valley but some here). During my time (i.e. watching TV and said "Hey I know that place") I've seen a Toyota, Miller Beer and ZZ Top video there. Dave (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• The early settler Samuel King mentioned in this article doesn't seem to be among those listed at the disambiguation page. You should add him and consider creating an article about him. — CharlotteWebb 16:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

All the sources I've found while researching this article only have a casual one or two line mention of him. Not enough for an article. If I do find more information, I will keep your suggestion in mind. Dave (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• "$506,000 in 2007" ← I don't doubt it for a minute but do you have a source establishing 20x inflation since 1913? How do we know it's not more, especially if reconstruction is budged at $1 million? — CharlotteWebb 16:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sourced and updated for 2008. However, there is a flaw in this logic. Re-constructions often cost much more than the original. New construction usually uses the cheapest material and methods available at that time. To re-construct something with an intent to appear authentic often requires using custom craftsmanship to mimic now outdated methods and/or materials.Dave (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I realized that but doubted it would be twice as much. — CharlotteWebb 20:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...second-longest suspension bridge in the United States west of the Mississippi River" ← "in the United States" seems tautological at first glance. Granted if you draw two westward horizontal lines, one from Lake Itasca and one from Pilottown, the outlined area will also include parts of Mexico's northwestern states, which may or may not have had comparable suspension bridges at the time. You should research this. — CharlotteWebb 16:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Three of the sources used in this article state "2nd longest suspension bridge west of the Mississippi river". I added "in the united states" just in case, as the sources may be US centric. While assembling such a list of current bridges would be easy, I'm not sure how I could ensure I had every angle covered for historical bridges. If there was such a bridge in Mexico, it would most likely be the one that crosses the Colorado River along what is now known as Mexican Federal Highway 2. I will investigate. However, if you feel I can safely just repeat what the sources say, I'm ok with that too. Dave (talk)

I was considering the possibility that your sources knows more than it is telling you. If you came up with this qualifier yourself, and if you have multiple original sources saying the same thing without any Mexico innuendo, you should write what they say, no more, no less, barring a credible dispute in the future. Though it wouldn't hurt to research the size and age of Mexican bridges in the meantime if you have access to that info. — CharlotteWebb 20:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Changed Dave (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• The content relating to the Dewey Bridge is significant enough to move to a separate article. Please consider doing so. — CharlotteWebb 16:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That is hands down the number one request of reviewers of this article =-). It is on my get around to do list. There is MUCH more information about this bridge out there. I'm aware of two museum exhibits on it, one has the original hand drawn blueprints under glass. I'm also aware of some early drawings proposing using the canyon wall as anchorages rather than towers. Once I've had a chance to assemble all this, I plan to make an article on the Dewey Bridge and move content on this page that is not 100% relevant to SR-128. On a cool note, someone has recently uploaded a photo of the twin bridge in Arizona Image:BridgeCameron.jpg. Dave (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you've got all that and more, the Dewey Bridge would be a more potent featured article candidate than SR-128. I don't mean that in a negative (or even joking) way. Material such as these blueprints, (published in the U.S. before January 1, 1923) would of course be public domain, so I look forward to seeing them on commons. Good luck. — CharlotteWebb 20:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm several road-trips away from having this information. It will take some time. Dave (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Dave (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully it did some good. — CharlotteWebb 20:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

---

• Support The only problem I have is that the map isn't all that appealing. The pictures are beautiful and the article was an interesting read. Dincher (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Dave (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Very well-written, interesting article. - Algorerhythms (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:18, 5 September 2008 [39].

---

Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone}

I'm nominating this article because, at least to my biased eye, it seems to meet the criteria. It's your job to conform that for me. Thanks! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Mm40

• Per WP:MoS#Date: Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes or articles, or put a comma between month and year. Correct that in the first paragraph.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  12:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment, but I'm not sure I see the issue. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• June 4, 2001 to June 18, 2001 in the first sentence. I'm not sure if it's a problem.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  17:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If I understand that link correctly, those guidelines apply only to when there's just a month and a year in the prose without the accompanying day. Otherwise, all date-linked articles would fail MOS. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Same thoughts here. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry for being unclear. I was talking about the commas.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  01:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I was talking about the commas too. What you point out is not a MOS breach; it would be a MOS violation to have "June, 2001", but it cannot be a violation to have "June 4, 2001", as that is the format employed by the long-standing consensus on date linking. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. (As an aside, I remember this annoying stupid TS... it flooded my front yard! boo!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sorry if I brought back bad memories! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

• Image concerns have been addressed. Awadewit (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Allison 2001 track.png - The authors have to release the image into the PD - could they list their names?
  • The image description already has a {{PD-self}}. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, but without the author's names, we don't know who the "selves" are. Please see this dispatch, which has an entire section on correctly describing and tagging self-made images. Awadewit (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Ah, I understand. The original "self" was User:Jdorje on Commons. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm a little hesitant to fix it due to this comment on my talk page. Category:Tropical cyclone tracks is going to be overhauled soon, and problems of this nature will be dealt by a bot. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Will it be fixed in a week or so? Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
            • I hope. If not, I can always just fix that image by itself (it involves adding an |author= parameter to the license template already on the page). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
                • The authors of the image still need to be added. These will need to be added by hand and can be deduced from the history. Awadewit (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
                  • Fixed (I hope!) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Image:Allison Flood Houston.jpg - The source link no longer works.
  • I can't find a working link, so I replaced the image. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It would help me so much if you would just link it here, since I am trying to review the images of all FACs! Awadewit (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Alright, here it is: Image:TS Allison-LA.jpg. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
        • This image looks fine. Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

These issues should be easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Like I said in the other "Meteorological history of Storm-Of-Some-Type-Or-Other X" article I reviewed, the first sentence is unncessarily awkward; you have the subject all mixed up. While it's technically correct, the reader might be scared off. It's not necessary to have the full article title bolded in the full sentence; it would be better if "Meteorological history of" was eliminated altogether.
  • Done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• "A low-level circulation developed on June 2 while 230 miles (370 km) south-southeast of Salina Cruz, Mexico." The prepositional phrase is lacking a subject.
  • Fixed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• "The storm rapidly strengthened to peak" - is this correct? It sound rather odd, but I'm unfamiliar with meteorological terminology. Even if it is, adding "its" before "peak" could increase readability.
  • Reworded. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Prose of the lead is otherwise good. I'll read the article tomorrow. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about the bold lead. It is not unduly awkward and it greatly promotes the article's subject. Yes, there may be a trade-off between writing a conventional opening and writing one that allows for a bold lead, but both options offer their own advantages and disadvantages. I come down on the side of the bold lead. Plasticup ^T/C 04:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• "The meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison lasted from June 4, 2001 to June 18, 2001." - might just be me but I find this confusing. Could you reword it to something more noobie-friendly... if this is about the history of Allison, maybe "Tropical Storm Allison lasted from..."? —Giggy 10:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Got it, thanks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

• "A low-level circulation developed on June 2 while 230 miles (370 km) south-southeast of Salina Cruz, Mexico." - same as point 2 above.
• "Some intensification was projected, though was expected to be hindered by cool offshore sea surface temperatures." - missing a pronoun.
• "with winds 50 mph (80 km/h)." - how about "with 50 mph (80 km/h) winds."?
• "As the center reached Huntsville, Texas, a heavy rain band began to back build from Louisiana westward into Liberty County, Texas. This band caused additional flooding." - it sounds like you artificially split one sentence into two here.
• "The storm began to intensify further" - I'm not sure why "began to" is necessary here. "The storm intensified further" would do just as well, and it would be more concise and provide better flow as well.
• "The storm began tracking more towards the north-northeast in general" - awkward. Try "The storm began tracking in a generally northeasterly direction"
• "The low was interacting with a frontal boundary, with which it started to merge" - could be better phrased as "The low was interacting with a frontal boundary and started to merge with it".
• "The remnants of Allison briefly reintensified to a subtropical storm through baroclinic processes, though became extratropical while south of Long Island." - missing a pronoun here.
• "What was once Tropical Storm Allison was absorbed by the frontal boundary by June 18" - "what was once" shouldn't be used in this manner.

Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Done with everything. Thanks for the comments. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Prose looks good. Tony (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Support—I read through this before the FAC and left comments on the article's page and they were all addressed at that time. A very thorough article. Plasticup ^T/C 13:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Support as per Plasticup. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. Karanacs (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Comments by karanacs. Two small questions for you and a comment

• I don't understand this sentence very much - "Due to the cold-core nature of the upper low, Allison initially contained some subtropical characteristics with an upper level low to the southwest of the circulation" - is there a way to reword it a bit less jargony?
  • I tried to reword it. any better? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not sure of what a "look" is in this respect - "what appeared to be a small counterclockwise look"
  • Whoops, typo! Now "loop". –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• This tropical storm was NASTY! Like Ealgdyth, I remember it well. Karanacs (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep, it was pretty bad. Of course, living nowhere near the Gulf Coast, I can't respect the damage the storm did, and to me the storm was pretty interesting, hence this article! :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Good job. Malinaccier (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, "mbar," "subtropical storm," "baroclinic," and "Cape Race, Newfoundland" link to redirect pages. Malinaccier (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Got it, thanks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:18, 5 September 2008 [40].

