This article recently (narrowly, imo) failed a FAC, and since then, the main concerns have been addressed: A few of the late reviews that ultimately contributed to the thumbs down suggested a PR before resubmission; this has been done, and the automated responses have been addressed. Compared to the version that was up for FAC, this version includes a section on Legacy at the end, as this was strongly recommended at the FAC.
Note that there is deliberately no independent section on Personal Life, as Frank Zappa's life was his music and career, and because he was not a celebrity-style person with a life in media (like, e.g., Michael Jackson). This argument was accepted at the previous FAC, and therefore no such section exists.
non-free content comments - I dont understand why Image:ZappaDailyReport1965.jpg is there, when a reference to the article would suffice, and Image:MothersBBC1968b.jpg doesnt seem to significantly increases understanding.
There are a lot of non-free sound files(8), I appreciate that given Zappa's iconic status some of these are going to be used, but could someone more musically inclined than myself review the minimal use issues? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replies. The two images have detailed Fair Use rationales that explain their inclusion. As for the sound files, several of them (5) were scrutinized here, and after reediting their length, all of them were judged to conform with minimal usage guidelines (max 30 sec. or max 10% of total duration for tracks shorter than 5 minutes – no upper bound on number of clips used in an article except relevance). The remainder three samples also conform.--HJensen, talk15:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The number of sound files also represent the range and diversity of Zappa's compositions and performances given the length of his career and the various genres in which he worked. Lame Name (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose (criteria 3)- The images may have "detailed Fair Use rationales", but as far as I can tell neither of them have valid detailed fair use rationales Fasach Nua (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My only reservation during this article's previous FAC was the lack of a Legacy section. That issue has now been more than adequately addressed in my opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I supported the article during its previous FAC and am even more supportive of it now that the fine Legacy section has been added. I can see that the Legacy section completes the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great article, great subject. I was shocked this failed its previous FAC but hopefully that can change now. This article covers everything one could possibly need or hope for. Domiy (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposse What's there is good, but it lacks a section about his music (in a theoretical perspective) and guitar playing, like the german and swedish Zappa articles have. 81.229.101.211 (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, in Zappa's case one can never stop. I think his music is described throughout this article. I don't read German very well, but I cannot see that article contains much more than is here. The presentation is just different. In terms of musical theory, I can see that the Gernman article has some examples with sheet music, but a lot of the text commenting on those appears unreferenced. So maybe it is not the best model to strive for?--HJensen, talk21:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giggy's comments
The quote box in the Legacy section shouldn't be in italics (IMO).
Responses. a) Fixed quotebox. b) Great catch on italics; I couldn't find others. c) Removed "he". d) I now understand why the Vilnius picture cannot be used. I guess we we'll have to wait for the replica to be put up in Baltimore! e) As for the point about the word "motivation" in relation to the Hall of Fame, I am in doubt. I have seen the word used when explaining other awards (one example), but English is not my first language, so any alternative suggestion is welcome. Thanks for the input! --HJensen, talk08:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re. Baltimore: just be wary of FOP in the USA (I don't think that would be allowed either... :-( ). For the "motivation" stuff, I did a reword that hopefully makes it better (but feel free to revert if not). Giggy (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a terrific article style- and citation-wise; a great deal of care has obviously gone into it. A few things you might consider (I also took the liberty of making a few minor style edits):
"In a career spanning more than 30 years, Zappa wrote for rock bands, jazz ensembles, synthesizers, symphony orchestra, and created musique concrète works." Excuse the pedantry but grammatically I think there really should be an "and" before "symphony orchestra", as the last of the list he "wrote for". A simpler way to resolve this might be to phrase it "In a career spanning more than 30 years, Zappa wrote rock, jazz, electronic, orchestral, and musique concrète works." By the same token, the next sentence should really read "He also directed feature-length films and music videos, and designed album covers." or some such.
The section heading 1980s: As productive as ever strikes me as a tad opiniated – is there something more neutral we could use instead?
Shouldn't synclavier be capitalised, as it is in the instrument's article, since it's a proper name?
Thanks a lot. I have changed the lead as suggested, and capitalized "Synclavier". As for the title "1980s: As productive as ever" I have for now just changed it into "1980s: Productive as ever". I don't know if that makes it slightly more netural. I don't have English as my mother tongue, so I chose the word "productive" just to indicate that Zappa kept releasing albums at a high rate (in 1981 two double albums and a triple). I didn't intend it to imply that it was high quality. I am, of course, open to alternatives. Best, --HJensen, talk18:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re. the section title, I don't know that it's any more neutral now but as I can't think of anything more appropriate I shan't make a fuss, particularly as it doesn't seem to bother anyone. By the way, if English is not your first language, my admiration for the effort and standard of work here only increases - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please solicit additional feedback on the image issues from Elcobbola or Awadewit or other image reviewers; time doesn't permit me to check every image in every FAC. Also, please fix the dab link identified in the dabfinder (reviewers should be checking for this, not me). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responses Thanks to Giggy for the fix (I had received the "Yay, no disambiguation templates from on linked pages" when testing for dabs previously, but things should be fine now.). As for the two images, I have not much time on hand as of now, so I took the easy way out for me at the moment and removed the pictures. Interpretations of Fair Use reasons are also hard for me to understand (I know other articles are irrelevant here, but a recent main page article had several non-free images, several of which were just screenshots from films; cf. Jackie Chan.)--HJensen, talk12:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a minor issue; according to the manual of style for images, the images should "face" the text, so maybe the image from Norway should be used in the infobox instead? FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination - A huge subject and a large article. I have been working on this on and off since the last FAC was archived nearly a year ago. It is a technical and often difficult subject and with this in mind, I wrote Introduction to viruses which was promoted to FA earlier this year. Viruses occupy a world unfamiliar to most of us; the sub-microscopic, and they are best described in the language of molecular biology—the language of DNA, RNA and proteins. I am mindful that this language may render the article difficult for some readers, but I hope that the introductory article will help them break this barrier. My on-going project is to improve the coverage of viruses and virology on Wikipedia and clearly this article is the keystone. I have used the PubMed database, and four textbooks as sources for the article, three well-established and one that is a newcomer. The images were either created by me or have been taken from Commons. I cannot see any licensing issues. As always, I thank all the other editors who have contributed to this and whose names can be found in the article history but stress that any remaining errors are probably all my own work. Graham ColmTalk12:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I read this prior to nomination, although I am not a contributor apart from a few minor copy edits. It has undergone further refinements since then, and I believe it is now a highly readable article given the complexity of its subject matter. Assuming no major problems being unearthed by others, I am happy to support this. jimfbleak (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I think it is FA-worthy and can only improve during the FAC. Comment—A good article on the topic, but I have a few suggestions and concerns:
Suggestions:
There are many brief, single-paragraph sections which give it a cluttered appearance. (See the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Layout#Headings_and_paragraphs.) Could some of these be merged so as to shorten the ToC?
It seems like HIV is used a number of times as a sole example. Perhaps a broader mix of examples would be beneficial where that occurs?
Perhaps "Lifeform question" belongs in the same discussion (as a subsection?) as "Origins"?
Do the "Bacteriophages", "Viruses of Archaea" and "Viruses of plants" belong as subsections of a common section? Perhaps on specialization?
"Laboratory diagnosis" seems out of place. Doesn't it belong with "Prevention and treatment"?
Concerns:
"When diagnosing Hepatitis B virus infections, it is important to distinguish between acute and chronic infections." Why is this? How is this relevant to the subject matter? It is unclear to me.
The first paragraph of "Epidemics and pandemics" seems polemic as it doesn't bother to explain the section title and it is not clear how it relates to viruses. Can this be explained better in the context of the example? Was it an epidemic or a pandemic? Perhaps the section needs an explanatory paragraph first?
Why does "Epidemiology" only cover the transmission aspects? If it is also about control, why isn't that covered? Perhaps it should have a different name?
The first paragraph of "Life sciences and medicine" is unsourced, and I'm not sure about the second as the ref. is very specialized.
In the reference containing "The British, the Indians, and smallpox", could the format of all the entries be brought in line with the other citations (including links)?
Bob, thanks for your very helpful edits, and for these suggestions and comments. I have made these changes to the article based on your review.[5]. I don't think I have overused HIV as an example but I have made good use of it because it's the one virus most people know something about. With regard to the non-animal viruses in one section, I'd rather not. As they stand they can be partially linked to from other articles without having to be fully linked to Virus. Thanks for an useful review; it has kept me busy this morning. Graham ColmTalk11:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments / borderline object for now minor object for now This is one of Wikipeida 1.0's 150 Core topics, so this article has to be extra exemplary. Certainly up-to Good Article standards but I'm not sure if it is A-class yet content- or organization-wise (I'm not commenting on MoS or minor grammar FA requirements):
Lead section: Pretty good; covers the major aspects and is a highly readable to non-specialists. But some inline cites may be needed (figures and facts likely to be disputed need cites). Some short mention of discovery history may be in order, but size of lead is already on the long side, so some reorg/trimming may be needed.