---

Jena Six

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because this is a GA that I believe is ready to undergo the FAC process and become an FA. Last year, this article was a battleground when the J6 were in the news and it was the issue de jour. Now I seem to be the last editor standing, and I've concentrated on improving it and keeping it updated. I think it is ready to be a FA. Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm concerned about the use of names of minors, such as "On July 9, 2008, -----, who is now 17, was released from house arrest (after eighteen months on that restriction) which he was placed on for unrelated charges so that he could attend a summer program and football camp". I think this is a potential BLP issue and I haven't seen it discussed. If you could provide any link to such, I would like to see. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I'm concerned about any mention of "subsequent legal involvement" in regards to BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Not quite sure what you were looking for. First, these facts were stated at public court hearings. Arrests are public records (as are other charges). The Town Talk, a Louisiana paper, chose to publish them. Keep in mind that the age of adulthood for criminality for Louisiana is 17. The only thing we don't discuss is the question of the status of the juvenile's (JRB, if you like) involvement in the J6 case. The papers stated he was part of the motion to get Mauffray dq'd, so presumably Yeager will be trying his case. But we don't know exact status, and we may never know it. The rest of it, though, is part of the public record, recorded by the papers. As for BLP, it is no violation of BLP to say someone was arrested, or even stopped for speeding. After all, the OJ Simpson article talks about his Las Vegas thingy.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo has already made it clear that just because it is legal, it does not necessarily meet the required "ethical" standards of the Encyclopedia. I think you should figure this out quickly, either at the Village Pump, Request for Comments, or directly ask Jimbo his opinion. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will, but jeez, if we are to not print the names of anyone who has not been convicted, we might as well call it the Jena One.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've initiated a RfC. It does sound kind of crazy to discuss withholding the names of two people who presented awards and made a speech at the MTV Music Video awards, but hey, that's WP for you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not that. Its about them getting into trouble afterwards. Some people may argue that the two are not related and that you are tainting their image unfairly. All I know is that this topic is a potentially hot button topic. I'm saving you in the long run. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It is difficult to evaluate that. The thing is, the Beard stuff was covered in at least 20 newspapers, both when he was allowed to go to NY and then allowed to go to school. The other stuff seems only to have been in The Town Talk, but that is the big paper down there. I'm not sure what damage WP can do. But I'll modify my query.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. It would be a shame if the article got destabilized. I think that is one of the most troubling things that could happen to a primary editor of an FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Does it matter to your concern that all except Beard were adults at the time of their subsequent arrests/summons?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion one way or another, actually. I just gave it a first glance, noticed the section and though to bring it to your attention before someone else did in a less pleasant manner. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with listing the names. This has gotten extensive press coverage, and as long as we are not going outside the sources, I see no problem here. Karanacs (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The two other people who have commented so far also seem to think it's OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Comments

• Interesting article. A few references are dead, including "8 face charges in Jena High fire". Please check them all. A minor thing, but I'd prefer to see "U.S." as "US" and perhaps expand FBI on the first mention. Gary King (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll get to work on it. Is the "US" thing per MOS? I'd hate to be torn back and forth between two reviewers if it is not.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's strict, but from my experience "US" is preferred at WP:MOS, from discussions and such. Gary King (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Done except the refs. I don't have a ref check tool, so I am doing them manually. Takes some time, and reviewers are keeping me jumping. Will post when I'm done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
        • All the links are good now.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Very interesting article. The events down there really piqued my curiosity, but I never got around to doing more reading about them. Per WP:MOS, blocks of references need to be in numerical order. I saw at least two unordered. Calor (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment and the praise. I've resolved your issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment You need to close the open Peer Review. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Done that. Thought I had. Sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Support by karanacs. *Reluctant oppose by karanacs. I think you've done an excellent job of presenting a neutral point of view here, and the article seems quite comprehensive from what I remember of the case. I think the article organization needs quite a bit of work, though. Some suggestions:

• • "and mug shots of the three arrested adults show this to be so." - Would this fall under WP:OR? I'm not sure.
  • It might be good to include information that people came to the rally from states far outside of Louisiana. Weren't they busing peple in?
  • Any information on what the townspeople thought, either of the case or of the media craziness?
  • There is inconsistency in date formatting. Either all month-day combinations should be wikilinked, or they should all not be wikilinked.
  • "It is still available on the Friends of Justice web site" - what is? The summary or the Witt article? Is it important that it is available on the website? To me, that seems like trivia.
  • "(a tree with three nooses dangling still decorates the Friends of Justice web site), " this seems like unimportant trivia - too much weight to the Friend of Justice website?
  • Is Friends of Justice an advocacy group for everyone or just the Jena 6? If just the 6 then it should be in public response.
  • I'm not very fond of the list in the Columnists and editorials section. These are good quotes, but I think they ought to be incorporated better into prose. Perhaps more information could be added to help add background to some of these, or the quotes could be moved to other parts of the article.
  • The section Action by Members of Congress has several quotations that are not immediately followed by a citation. per WP:MOSQUOTE, please cite these after the sentence, even if that means subsequent sentences will reference the same citation.
  • Color of Change is listed but with and without spaces in the name. Please be consistent.
  • I question whether the section Defendants' subsequent legal involvement is needed. That seems a bit like poisoning the well - it doesn't have anything to do with the case.
  • I would move the information in the section Walters' and Washington's views on the assault to the attack on Barker section or to the first section.
  • I don't like the section heading "Events in Jena: August 2006–December 2007". The bulk of the information given covers August through December 2006, with just one brief finding in Dec 2007. I would rename this something like "Background" or "Initial disputes" or...?
  • I think I would combine the Repercussions and District attorney's address sections.
  • The attack on Barker section should probably be stand-alone. It is a precursor to the legal case, and not part of the legal case.
  • I think that the sections Artistic tributes and Action by Members of Congress section should probably go into the Public Response section.
  • Shouldn't the information about the funding distribution go into the same paragraph talking about the fundraising?
  • I would put the information about the Barker countersuit in the Legal case section
  • Media coverage should probably go before public response
  • There is no accessdate listed for several of the online sources.
  • There is no publisher listed for current ref 26: McLaughlin, Eliott C. & Roesgen, Susan (2007-09-05). "Residents: Nooses spark school violence, divide town". Retrieved on 2007-09-04.
  • There is no publisher listed for current ref 30: LA statute". Retrieved on 2007-11-03.
  • There is no publisher listed for current ref 33: Foster, Mary (2007-08-15). "King calls for support for 'Jena Six'". Retrieved on 2007-08-19.

or current ref 34: Brown, Abbey. "'Jena Six' defendant's criminal history comes to light; bond denied". Retrieved on 2007-09-14.

• • There is no publisher listed for current ref 53: Mos Def Leads 'Jena Six' Protest" (2007-09-20). Retrieved on 2007-09-25.
  • There is no publisher listed for current ref 63: Flaherty, Jordan. "Justice in Jena". Retrieved on 2007-10-20.
  • Friends of Justice and Color of Change are listed differently in references - sometimes with italics, sometimes without. Please be consistent
  • "On July 3, Bill Quigley wrote a column for the website Truthout.org, which generated more attention from the alternative press." - this is sourced to the column itself, but the sentence seems to be saying that the column itself "generated more attention from the alternative press." - if that is the case this should be sourced to something else.
  • There are several other references that don't have publishers

Karanacs (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It will take me some time to work through these. One I'll answer: yes, there have been quotes from townspeople, and they have been the source of disputes as well. But I dislike "man on the street" style stuff, it is too easy to be selective. I will work on the other stuff over the weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I took care of everything, except the following, which I will argue should remain as in the article:

Townspeople reaction: As I stated, "man on the street" is inherently selective and you can say whatever you want with them. I would keep them out.

Subsequent legal problems: I made the subsection title less judgmental, but I think info on what the J6 members have been up to should remain. It is balanced and factual, and Beard seems to have done quite well, if he is going to a rather prestigious boarding school in Connecticut. There is also a connection to the J6 legal case, as Walters said he is going to try to admit Purvis's assault in Texas in the J6 trial. I thought it was unnecessary detail, but I can put it in.

Barker's legal case: I do not think this should fall under the criminal case. A civil case is very different. I felt it was best to keep things more or less in chronological order.

Action by Members of Congress. Again, chronological order. It would be confusing to the reader to be hopping all over the place timewise.