History section: May need more. I'd like to see multiple sub-sections on the history of discovery and major advances. As is, the section reads more like a lead section to an unwritten History of... article.
Origins section: Good start,but I'd like to see each point expanded on with an evolutionary bent. Any good microbiology textbook should have enough material to use to expand this section. ed: (see below)
Structure section: Very good start, but as noted above, is too sub-sectioned. Consider combining similar sections thematically. Then make sure that the newly adjacent paras flow one to the other.
Also, the sections about viruses that attack bacteria, plants, animals should be discussed under a single section. Some compare and contrast may be in order to introduce the subsections (perhaps discuss the common modes of infection/integration). A clearer organization may be needed; I'd like to see the ==Replication== section expanded to cleanly go through the whole "life cyle" of typical viruses (with some explanation on how animal- vs plant- vs bacterial-infecting viruses differ), from infection, replication, host defense, and re-infection (how do viruses find other hosts?). As a matter of fact, maybe my thoughts in the last two sentences should be combined to reduce repetition. That should be enough for now. --mav (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responses from Graham ColmTalk
Daniel, thank you for this helpful review. I have incorporated most of your recommendations. I haven't changed the Replication section much because there is little difference between plant and animal viruses in this respect. The bacterophages should have their own diagram really, but this would be too much to put in a general article on viruses and it would be better to improve Bacteriophage. There is not much more I can say about the origins of viruses. All we have is the two or three half-baked theories. I bought yet another book on virology yesterday, (the Dimmock one),but this has been of little help in this respect. In fact it has less to say.I I could expand this section a little but it would get dangerously close to original research. I have tidied the section on structure and added a new diagram. I took on board you concerns about the flow of the prose and merged a few short sections; it's not perfect but it is much better. Oh, and I added some in-line citations to the Lead. Thanks again for your valuable comments. Graham. Graham ColmTalk15:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great work so far. But as I note, this is a core article so more work is needed ; but you are certainly on track. I struck some items but left others; I'll have to dust off my biology textbooks to provide more feedback. I know from experience how hard it is to bring vital articles to FA; I can't imagine how hard it would be to bring a core topic to FA. Kudos to you and all the other authors of this article! --mav (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My microbiology textbooks must still be in storage so I can't look at them (I should buy new ones anyway).
But Campbell's Biology (1996) p. 335 does have a section on evolution of viruses. Sadly, it looks more impressive before one reads it; mostly fluff and it only explains the cellular origin theory. Two interesting bits of info there but not at virus#Origins are a mention of transposons ("jumping genes") as a possible precursor of viruses (along with plasmids) and a plausible-sounding piece of evidence backing-up the theory; that "... a viral genome usually has more in common with the host cell's genome than with the genomes of viruses infecting other hosts." That, along with a sentence or two explaining how plasmids work and are similar to viruses are the type of thing I'm talking about.
Also, I'm a bit surprised that there is no mention of prions or viroids. I'd expect an article on viruses to mention them and have a para or two (I'm not asking for much) that quickly introduces them and explains the most important differences with viruses. The Origins section is probably the best place for that info.
One last thing for tonight: Please quickly explain jargon (linking alone is not enough). For example, "Viruses are released from the host cell by lysis." means next to nothing to somebody not already familiar with biological concepts. Context is needed in the form of an additional phrase or sentence in this article to prevent the reader from loosing interest or breaking the flow of reading by having to click on that link to find out what lysis is and how that relates to the sentence she just read. A better sentence would be "Viruses are released from the host cell by lysis; a process that kills the cell by bursting its membrane." The next sentence is a bit better; "Enveloped viruses (e.g., HIV) typically are released from the host cell by budding." b/c 'enveloped viruses' are explained in a previous section (by that name even) and 'budding' is at least a word also used in a similar context colloquially. But a follow-up sentence would be good to have. Unfortunately, that sentence is rather info-dense and has some more unexplained and, IMO, unnecessary jargon; "During this process, the virus acquires its phospholipid envelope which contains embedded viral glycoproteins." Yikes! This is the first time 'phospholipid' and 'glycoprotein' are mentioned in the article. The sentence really needs to be broken in two and I see no need to even mention phospholipid in this section (that can be done in the section on envelopes): "During this less-fatal process, the virus acquires its envelope by 'stealing' part of the host's cellular membrane. Glycoproteins – proteins that are combined with polymers of carbohydrates – are added to the developing envelope during budding." That is from memory, so the facts may be a bit off, but I hope you get the idea. These are just a couple examples; please look for and fix others.
I know that Introduction to viruses exists, but all we need at virus to make it more accessible and readable is to add a few extra words here and there to provide enough context and info to explain the extra jargon. Assume intelligence and a desire to learn in readers, but also assume they have no specialized knowledge of the subject area already. --mav (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support Colin, I will added a cited sentence or two about passive immunotherapy, although it is used, (in the UK), mainly for Varicella infections during pregnancy. I will delete the See Also to virology. Graham ColmTalk18:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This article should be species-neutral. Although viruses are an important topic in medicine and human disease, they are also important in science in relation to other species. Relating to other animal species, they are important in zoology, veterinary science, and genetics (transfection techniques). They are important also in other types of organism (in plants, relating to agriculture and botany; in bacteria, relating to biomedical science). For this reason, I fail to see why the main virus article should be so human-centered. My suggestion is that the article virus describe viruses in a species-neutral fashion (retaining most of the content of the current article) and human-related content should be moved to a human virus article. In the main virus article, a section would deal with viruses relating to different types of organism (each in subsections): animal (with a "Human" subsection), plant, bacterial, fungus, protist). --OldakQuill18:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(If I may) I have to say I disagree. It is only really the disease section that is human specific and the relative importance of that compared to the "in other species" section is appropriate weight for an encyclopaedia read by humans. Colin°Talk18:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the section on virus-caused disease is perhaps a bit on the long side, I don't agree that the article on the whole is overly human-specific. Once that section gets much longer, then it should be spun into a daughter article and a good-sized summary left here; this is the natural growth cycle of larger articles. But we are not there yet. I would like to see the 'Infection in other species' section expanded though. So while I do see a valid oppose here, I don't agree that the article must be strictly species neutral. Some work is needed in this regard, but not to a major extent. --mav (talk)
As a way to balance this you could add some plant examples to the text. For example in the Penetration section of the "Replication cycle" section you could mention that plant viruses can spread through plasmodesmata. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response from Graham ColmTalk
Viruses of species other than humans are described in the article. The disease section does concentrate on infections of humans and bearing in mind WP:Weight, I have gone into more detail in this section because this is what most readers will be interested in. Graham ColmTalk18:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taking account these responses and WP:Weight, I still oppose the article in its current form. Even writing an article with human readers and importance to humans in mind, the article gives undue weight to viruses in humans. The term "virus" is not specific to humans and should be defined as broadly. In terms of the disease section, it is misleading to imply that only humans are affected by virus-caused disease. Virus-caused disease in non-human species is important to humans also. Agriculture is an example that comes to mind (crop yield and livestock). I think the "Disease" (treating humans) and "Other species" (treating non-human species) sections could be merged, with human disease as a shorter subsection of "Viruses in animals". A separate article on "human viruses" could be branched off and would serve those looking for information relating only to humans. As the article stands, it uncomfortably treats the general characteristics of viruses (as they affect all species) and the characteristics of human-specific viruses together and without clear demarcation. This is particularly noticable in the "Viruses and disease" section where humans are solely dealt with and little suggestion that viruses cause disease in all types of organism is given. --OldakQuill19:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response I have expanded the section on other species and added this template below the header:
*I strongly contest this opposition. The article gives a broad definition of viruses. The first viruses mentioned are those that infect plants. The historical section describes the early research on bacteriophages; the viruses of bacteria. The sections on classification, structure and replication pertain to all viruses of all species. There is a good section on viruses of non-human hosts; other animals, plants, bacteria, and archaea. I agreed to the renaming of the viruses and disease section: this was a good idea. The links are sufficient to aid the readers' finding articles on viruses of non-human hosts. This is an entry in an excellent and respected encyclopedia; written in summary style. Graham ColmTalk22:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have withdrawn my opposition. The sections which emphasize humans are more clear that they emphasize humans in particular, and other species are reasonably dealt with in other sections. Thank you for your work on this. My concern that a separate article should focus on viruses which affect humans is unrelated to this featured article candidacy. I do think that this article should be more species-neutral, but that is an opinion tempered by the the quality of the article and by the consensus that the current article reasonably balances human-specific and more general information. --OldakQuill00:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — This is a pretty good article. I nevertheless have spotted an issue that should be fixed: in the lead, it is said that "Plant viruses are often transmitted from plant to plant by insects and other organisms, which are known as vectors." As I understand it, the use of the word "vector" is not limited to plant virii, as the sentence there implies. This sentence, and/or perhaps those immediately following it, could clearly use some rephrasing. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 15:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response - from Graham ColmTalk Thanks for the praise; it is much appreciated. With regard to your concern about vectors, I don't think the article gives the impression that this term is solely used in the context viral transmission. I could change the "are called" to just "are", but it's linked to a good definition which clearly defines their role in infectious diseases. Graham ColmTalk18:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Current ref 22 has no publisher or last access date (ICTV list of virus ..)