I hope you will accept these as matters of style and editorial judgment and withdraw your oppose. The only one I really feel strongly about is the what has happened to the J6 members afterwords. I think the reader deserves a complete and updated picture and that we give them the positives and the negatives as reported in the media.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 21:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Current refs 1, 2, 10, 12, 13, 21, and 56 are lacking last access dates.
• Current ref 30 (LA statute) is lacking publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
• Current ref 33 (Foster, Mary "King calls...") is lacking a publisher. It requires registration (which should be noted) and what makes this a reliable source?
• Current ref 34( Brown, Abbey "Jena Six...) is lacking a publisher.
• Current ref 53 (Mos Def Leads..) is lacking a publisher.
• Current ref 63 (Flaherty, Jordan...) is lacking a publisher.
• Current ref 68 (Miller, Talea) is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 72 (Landers, Kim) is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 73 (Younge, Gary) is lacking a publisher
• CUrrent ref 75 (Patterson, Orlando) is lacking a publisher.
• Current ref 85 ("Kanye West, Nelly...) is lacking a publisher.
• Current ref 87 (Jena Six notebook) is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 90 (Witt, Howard) is lacking a publisher

Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully Wehwalt doesn't mind, but I went ahead and took care of these concerns; I've added publishers and accessdates as requested. Ref 33 is an article released by the Associated Press, and should be considered reliable. Ref 30, I'll allow Wehwalt to address, but it is backed up by 31 (UN Chronicle). It may not be needed at all. - auburnpilot talk 14:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We didn't need 30 so I got rid of it. I also replaced ref 33. I think everything there is taken care of. Thanks AuburnPilot!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Images have correct licenses (from what I can see - I don't have OTRS access), sufficient sources, and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support. Extremely thorough without being trivial. Provides a full, comprehensive scope of the subject, giving many different views of the same events. Well referenced. Unafraid to correctly point out the many inconsistencies on the reporting of the subject. Quite possibly the best resource about the Jena Six on the web. I strongly support this article to be featured. -- Poe Joe (Talk) 04:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose In general, very comprehensive and neutral. However, the tone and style reads more like a newspaper article or court affidavits/statements rather than an encyclopedia article.
  • Although I recognize that this is still a recent event with on-going proceedings, the verb tenses are inconsistent, especially in the lead. Just use the past tense.
  • I don't think sources should be included in the body of the text: "Sources told ESPN", "wrote a column for Truthout", "writing on Huffington Post"
  • Responses from involved parties to other events such as the tree cutting, media attention, etc. are also unencyclopedic
  • Information under the "other reaction" and "other developments" subsections come across as trivia (BET Awards, MySpace)
• Ultimately, I would refer the nominator to 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident for an example of a recent news item FA. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have to disagree with some of that. I did change the entire lede to past tense, except for "still await trial", obviously. I'll agree on the ESPN, but the history of the media coverage (truthout.org) is part of this story, and it is relevant where it appears. The sampling of editorial/opinion coverage also should note where they are coming from, especially since at least one of them is a lead editorial and to take it out would yield nonsense.

• The cutting down of the tree is part of this story. The lionization of the defendants at the BET awards, and the money controversy (of which the myspace is a part) is part of the whole story (the money controversy has lasted to today, with Beard using defense funds to pay for education). If we cut out these things, the article would not be comprehensive.
• "Tone and style" is a rather subjective thing, I'm afraid. I did read the article on the Air Force incident, but that is very different, it is more about a incident per se, whereas the Jena Six is as much about how it was perceived by other people, than about the assault on Barker and the legal case itself. With respect, you're comparing if not apples and oranges, then at least apples and pears.
• I think we will have to agree to disagree on a lot of this, and leave it to the discretion of other editors and the FA director. --Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wehwalt on the attributions to sources within the article. This is important in helping the reader understand how information about the incident spread, and it is important for evaluating the reliability of statements. I would recommend against removing any of that. Karanacs (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bad article, but I'm still going to oppose on the basis that it does not meet criteria 1a (prose) and 4 (length/summary style).

• There are too many instances of inappropriate words for either a journalistic or encyclopedic style: "opined", "US Attorney Washington decried",
• Random sentence fragments of tangential value throughout the text reduce the quality of prose: "A doctor treated Washington at a local emergency room", "Police were called to investigate",
• Although there are conflicting accounts, there is too many quoting of sources in body text or other non-encylopedic narratives. "According to US Attorney Washington", "It was initially reported",
• Tangential information/quotes: Barker's desire to attend the ring ceremony is inconsequential, news media correcting facts is inconsequential since this likely happens for every breaking or complicated news item
• Inconsistent verb tenses: "Although Washington believes", "It has been reported", "Walters has appealed"
• Rampant weasel words: "Black residents of Jena", "the news media widely cited", "News reports from Jena have evoked...", "initially largely ignored by the United States national media"

From here on up, I don't think your objections are well-founded, for the reasons as stated in my comments. However, I did get rid of the "sentence fragments" you cite.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Blane Williams, himself a black man" could probably be worded in a more "politically correct" manner.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Perhaps due to the protection given juvenile convictions, the media had initially reported that Bell had no prior criminal record." Is this OR or just an inability to state the fact. I would drop the "perhaps".

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Discontinuities such as the appellate ruling on the battery conviction imply that the lower court's ruling was appealed - when, by whom, on what grounds?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Proceedings were on hold for some time pending resolution by the Third District Court of Appeals of the appeals of Mauffray's denial of motions that he recuse himself for alleged bias." Incomprehensible.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think the prose is up to par yet and there is still far too much inclusion of tangential or trivial material in the article. Indeed, given the examples above, it seems that there is an underlying narrative to the article that the "media got it all wrong" when clearly it is a complicated and multifaceted case with many contributing influences and conflicting reports. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, I think a lot of the trivial coverage information I already mentioned is recentism and won't stand the test of time when it's written into the history books and scholarly articles. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As some of the media printed corrections, or ran stories that the initial info was wrong, it is hardly OR or a narrative to print it. The scope of Barker's injuries, and the fact that he was well enough to attend the ring ceremony that evening was widely covered. Only a defendant can appeal a conviction, but I will spell that out. I will simplify the recusal matter; perhaps it is me as a lawyer because it seems clear to me. The quoting of sources in text is needed, as explained by me and supported by Karanacs, and I think your weasel words concern fits in the same category. I'm unclear as to how to address your broad concerns; I'm not disregarding them, but I'm not prepared to gut the article to satisfy them. Then other editors would rightly criticize for lack of comprehensiveness. I disagree with you on recentism; the changes in media coverage and acceptance of the early, incorrect information on the grounds it made a better story is part of the narrative, correctly so. This story is about more than the assault, it is about how the Jena Six were perceived.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed a number of your specific concerns as to phrasing. However, I think we will have to disagree regarding the media coverage issues, cited reaction from black residents (I'm just citing what's in the refs), etc. This article is more than about the assault, it is about what became a nationwide cause celebre, at least briefly, and I think we have philisophical differences here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made many of the specific changes you've requested. If your oppose is immutable, absent a total rewrite of the article, I'm not sure there's much I can do about that. If you see things that would cause you to at the least withdraw your oppose, I'm willing to compromise. Keep in mind the stated purpose of this page is to try to complete the process to FA, not to shoot down what you yourself admit is "not a bad article."--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I will retain my oppose as I continue to believe that this article does not fulfill criteria 1a since the relatively mundane matters I raised, rather than being addressed, have been discounted and dismissed. It is not unheard of for FACs to undergo a "total rewrite" or be subject to several nominations to fulfill the criteria. I don't understand why this article is precluded from the same expectation of other FAs to be held to the very highest standard of engaging, neutral, and professional prose rather than just enough to "get by". Indeed, the purpose of this page is not to eventually promote every nomination to FA status but to ensure that nominated pages fulfill the stated criteria. I believe this article does not. It's not a bad article, but it's not Wikipedia's best work either. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your view, and I'm sorry if you feel I'm being dismissive, I've worked hard to address your points; at least 25 changes have been made to the article to try to address your concerns, but you maintain it doesn't meet 1a. In my view, to address your remaining concerns (which are not "relatively mundane"), we'd have to lop off the final third of the article (the parts you decry as "trivial coverage information"). Words such as "decried" and "opined" are perfectly appropriate under the circumstances, given the subject matter. You seem to dislike the past perfect (if I remember sixth grade correctly) such as "has reported"; those are appropriate usages, and I disagree with your position. I have not dismissed your concerns, by any means, but I think you have missed the point a bit; the media coverage and public reaction is a major part of this article and of the Jena Six story. To give it a treatment such as in the Air Force incident would give a sterile rendering of what transpired, and it would be hard to argue that such a treatment as you propose should be a FA, so we'd be a bit between a rock and a hard place. Yes, the point of the FAC process is not to promote every article, but given that we have a slew of "well written" and "engaging", and no one else has expressed your concerns (many of which I've addressed), I'm forced to conclude that not everyone can be satisfied in this world, and to implement what you want would put the article at serious risk in other ways--such as comprehensiveness, since the aftermath is part of the story. If there are specific concerns and ways in which you think the article can be improved, I'm still willing to work with you. I guess I'll just have to wait and see what happens. I believe that I and the reviewers that have made changes in the article have addressed all "actionable concerns" and that this article fulfils all criteria. Consensus does not mean unanimity, though I wish you'd reconsider.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: in the section: News coverage is the link: ' or evoked Jim Crow. ' This is a disamb. and I can only guess it means the Jim Crow laws? Please fix it. (sorry I'm not a native speaker and don't know American laws, high school system or celebrities ;-) In general a good written and interesting article. Greetings Sebastian scha. (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It does, and I've fixed that. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Images - David Fuchs
  • Image:Baisden-and-Sharpton.jpg - supposed free (CC-3) license with permission, I am checking with someone with an OTRS account to verify.
  • Image:Jena High School.jpg - public domain, original author/license present
  • Image:Gotta go.jpg - licensed as CC-3.0, see above Murphy image
  • Image:Jena Six march in Cleveland, Ohio.jpg - the source image on Flickr has been deleted, so there's no way to verify appropriate license.
  • Image:Jena Six petition.JPG - same issue as above.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so what can be done?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Right now, nothing :P I'm just listing things off for the criterion. The Flickr licenses were verified, but I'll have to check with the image gurus about what can be done with them now, and we have to wait for Deskana to PM me the OTRS, so there's no action you need to take for now. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Deskana sent me the OTRS stuff (minus personal details), so I can verify that their licenses are correct. Images meet criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Article is well written, comprehensive, and extensively sourced. I don't see any problems with neutrality, stability, or structure. All references are complete and consistently formatted. As for the images, I don't believe the fact they were delete from Flickr is a problem. Of those two images, Image:Jena Six march in Cleveland, Ohio.jpg was verified through the Flickr Review process, meaning the source and license information was checked by an independent bot/editor when it was uploaded. Image:Jena Six petition.JPG was "verified" by the uploader, and may be questionable. The OTRS confirmations can be seen in the image histories here and here. Well done. - auburnpilot talk 22:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd prefer if the dates weren't wikilinked, see MOS:UNLINKDATES. There's a script that can quickly delink the dates if you'd like it run. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yes, please feel free to run it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Done.[41] - auburnpilot talk 18:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comments Support. A few things that need to be fixed: Kaldari (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. "The Jena Six were initially largely ignored by the United States national media, though covered locally and within Louisiana." The cited source doesn't mention anything about local media coverage, just African-American blogs that covered the events prior to the mainstream media picking it up. You should either find a better source for this sentence, change the text of the sentence, or move the citation so that it appears after the comma instead of the period.
  2. There is no discussion of local media coverage whatsoever. This probably isn't critical to meeting the comprehensiveness requirement, but it would be a nice addition.
  3. "The first piece on the case ran on May 9, 2007, in Left Turn, a small alternative news magazine." Assuming there was actually local media coverage (although there are no sources to back that up currently), I would assume that this is supposed to say "first national piece" or "first non-local piece" rather than "first piece". Please investigate and clarify as the current wording is confusing.
  4. "The two defendants were photographed on the red carpet, 'modeling like rap stars'." This sentence is neither relevant nor encyclopedic. I would recommend deleting it.
  5. "If he wouldn’t have (sic) taken that plea, he wouldn’t be in the position he’s in now." I don't understand why "(sic)" is needed there.
  6. Image:Baisden-and-Sharpton.jpg has no source information. Kaldari (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It now mentions that The Jena Times and The Town Talk followed the case basically from the inception, citing to Franklin's article and to the Town Talk J6 coverage page. That addresses your first two concerns. I will delete the sentence as recommended. The quote is bad grammar, which is why the sic is there. He should have said, "If he hadn't taken the plea . . . ". As for the image, I'd appreciate clarification. It seems to have an OTRS license, which has been passed as valid by others on this FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

All of your corrections look good to me. I don't think the grammar in point 4 is bad enough to warrant a notice. Seems like overeager use of "sic" to me. Regarding the image, the licensing is fine, but it still needs to state the source of the image on the image description page. Perhaps someone with OTRS access can provide this from the ticket. Kaldari (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll delete the sic. Images are a bit outside my scope, but with luck one of the image mavens who monitor this page will do something about it. I'll message a couple of people.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sic deleted. The image really looks like an original upload by the creator.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The original uploader, Michael David Murphy aka whileseated (talk · contribs), is the copyright holder and source of the image . He uses the same name on Flickr (Whileseated) and owns the website Whileseated.org (Whois). An OTRS member can confirm this if necessary. - auburnpilot talk 19:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, AuburnPilot. Well, I think that diposes of that concern.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I also moved the source information to the proper section on the image page, and clarified the wording. [42] - auburnpilot talk 19:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Great work. Now it is actually possible to attribute someone for those attribution licenses :) Kaldari (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support/Suggestions – I came through this article from a link on American Gangster (album). I had no idea what the Jena Six was, and I can say that this article is very informative and very well written. From what I can say, it meets all of the FA criteria, now that the image "issue" seems to be clarified. Just a few minor suggestions if I may:

• In the lead section, "…with the beating of Justin Barker, a white student at…" white redirects to European American. Shouldn't it redirect to White American? (not all white people are strictly from European descent).
• In the Artistic tributes section, "John Mellencamp released a song and video called "Jena", which gained considerable media attention, and which implied that the Jena Six members were unfairly prosecuted due to racist attitudes of the town." Would that need a citation?
• The image Jena Six march in Cleveland, with the caption "Marchers support the Jena Six in Cleveland, Ohio." is in the Media coverage section. I think it would be more appropriate for it to be in the Public response section.
• Sorry to be the latest person to contradict other users this U.S. vs. US thing, but WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations actually states that "In American English, U.S. is the standard abbreviation for United States; US is becoming more common and is standard in other national forms of English." So my guess is that in this article, you should use 'U.S.'.

—Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 22:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed to "White American" per your comment, added material on Mellencamp's song which should address your concern, moved the image. I'm not gonna change back to U.S. from US at this time due to the difference of opinion among reviewers (I am happy to do it either way) which you noted, but will consider asking for advice on a noticeboard. Thanks for your thoughts.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:18, 5 September 2008 [43].

---

Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's road race

Nominator(s): Tone

The article has recently been promoted to a GA. It is comprehensive, sourced, with illustrative images and it is written in the style of other articles about olympic events. In case there are some minor issues, they can be addressed quickly, otherwise, I think the article is in good shape. Tone 17:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - it's a bit early (within two weeks) to nominate for FAC, but that's no reason to oppose. A question: is there any more precision available? And did they first six cross the finish line within a second of each other? Sceptre ^(talk) 17:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

At cycling races, time is measured in seconds. But because the speed is high, the distance difference between racers that finish within one second can be considerable (I am not sure, do they use photo-finish? Probably it was not needed.) --Tone 20:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo finishes happen, but this race didn't have one. Sanchez was visibly first, Rebellin was visibly second, Cancellara was visibly third. Cyclists who arrive in the same group are given the same time (if you're more than one bike-length behind the man in front of you, you'll be given a separate time). You'll see this in the Tour de France - often the 150-man peloton will all have the same time, despite the fact that upwards of a minute will have passed between the time the stage winner crosses the line and the last man does. This is to discourage jockeying for position in the front of a large group (except, of course, in a sprint for the line, or occasionally there will be mass sprints for lower positions, such as when a breakaway survives to the line but points classification points are still available for the lower placings available to the peloton minutes later). Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 00:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This applies strongly to riders 20-36. If someone thinks this is worth explaining, this (other things section) explicitly supports what you've said (I have to signpost these things)...but I don't feel it to be necessary. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Per FAC instructions, have you contacted the article's main contributors to ask them whether they think this is FAC ready? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have contributed to the article myself and there were some ideas of nominating this article before (of course, GA first). The reason why I nominated it straight after it became a GA is that the article is pretty much complete in content and would therefore not change much during next weeks. Constructive comments at FAC usually help to polish the last details. --Tone 20:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Right off the bat, how do articles pass GA with incorrect names? In terms of fixing the incorrect hyphen, please come to consensus before renaming and moving the article and FAC; an incorrect move is complicated to fix, and there are several pieces that need to be gotten to the right place (the article, article talk, the FAC itself, and the FAC listing). Once the correct name is settled upon, please ask for help here in getting all the moves in the right place. Tone, if you haven't consulted the principle editors, the FAC should be withdrawn, and then the name can be sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The name is being discussed at the Olympics project and there was a consensus that all the articles will be removed to use the en dash but only after the games. So this will be taken care of in a week or so. --Tone 21:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Karanacs to fix the redirects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Another comment on the name, which I had noticed at GA. The lead starts "The men's road race," So how come it's a capital for "Men" in the name? Peanut4 (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the standard naming of the olympic events articles. I don't see a problem here. --Tone 12:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following sources reliable?
  • http://www.slipstreamsports.com/category/news

It's the official website of the professional cycling team that employed some of the riders in the race (at least three, off the top of my head, possibly more). Other websites of professional teams are used in the article as well (the websites of Team Milram, Astana Team, and Team CSC Saxo Bank). These websites routinely produce content about the performance of riders in their employ in various cycling events around the world. The only difference between the Slipstream reference (Slipstream Sports is the parent company of Team Garmin-Chipotle) and the other pro teams' sites is this one doesn't have an identified byline. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 23:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.dailypeloton.com/