Current ref 67 (ICTV Master Species list) has no publisher or last access date
Response —Thanks Tony. I've audited for Herpes: if it's the name of the virus, as in Herpes simplex virus it's upper-case; when it means the disease herpes, it's lower. I think I've got them right. Graham ColmTalk11:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Status - from Graham ColmTalk 15:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC) I have edited and expanded the article in light of the helpful reviews above. Two of Mav's comments remain unresolved. The difficult one is the Origins section. I cannot give the detail that Mav has suggested—it doesn't exist really. I think if I made an attempt to expand this section further I would be in danger of breaching WP:OR. I experimented with subsections of the History but reverted them; they didn't work. I have broken up the text with two images instead. In contrast, joing-up the Structure section, (as suggested), made it too complicated; I prefer to have smaller digestible sub-sections here. In short, I think all the major issues have been addressed. Graham ColmTalk15:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my responses above. A bit more can be added, me thinks, w/o going into OR. Specifically, more context to explain jargon. History is now fine. I'll have to look at the Structure section closely to see what can be done, if anything. --mav (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I have made these changes [6]. I have elaborated the discussion on Origins and described how viroids, transposons and prions support the theories without, I hope, introducing any of my own ideas. I am constantly tweaking the text to clarify jargon but it's often hard for an expert to spot. I have been speaking this crazy language all my adult life ;-) Thanks again for your comments; they have helped to improve the article, so it has been a pleasurable challenge for me. Graham ColmTalk12:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! I struck-out some more completed items from my comments. I'll have to re-read the whole article and its Encarta and Britannica counterparts a few times before I can consider striking my now minor objection through. Perfection is not needed, but a core topic FA really needs to shine well above our competition. If needed, we can reboot this FAC if it becomes inconclusive. But I'm certain we will get to FA so long as you keep up your excellent work! --mav (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments regarding images:
Image:Rotavirus Reconstruction.jpg - needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP (in the case of self-made images, which this presumably is, that just means an explicit assertion of authorship; Image:Hexon.png, also used in this article, is a good example.)
Yes this is one of mine and I have tagged it as such. Graham ColmTalk
It can't go on commons, but low-resolution images of famous historical figures are perfectly acceptable under the Wikipedia fair-use policy. We can use a local version of this image instead. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have written to Delft University of Technology in The Netherlands, where the Beijerinck Collection is housed and asked if they could release a free image to the project. Graham ColmTalk13:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Rosalind Franklin.jpg - the image's source page does not assert federal authorship; what is the basis for that claim? The {{PD-USGov-NIH}} template (also used on this image) explicitly warns that "NIH frequently uses commercial images which are not public domain" and requires verification of federal authorship.
Image:Icosahedral Adenoviruses.jpg - appears to be a derivative (combination of "two adenoviruses" and a "cartoon"); are both the background adenoviruses and the cartoon original creations by the stated author, or did the stated author merely combine existing images?
They are both mine, I took the original electron micrograph and drew the icosahedron in PowerPoint and combined them using Paint Shop Pro. I have tagged the image to this effect.
This was uploaded and released under the GNU license by the author. Unless you have reason to doubt their statement of authorship (and they have produced a lot of other illustrations) there is no reason not to accept this. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Gene therapy.jpg - needs a verifiable source (a hitherto deleted en.wiki image is not acceptable; how can we verify this is the work of the NIH?)