Honestly, I'm not certain of what makes a source "reliable" at all, but that reference is probably replaceable if need be. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 23:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The website is comprehensive and neutral in its coverage. It's reliable because it doesn't contradict any of the other sources (but you can justify using the others because they provide varying levels of detail). Yohan euan o4 (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it's reliable but it doesn't stand up to those criteria, so it has to go, along with the reason for Monfort's withdrawal (I found a national newspaper that mentioned his crash, but it didn't say that he withdrew). Unless Nosleep found anything...? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the status on this? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's gone, and I can't find anything on Monfort's withdrawal elsewhere. The removal of one withdrawal reason, when there are numerous riders without them, will not put the FA in jeopardy. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please spell out abbreviations in the references, such as BOCOG, UCI, etc.
• Current ref 45 is blank. The link is working [44].--Tone 19:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. Since the ref isn't blank any more, I've left the strike in. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Images have correct license tags, sufficient descriptions, and working source links. Awadewit (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Question - Is this staying here or not? I was planning to review this, but if it's going to be withdrawn I'd rather focus my energy on the other articles I'm tracking here. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to review it. The article is being checked already so let's put it through. --Tone 19:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind it staying. Nobody seems to think that its nomination is glaringly inappropriate. There may be some issues that I can't identify but I don't think that the main body of the article needs to be broadened much more (or can be) than it already is, at least in terms of the sections covered. But I'll let someone else be the judge of that. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have preferred this to go to a peer review before coming straight to FAC. The principal contributors to the article are User:Yohan euan o4, User:Theilert and me, with a smattering of help from WP:CYC and WP:OLY. I had never previously even nominated an article for GA, let alone FA, before, so while I'm hesitant to say this is FA-ready, I also don't think my opinion matters much on that point. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 23:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nosleep, if you weren't consulted about the nomination, and feel it needs more preparation, I can withdraw it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No, please don't do it on my account. If others think it's ready, then I'd like to see it proceed. My lack of confidence is more a personal thing (I never think anything I write is any good) than a reflection of this particular article. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 04:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm likely to support this when it's fixed. Some of the writing is of professional standard—a joy to read; but it can all be like that. Congratulations for getting this up to nomination so soon; it's all the more vivid a reading experience for that! I've copy-edited the lead, and the rest will need scrutiny. Particular issues I came across at the top were:
  • "Qualification for the race was restricted to five athletes per National Olympic Committee (NOC), providing that these athletes qualified through the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) rankings. The number of places allocated to each NOC was determined by the number of athletes representing that NOC, who fell within the qualification criteria." Um ... I'm totally confused; seems contradictory.
  • "for example, 70 riders from the UCI ProTour were granted places, whereas only three entered from the UCI Oceania Tour (the continental circuits are considered to be inferior to the ProTour)." Totally confused. Tony (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I've addressed both of these issues. Some wires were being crossed, and some of that information was redundant whereas some of it wasn't being explained clearly. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Now that this is staying here, I figure that it's safe to review, especially after the lead has been polished by our best copy-editor. He said "the rest will need scrutiny", so let's see what I can find,

• Tony1 is a truly brillant copy-editor, but that doesn't mean he can catch every glitch. The first sentence: "The men's road race, a part of the cycling events at the 2008 Summer Olympics took place on August 9 at the Urban Road Cycling Course." I'm almost positive that there should be a comma after "2008 Summer Olympics". Of course, I can't find anything wrong with the rest of the lead.
• The women's road race could be linked in the lead where mentioned, but this is certainly not mandatory.
• Qualification: "The silver medalist from Athens, Portugal's Sergio Paulinho was said to not be in good enough shape to race." Doesn't feel like compelling prose. I'm not Tony1, but how about a variant of this: "Portugal's Sérgio (spot character) Paulinho, the silver medalist in the event (provide link to event) four years earlier in Athens, was said to be in insufficient shape to race." Don't like in and in, but you can refine this further. I just don't want to see "was said to be not in good enough shape".
• "who would then compete in both in the road race and the time trial." This is tighter: "who later competed in the time trial." The road race part is redundant when combined with the prior text.
• "Switzerland's Michael Albasini crashed in training and broke his collarbone the Tuesday before the race;" My suggestion: "While training (number of days) before the race, Switzerland's Michael Albasini crashed and broke his collarbone;".
• Preview, Pollution issues: "was a possibility were the pollution levels too high." Perhaps this could be "if the pollution levels were too high." Also could be proper British English, which this American is still learning.
• I'll give you an important tip on pleasing Tony1: He hates overlinking. Seeing links like oxygen and asthma drives him crazy. He also is not fond of country links.

I have to go now. More later. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice remarks. I think I've addressed them all, please check [45]. I have deliberately left asthma linked, I find it relevant. Hey, my writing style is improving slowly, reading all these comments :-) --Tone 20:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the asthma link is good too. Links to oxygen and countries don't really help the reader expand their knowledge on the issue at hand, but problems arising from asthma could be somewhat illuminating. I know the spelling is not a major issue, but I don't see the advantage in changing to British English (I guess I'm your opposite as I'm British and prefer American spelling). Yohan euan o4 (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it took me long enough, but I'm back to review more. And please don't assume that I prefer British English; I'm still having trouble figuring it out.

• "53 of the 143 cyclists..." Numerals shouldn't start sentences. This is the only time when a number over nine should be spelled out.
• This 2004 Olympic link should probably go with the addition of one before. Didn't see that before. Also a duplicate UCI ProTour link.
• Pre-race favorites: "along with highly-regarded countrymen..." No hyphen after -ly.
• "Cadel Evans, runner-up in the Tour de France back-to-back years." I'd like to see this say which years.
• 2008 Tour de France linked twice in section.
• Course: "The Urban Road Cycling Course, in its entirety, was 102.6 km,..." A comma could be removed with "The Urban Road Cycling Course was 102.6 km in its entirety,..." Also, I think "The race starting line" should be "The race's starting line".
• Italics for The Guardian, please.
• Cadel Evans doesn't need another link here. "atmostphere" immediately after that.
• Twice in this section I see "in to" and think they should be merged.
• Race: Several hyphens could be added in the first paragraph.
• Check logical punctuation of "brave,".

What exactly does this mean? Punctuation is always supposed to go inside quotes. That's second-grade level stuff. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 06:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• To quote our Manual of Style: "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation." A comma didn't come directly after brave in the BBC story, meaning the change was correct. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's....complete crap. But this isn't the time or place. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 07:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I see a random thirteen mixed in. Rest of the number usage seems good.

That's it from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed all of these issues(diff). I couldn't for the life of me find two instances of "in to" being used though, which was vexing me a little. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll raise a point of my own - is the heading "Final classification" clear enough, considering that what comes below it is, clearly, the finishing order and times for the race? I put that heading there originally, but only because it was also used in the 2004 article (I wrote at least the skeleton for most of the Olympic cycling articles, and for most of them I tended to copy previous styles). Is it perhaps preferrable to have something more obvious, like "Result," or is this heading OK? Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 00:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Clear enough, I think. I'm in favor of some overlapping of policy from the Wikiprojects with a interest in the Olympic sports articles (WP:Olympic and relevant sport project). Yohan euan o4 (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Please sort out the article's title sooner rather than later.
• Is there no image that could go in the infobox? An image of the winner, or of the pelaton (sp?), or something like that?
• "but no major problems were apparent in the men's road race" - just "the race" should be fine since it's evident what you're talking about. Also, use the full name in that ref's publisher.
• "Qualification for the race was restricted to five athletes" - ... per nation?
• I don't see the need to repeat ref 7 three times in the Pollution issues section; just move it to the end of the paragraph (IMO).
• Only Australians complained about a lack of spectators? (last para of Course section.) I find that odd.

Hope these help. —Giggy 11:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of these have been fixed, although you might want to look at the final paragraph (I re-arranged it to fit in complaints of others). NOC is usually preferred to nation in Olympic articles, and the UCI talks about places per NOC. Not all the NOCs present may have been considered nations i.e. there was a Hong Konger finishing second last. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No free images of the race or course have come up. Applying fair use was mooted, and if you think that would be suitable (I didn't) then we could do that. For the race section -- 1. Is it worth splitting the first sentence in to two? 2. Should it be "kilometers" once and "km" thereafter, or can that be flexible? 3. Are redlinks to be avoided? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

1) I think it's OK now. 2) I don't think it matters as long as you're consistent. 3) Depends on how notable the thing you're linking to is.

Looking pretty good otherwise. —Giggy 07:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

All redlinks are people notable under WP:ATHLETE. I'm trying to make articles for them all. Severo^TC 22:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've been away for awhile, so I may have missed lots in the ever-morphing behemoth that is MOS. I noticed that the units in the body of text didn't have any conversions from metric. I also noticed that non-breaking spaces didn't seem to be used. BuddingJournalist 09:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The speed and the length are in imperial units in the box. That suffies, IMO. And what do you mean with non-breaking spaces? --Tone 10:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Found the link: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Non-breaking_spaces. It's rather tedious though after-the-fact. I think someone might have a script that can automatically do it. Some of the other more knowledgeable editors may know. BuddingJournalist 10:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces used throughout now, and a conversion to the full length is in the lede. Do conversions need to be provided throughout? Also, I linked the first example of each unit, does this need to be done (the MoS doesn't seem to be overly clear)? Severo^TC 14:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments just a few things I noticed

• WP:BOLDTITLE, don't wikilink the bold text in the opening sentence
• I'd prefer to see the bolding together, too, instead of separated by plain and linked text, so something like "The 2008 Summer Olympics men's road race, a part of the cycling events..."
• Is there a link for "Beijing metropolitan area"?
• "entered a decisive seven loops" singular/plural?
• MOS:LINK, two links next to each other making them appear to be one link: 2008 Tour de France points classification

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought, seeing as this is sub-article, and most people will access it from the Olympics pages (and the fact that the title alerts readers to it being an Olympic event), that "men's road race" could remain emboldened without the "2008 Summer Olympics". No link for Beijing metropolitan area, which is something I looked for near the beginning. Possible options for the lead:

That works for me. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• the route entered a decisive circuit encompassing seven loops on a 23.8 km section up and down the Badaling Pass
• the route entered seven loops on a 23.8 km circuit up and down the Badaling Pass

Feel I'm becoming more rather than less tentative here. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the first option. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Support All my concerns were addressed. Everything looks okay. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - All my concerns were addressed above. One more note: All printed reference publishers should be shown in italics. Looks good to me otherwise. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support; all my above concerns addressed. —Giggy 07:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Question - Must we wikilink the first instance of something? I notice "2008 Tour de France points classification," descriptive of Freire, was changed to be one wikilink rather than two. If the two links situation shouldn't be, fine, but I really think points classification ought to be its own link, since 2008 Tour de France#Points classification simply points to a chart showing the result for that year and isn't in any way explanatory. Can we wikilink points classification here, and then the second instance of 2008 Tour de France later in the paragraph (or, maybe, neither instance, if "overlinking" is such a problem)? Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 16:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here are my ideas (in addition to yours)

• Three time world champion [a greater achievement(?), if not as recent] and winner of the points classification at the 2008 Tour de France

The road race world championship typically favors a sprinter like Freire. It's an achievement, of course, but I'd say it's on par with the points classification championship. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 01:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Only link points classification, don't link to 2008 TdF further down; consider the link in "Qualification" to be the first and only required one.

I'm going to go with this. Seems best. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 01:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Linking later on sounds good, but I'm not sure if it'll seem very logical to someone browsing; not sure either if it's allowed either. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Any status update on this? Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 08:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments by karanacs. Overall I found this a very well-written article that was pretty accessible for people like me who rarely follow cycling. A few suggested changes:

• I see above that you've started converting measurements, but all measurements in km (and degrees celsius) should be converted into miles as well. The subsequent uses of them do not need to have wikilinked units
• I think that the first paragraph of Qualifications may need to be reorganized a bit. Perhaps it would be better to mention up front (after the first sentence) that the Pro Tour is considered a higher class than the others, and then use what is now the last sentence (Any NOC unable to fill its quota...) as the next sentece. After that, talk about how many athletes came from each of the tours.
• I assume this is a grammar mistake but since I am unfamiliar with the terminology for this sport I could be wrong " increased its speed in order to bringing them back"

Karanacs (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that all of these have been fixed by Severo, bar one suggestion of his I took up. Thanks again... Yohan euan o4 (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I completed most of this comment (unless anyone spots any conversions I missed), not sure the qualification first paragraph is quite right yet, but it's looking better. Severo^TC 13:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:28, 2 September 2008 [46].

---

Red-necked Grebe

Nominator(s): jimfbleak (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because its passed GA, been improved since then, and it looks quite pretty (back to British English for this one, I'm afraid) jimfbleak (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Minor pickiness

• First line - they are water birds... water bird or waterbird? We tend to use the compound word on wikipedia (seabird not sea bird), which I accept doesn't mean it has to be that the whole wayy through, but I think waterbird is more common. Also, I'm not certain, but is waterbird a general term for freshwater birds or just the ducks? Perhaps that is a matter for here though. Maybe The Red-necked Grebe is an aquatic bird? Sorry, I'm rambling.
• The caption - Wing flapping is a ritualised display behaviour - is this a territory defence behaviour or a courtship behaviour? Both?

Overall I am happy with the content though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, changed to "aquatic" and "territorial" jimfbleak (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• All images are freely licensed and meet FA criteria requirements. —Giggy 11:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking jimfbleak (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Way below the professional standard of writing that is required. This nomination is premature; tell me, please, that you're not using our scarce reviewer resources as a free article-improvement "gas service station" you just drive into. Please consider widening your collaborative circle so that you can prepare your nominations adequately before launching them. It's not fair on the system, including nominators who do prepare to standards, and the reviewers.

• "The Red-necked Grebe, Podiceps grisegena, is an aquatic bird which breeds in northwestern North America, Europe and Asia. It is migratory, wintering around ocean coasts or on large lakes." I had to wonder where it goes in the summer; I guess we have to piece together the assumption that it breeds in summer—we're not even semi-experts. Why not make it crystal clear, and solve the stub sentence at the same time: "The Red-necked Grebe, Podiceps grisegena, is an migratory, aquatic bird that breeds in northwestern North America, Europe and Asia and winters around ocean coasts or on large lakes." Now it's more obvious.

• (agreed, now why didn't I think of that?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think the suggestion of abusing FAC is appropriate (see WP:Goodfaith). This article has been through GA, and I've worked on it since. I don't think you should ask others to collaborate with me when you are not prepared to do so yourself, and greet requests for help with rudeness (this probably isn't helping my cause). I do review at GAN and FAC myself, although since you don't think I'm competent to do so, that's probably a waste of my time too, at least at FAC. - Jim

• I would have thought that it was common sense that birds breed in summer, rather than winter - hardly an example of expertise. Modified as suggested, but do you actually want summer in the sentence? - Jim

• "This grebe's red neck, black cap and contrasting pale grey face make it distinctive when in breeding plumage, but it loses much of its colour in winter to appear as a rather dusky-grey bird." "This grebe" sounds as though you're about to contrast it with other grebes. But you don't. "The bird's ...". "Although" might be better than "but". "Rather" is an interpersonal epithet, and is too subjective for WP: "... to become a dusky grey"? I see more "buts" below, and they don't look as though they're proper contrastives. I've raised this issue before in relation to your nominations.

• I think Casliber has fixed this. I accept the "but" comment and I can see that "rather" may not be appropriate. I actually think " The grebe" is better than "The bird", but you're the boss - Jim

(I changed about 2/3rds of the buts to althoughs, th eremaining ones I though were better as 'buts'. As an exercise, I'd be intrigued whether you agreed with which ones were better changed from my diff.) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Its two subspecies are similar in plumage, although the race found in North America and eastern Asia is larger than the European form." Is "race" the right word for birds? "Although" is a false contrast; why shouldn't the Nth Am. and eastern A. ones be larger with their similar plumage? "And" is better. This confusion over additive versus contrastive clauses is a continuing theme in your writing, I'm afraid. I don't usually direct people to my 1a essay, but there is a section in it on that very aspect.

• "race" is standard as a synonym for "subspecies", and obviously doesn't carry the baggage that it does when applied to humans. I have read your excellent essay, there would be even more for you to attack if I hadn't. - Jim

Now, that's just the first, small para in the lead. I'm not reading any more until it's properly presented. I suggest withdrawal, work, and resubmission. Tony (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not going to withdraw, if it fails, it fails, and I'll move on. jimfbleak (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

*Comments I didn't think it was that bad, but I will try and help - I haven't had much of a lookover of this one yet. Other comments below. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for constructive edits, look forward to your comments jimfbleak (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• on the but/although, the first one (good swimmer/useless on land) I would have thought was a contrast, but happy to leave as is jimfbleak (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I did think about that, but it is actually pretty common for water creatures to have limited mobility on land, hence not surprising really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 12 (The Cornell Lab ref) is lacking a last access date! Jim, Im shocked that I have to point this out (LOL.. I never find errors in your references, I'm floored...)

• Oh, the shame of it. Added now (and I really did check that it's still there). Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa jimfbleak (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think we've spent too much time at FAC with each other Jim... this is scary... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments regarding images:
  • Image:Podicepsgrisegena.jpg - image source is a dead link (how can we verify federal authorship?)
  • Image:Grebe.jpg - image source is a dead link (how can we verify federal authorship?)
  • Image:Grèbejougrisparade.jpg - image source is a dead link (how can we verify federal authorship?)
  • Image:Lake-huron-ipperwash-beach.jpg - needs a verifiable source (i.e. an explicit assertion of authorship; no author is cited here)
  • Image:Podiceps-grisegena-008.jpg - needs a verifiable source (the implication from a self GFDL variant is not good enough; assertion of authorship needs to be explicit) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking, Image:Grèbejougrisparade.jpg clicks straight through to USFWS digital image, not sure why it's dead for you. Similarly Image:Podicepsgrisegena.jpg also links through for me. Perhaps it's your browser, or a temporary site unavailability? I've removed all the disputed images, but it's a pity about Image:Grèbejougrisparade.jpg since it's a terrific picture and link works for me. I've added Image:Podiceps griseigena 2 (Marek Szczepanek).jpg to replace Image:Podiceps griseigena 1 (Marek Szczepanek).jpg, which was OK anyway. and added Image:Podiceps grisegena9.jpg: it's USFWS again, but the url works for me at least. jimfbleak (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

USFWS images work now; perhaps the site had been down for a moment? I haven't changed computers, browsers, or settings and the links are working for me now... ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 13:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The images currently in the article look fine (I restored Image:Grèbejougrisparade.jpg, as the link is working); I'll drop a note for the uploader of Image:Podiceps-grisegena-008.jpg to see whether s/he can add the information needed. Ipperwash beach, on the other hand, was a "drive by" uploader in 2005, so I don't think it can be salvaged. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 13:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. The Ipperwash image was just a nice habitat pic, so no big deal jimfbleak (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per 1A and 1B. The article clearly exceeds GA standards, and I wholeheartedly commend jimfbleak on the incredible job he has done shepherding this article from a stub to its present form... I've been poking around in JSTOR and AcademicSearchPremier etc. (and even on the dreaded EB- gasp!), and I think there are several facts that still need to be incorporated.. the species is called a "helldiver" due to its diving skill; the parents abandon their young at night, the restriction to coastal wintering areas is unlike other grebes... etc. I have emailed a set of articles to jimfbleak. Moreover, the writing needs more than a little polishing in my opinion. The WP:LEDE in particular causes me some hesitation... I think that this article could be buffed up to FA standards in about 2 weeks of concentrated editing. But I have to !vote now, so... Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 04:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for accessing the subscription stuff and kind words. I'm incorporating some of the new material, although not sure what to do about "helldiver" which is applied to other species in NAm. Wintering on coasts isn't unusual for grebes, all the migratory species do, afaik. jimfbleak (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Revised the lede, see the article's Talk. This now has four paragraphs; I disagree with mechanically following the suggestions on Wikipedia:Lead section regarding this but am open to suggested improvements. I also prefer the infobox image I had placed there over the one currently there.. the image I had placed seems to highlight the plumage more clearly etc.. but as per usual I would not argue against consensus..
• MMm apparently all grebes can and do winter on coasts, but the Bubba is distinctive for being largely restricted to that area... I got the "unusual wintering" bit here. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 06:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fine on lead, The book is NAm only, its not unusual outside that continent. I've incorporated key points from all the subscription stuff except the Bonnie Stout article (not peer-reviewed journal) thanks again, jimfbleak (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Support, but please include a description of the eggs and the chicks as requested by RaveDave below. And thanks for another interesting article. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Comments on today's version:

• I don't like Perhaps the best... - it sounds vague.
• A ball is not amorphous - it's a ball.
• We have nominate throughout the article, I'm not sure what it means, do you need to say this? Graham Colm ^Talk 13:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• thanks, Graham. Perhaps and the ball now gone. "Nominate" now has a better link which explains clearly. I don't really want to copy the explanation into the text - although it's a simple idea, it's a bit wordy to gloss in the article. jimfbleak (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Graham jimfbleak (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ling

• What does this mean: "Occurs as a vagrant in Afghanistan, Pakistan and parts of India"? Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 16:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not noticed this addition, tidied, I'll look for a link for vagrant - Jim

• This is a tangled sentence: "The parents do not interfere with the feeding of their chicks while they are still at the stage of being carried for most of the time, but subsequently they care for the younger chicks for longer, and show aggression to the older offspring, thus equalising the post-fledging survival of all chicks, and encouraging their independence." Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 16:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• fixed by Graham -Jim

• Brood splitting: see pages 74, 76 and 146 Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 17:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• added - Jim

• this downloadable pdf of a book from 1816 has a very nice illustration showing the rearward placement of the red-necked grebe's legs. page 143 Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 17:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've no idea how to convert a pdf into a png. - Jim

• I can do it, if you want the image. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 08:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• personally, I'd leave it out, since it's not really in keeping with the photographs, but it's not a big deal if you think it's useful. jimfbleak (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not the bird guy here :-) I defer to your wisdom, as always. :-) I won't make the .png. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 11:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Red-necked Grebes are fierce, and in the breeding season they attack Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 17:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you meant here? [47]. Also this link contradicts them being 'fierce' [48] - Dave

• Fjeldsa might be an expert, but his English is dreadful - a bit further on he says they are "brave" - anthropomorphic or what? - Jim

• breeding season early spring and late fall? I keep finding snippets to suggest this; one e.g. "The Red-necked Grebe breeds in small numbers on inland freshwater lakes in Hokkaido (Ishikari and Kitami) where its season is from April to October." Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 17:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• misleading, RNG rarely second broods, and while it might be present in Hokkaido in October, it certainly wouldn't be starting to lay eggs then. I'll add a bit about second broods or relaying extending the season though - Jim

• they're not simply clumsy on land; they cannot take off from it. Ling.Nut
  • I think you meant here [49] - Dave

• added to description - Jim

^(WP:3IAR) 17:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• hunted for feathers; now protected (where?): Both EB and this say grebes were a favorite of milliners due to their bright, silky plumage. This may be moe pertinent to grebe than red-necked grebe. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 18:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it's the Great Crested Grebe in Europe, with its more southern and western range that really suffered - Jim

• very nice table, page 24, breeding population estimates in Europe. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 18:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Snow gives figures for even more countries, but I didn't want to get bogged down in too much detailed data. - Jim

Comments

• "It dives for fish or picks insects off vegetation, and swallows its own feathers, possibly to protect the digestive system." could probably be two sentences. Only 20% of it's diet is fish so the order should be at least changed. The fact could even be called out.

• I think that would be misleading. Where does the 20% come from? proportions of fish are higher in NAm and northernmost Europe anyway, and both ssp eat mainly fish in winter. I've semi-coloned the sentence though - Jim

• Have you looked for freely available audio to add?

• couldn't find any - Jim

• Have you looked for pictures of the bird in flight?

• Couldn't find any, migrate at night and don't fly during the day much - Jim

• Can you mention the chicks distinctive appearance? They look very different from the parents, and from other waterfowl chicks that I have seen.

• It's there under "description" - Jim

• Is it known why the chicks colored this way?

• Couldn't find anything, all Podiceps chicks are striped, like all crake chicks are black - I think people would just be speculating anyway

• Mention the color of its eggs?

• It's there under "breeding" - Jim

-Ravedave (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, i found egg color but skipped it. Will try to relocate. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 18:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

light blue to chalky white, quickly stained Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 18:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• see above - jimfbleak (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) A little bit of redundancy: the "Breeding and survival" section seems to mention floating nests in two places; the "description" section seems to discuss plumage in two places. Maybe could be reorganized a little? I could do it later, if no one else does. Also... the part about splitting the brood.. should that go in the "feeding" section or in "breeding"? I'm not saying it has to be moved; I'm not a bird person.. but it seems beter matched to the "breeding" section to me. I defer to others' opinions. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 05:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've moved the chick bit as suggested, similarly with description. Not sure about the nesting, first mention is of the large masses used for colonial breeding, to which the nests are attached, second is of the nests themselves. Please reword if that's unclear jimfbleak (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support comprehensive enough and well written with good media. The map seems to be outdated or does not include a large area of vagrancy in Asia. Would also like some info on hunting, it appears that it was eaten quite a bit in the Stone Age by humans. There is a "grebe" call here http://www.freesound.org/tagsViewSingle.php?id=10542 and if it is of the right species, it may be a good idea to include it. License is suitable Shyamal (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• thanks, and thanks also for the numerous copy edits. I'm not convinced about the call, doesn't really match my CD with Red-necked, but it has lots of different calls - might be Slav? The map is a bit elderly, but range maps don't normally show vagrancy anyway (or do you mean regular wintering?). I'll look at the stone age bit, but it may not be today - do you have a link jimfbleak (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• The range map appears to be distorted and stretched in a North-South direction. Also, it has non-standard range colours. Snowman (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's not possible to accurately depict a spherical surface on a plane, so all maps of large areas distort distances or directions or both. By non-standard, I assume you mean WP:BIRD recommendations. It's not easy to recolour, but the map is not a requirement of FA, so I could remove it. The map has an unambiguous legend, so I'd rather keep it with non-standard colours than remove it. jimfbleak (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Changed to standard (WP:Bird) colours. Snowman (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks. Can you let me know (elsewhere) what program you used? jimfbleak (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support (moral or otherwise) - prose has been buffed up nicely since last I looked. Could find even less to correct and note above comments, queries and answers. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, and thanks for edits. Ling.nut and Shyamal helped to improve the standard too, both with editing and with finding material that I don't have access too - or just didn't find! jimfbleak (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 02:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, this should have been a co-nom really, the amount of effort you've put into it. I'll have to go back to uni to get access to some of those sources too! First time around I don't think the telephone was invented, let alone the Internet (: jimfbleak (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:28, 2 September 2008 [50].

---

Disintegration

Nominator(s): NSR77 ^T_C, WesleyDodds (talk)

Disintegration is a 1989 album by The Cure. After some delayed promises in May and June to work on the article that was pushed back to July, it is finally complete. It was promoted to Good Article status prior to the addition of the final section. Several editors have given it a copyedit. All questions, comments, (and) or concerns will be dealt with in a prompt and timely fashion. NSR77 ^T_C 18:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support: excellently written, an engaging narrative as well as strong prose, well rounded with both good and bad reviews, nothing trivial or overly "fannish", properly cited. Well done. --Davémon (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments on images Oppose until fair use rationale is strengthened

• Image:CureDisintegration.jpg - Who owns the copyright to this image? That information needs to be included in the fair use rationale.
• Image:TheCure-Disintegration-30s.ogg - It would be a good idea to explain specifically why this excerpt is important to the article in the fair use rationale. It would make it much stronger.

• This is not really sufficient yet in my opinion. Why this particular song? Why this particular excerpt? What is it about this song that makes its inclusion necessary to understanding this album? Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• The song is discussed at length and the section used displays the overall theme of the record, as explained in the sound-box excerpt. NSR77 ^T_C 16:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• The fair use rationale has to explain these details, however. "The sample is of a song that is discussed at length, and will help the reader to comprehend such" is not sufficient. Awadewit (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am currently unavailable to make these corrects (extremely busy in real life); I asked WesleyDodds to finish the outstanding comments, but he has not done so yet. NSR77 ^T_C 01:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• I tweaked the rationale a bit. Does that work better? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, this is better, but it would be even stronger if you could say specifically what style the clip was illustrating. I'll strike the objection. Awadewit (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

*Image:RobertSmith89.JPG - The fair use tag says this image is from a music video, but the description says it is from a concert - something needs to be fixed. Is Fiction Records the copyright holder? If so, could that be made more explicit?

• What is the source for this image? Also, copyright holder has not been made explicit. Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Image removed. NSR77 ^T_C 16:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

These issues should be relatively easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Everything has been rectified. NSR77 ^T_C 03:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support; I've watched this article grow as part of WP:ALM collaboration. I took a look at the prose two days ago and it was great. No concerns. —Giggy 03:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• By the way, I'm co-nominating this with NSR77, so there goes my vote. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support The text is a little terse for my taste, and I sprinkled in a few random words, but otherwise nothing significant. jimfbleak (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

comment Image:RobertSmith89.JPG doesnt seem to significantly increase the readers' understanding (WP:NFCC#8) and therefore its usage may breach FAC #3 Fasach Nua (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Removed image. NSR77 ^T_C 16:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Prose spot-checks reveal problems:

• "Disintegration was Robert Smith's thematic return to a dark and gloomy aesthetic that The Cure had in the early 1980s. Smith deliberately sought to record an album that was depressing, as it was a reflection of the despondency he felt at the time.[9] As such, the record company's first listen to Disintegration was that of shock." "Had" is a bit of a clunk. "that characterized The Cure in ..."? Same for "listen to"; why not "impression of"?
• ... according to journalist Jeff Apter by "unravelling ever so slowly ... Comma would be good.
• A purist in logical punctuation would still put the period after the closing quotation marks, but you can probably get away with it as is: ... sees Thompson and Smith "treating their work to heavy duty flanging, delay, backwards-run tapes and more to set the slow, moody crawl of the track." But more importantly, please check whether you're permitted to link within quotations. Last time I looked, you were not. This is important to WP's ideal of being true to original source material.
• "While Disintegration is mainly made up of sombre tracks, "Lovesong", "Pictures Of You" and "Lullaby" were equally popular for their accessibility.[27] Smith wanted to create a balance on the album by including songs that would act as an equilibrium with those that were unpleasant." "composed of" would be nicer. "Make up" also means to contrive, which leaks out a little here. Does "equally" mean that the three songs cited were equally popular, or that taken as a group, they were as popular as the rest of the album was sombre? Either way, I don't think you can justify with precision that equality was true. This is a loose, oral-mode expression (even when not ambiguous grammatically) that should probably be avoided on WP. "A balance" and "an equilibrium"—you're not repeating the concept, are you?

Now, I find much of this article well written. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be scrutinised carefully by a good copy-editor (like Deckiller); we want to be proud of this on the Internet. Tony (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support: This is a very well written and organized article, and it's worthy of the best album ever.

• My only issue is the possible search priority/disambiguation. I feel like the physical act of disintegration, being the actual definition and the origin of the album title, should be the default link. Oddly, there is no entry for the physical process, but it seems a bit unusual (since other such physical processes, such as combustion, have full WP articles). The current state is, in my opinion, similar to having the default result for "Milky Way" retrieving a page about a candy bar.--Elred (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Articles aren't necessary for dictionary definitions. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I left a request for Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to fix the faulty WP:DASHes in the page ranges on the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Question Is there a reason this article's title does not use parentheses? I strongly believe that the disambig page should be moved to this title while, this FAC article be moved to something with parenthesis. Nergaal (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:28, 2 September 2008 [51].

---

Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song)

Nominator: Efe (talk)

previous FAC (00:44, 4 July 2008)

This is the third time. I almost got this to FA but there were three opposes that I failed to address as quickly as it should. I believe all comments have been given attention and there has been a pre-FAC feedback that helped this one to reach some level of readyness. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Images/Nonfree content
  • Image:Deja Vu.jpg- thorough fair use rationale, source and license present
  • Image:DejaVuSample.ogg- thorough fair use rationale, source and license present
  • Image:Beyonce-Deja Vu in Sweden.jpg- free image, source and license present
  • Image:Dejavu-video2.jpg- non-free with proper rationale, although I think it might be a bit weak. "intended to represent the nature of the single"... but does it significantly aid understanding of the topic? Generally I would say no, but it does have a tie-in by illustrating the sexual themes commented upon in the article body. I'm iffy about inclusion, but if others agree it can be kept, I would make the rationale more explicit for purpose- something like "illustrates sexual content commented upon by reviewers and which provoked a fan response, commented upon in the article".

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Efe (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I still think there are issues with Image:Dejavu-video2.jpg, I would certainly imagine the text would justify a screenshot, I dont think this is very clear what is going on, and it is quite dark. I havent seen the video, but is there a better shot? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In some sources, the scene is where the "unacceptable interaction" best shown. Its Knowles detaching Jay-Z's belt and seems "about to give a fellatio". Which part is wrong? The caption or the fair use? --Efe (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I would maybe increase the image quality, I think the caption and FU rationale are probably okay Fasach Nua (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll try uploading clearer one. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I did a screencapture off Beyonce's official site and uploaded a new version which is a tad less grainy and pixelated than the previous iteration. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Any more concerns? --Efe (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment in addendum to David's comment, Image:Dejavu-video2.jpg contains what I think is an unacceptable trademark (the MTV symbol). We are not giving free advertising to MTV — please get a video still without the symbol. --Laser brain (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed watermark. --Efe (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• ""Déjà Vu" is influenced by late-'70s funk elements,[6] soul and hip hop genres.[7]" - Isn't this merely the opinion of the reviewers in question? Unless the songwriters confirm the influences, then this is speculation, and should be written as being merely their opinion.—This is part of a comment by LuciferMorgan (of 22:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
  • Yes. Knowles mentioned the influences of this song and many reviewers were the same. --Efe (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• "It is hook-laden, similar in this respect to Knowles' 2003 single "Crazy in Love" from her debut album Dangerously in Love.[10]" - This is a comparison, so someone has arrived at an actual conclusion. Can you please clarify in the article whom has drawn that comparison? Whether something is similar isn't factual, and opinions differ from person to person.—This is part of a comment by LuciferMorgan (of 22:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
  • The writer is not disclosed, an AP. Is this a big issue? "Crazy in Love" is hook-laden (see the article). --Efe (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not referring to the term "hook-laden" in any instance. I am referring to two songs being compared to one another, and yes, this is an issue, or else I would not have raised it. I am vehemently against music articles misleading readers, and so is FA criteria. LuciferMorgan (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how to rephrase it without tending to be POVic or ORish? --Efe (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Checked the article, and I can't seem to find anything that is an issue. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Meets all criteria: well written, succinct, informative. Good job. Orane (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support if IPs can support. Nice coverage. I would still make a few edits: the bass player is mentioned under the name John Webb and then under the name Jon Jon Webb; that certainly needs to be clarified somehow. More optional stuff: the last caption perhaps needs a little work, and the use of the phrase blow job seems incongruously informal given the tone of the article (perhaps "oral sex"?) 86.44.27.122 (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Good point. The former is correct if based on the source. The latter is taken from the liner notes of B'Day. I will change it to John Webb since the source was an interview with him. Same through with blow job. Seems informal. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support for an article that has come along way since the first version I reviewed in the Spring. An incredible amount of time, effort and dedication has gone into this piece. I am not a fan of most popular culture articles, and I find them difficult to judge (unless the prose is poor). In this case I'm sticking my neck out and supporting because I think the readers who Google this subject will not be disappointed with Wikipedia. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Unlink common terms like "American"
• "was already completed" – why the "already"? It seems out of place to me.
• "One month over" – one month over what?

• All done. Please check. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support

Like Graham, I rarely even read pop music/games articles, but I found this engaging, apparently comprehensive (I'm no expert) and without significant issues. jimfbleak (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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