Response - Thanks for the audit, I will delete the dodgey images and I have tagged my own with an explicit assertion of authorship. Can you or someone confirm the status of the image I borrowed from Influenza? Graham ColmTalk17:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you think Virophage are too new to be added? Satellite viruses have been known for a while though. Perhaps a section on virus/virus infections in the "other organisms" section? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum."
Status - as I see it. Sources and image issues have been resolved. All of Mav's concerns have been addressed, except a concern with some of the jargon. Consensus has been reached with regard to the opposition based on the length of the human disease section compared to diseases in other hosts. There are no issues with the general prose. The was only a minor objection to comprehensiveness, but this was quickly withdrawn. At least one other expert editor has read through the article. With regard to the percieved problem with jargon, I and others are constantly working on this. As Mav said, "perfection is not needed, but a core topic FA really needs to shine well above our competition" — I think Virus does. Graham ColmTalk17:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I changed my 'object for now' to a 'minor object for now'. I won't know for sure if virus beats EC and Encarta versions until I thoroughly go over each. But so far, I'm leaning in your direction. --mav (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - I just realized that you created many of the wonderful images in this article. Those look as good as what I've seen in textbooks. Great work! --mav (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "The production of interferon is an important host defense mechanism" this needs to be integrated better, preferably near the dsRNA mention. "Viruses are an established cause of malignancy in humans and other species" malignancy is an unnecessarily difficult word. And why the scare quotes around neurotropic viruses? Narayanese (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spotting these. I have removed the quotation marks, expanded the sentence about interferon and moved it. I have explained malignancy by adding cancer. Graham ColmTalk18:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Status:- as I see it on day eight: The article's candidature is well-supported apart from Mav's minor, borderline objection, which will be resolved, one way or the other, after he has checked-out Wikipedia's competitors, (are there any :-)? I was very pleased to see that an expert on RNA interference, and an editor of virus, has commented on the article. I am particularly pleased that a consensus has been reached about the emphasis placed on human infections. Graham ColmTalk21:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I have had a reply from Dr L. A. Robertson, Custodian of the Beijerinck Archive in Delft, and she is sending me a copyright-free photograph of Beijerinck to included in the article. I am very grateful to her. Graham ColmTalk19:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Self-nom. An article about one of the eminent football goalkeepers of the mid-20th century, best known as being the player who broke his neck in the 1956 FA Cup final but carried on playing. A current GA, I've taken it about as far as I can, and believe it meets the FA criteria. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His playing career ran from 1949–1964. For PD-old a photo would need to have been published in 1938 at the latest. Trautmann is still alive, and makes public appearances on rare occasions, so it would still be possible to create a free image of him, ruling out a fair-use shot. The neck brace he wore after his injury is sometimes on public display at the National Football Museum, but they are not currently exhibiting it. When it is next on display, I'll get a photo of it, but I don't know how far in the future that will be. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think FAs have to be something special, certainly it meets GA criteria. There are issues of photgraphs of non-permanent exhibitions ([8]). Have you tried contacting the individual or club for a free picture? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current club administration are big on "intellectual property management" and maximising its commercialisation. While I haven't contacted them directly in connection with this particular article, previous attempts to get Manchester City to release images under a free license for other articles have proved fruitless (though I must point out that the club's museum curator is very helpful when dealing with queries). Oldelpaso (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
regrettable oppose - I think this is harsh decision, but there are images out there, the requirement of WP:NFCC is "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created". At some stage editors or the foundation are going to have to put their hands in their pockets and buy copyrighted images and re-licence them as GFDL in order to finish the WP project. It is a good article, but without a picture of the subject it is regrettably not a featured one (criteria 3). Fasach Nua (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a case where we can justify a use of an older image of the gentlemen in his football outfit making a key play or a key moment in his footballing careeer that is described in the text. Given the timeframe of his career, there is a very high likelihood of no free equivalent of his active career, but the key factor is that a replacement non-free image has to show high levels of significance to the reader, so it can't just be the man dressed in his outfit.
I disagree, however, this fails #3, which includes "where appropriate". A free image is impossible, a non-free is very difficult to justify per BLP, so it is nearly not appropriate to include an image. --MASEM18:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know exceptions have been made in the past for people that are recluse and rarely make public appearances, particularly if the aspect the person is noted for is visually quite different from what the person looks like today. In other words, to get a free picture of Bert as a footballer is neigh impossible. To get a free picture of Bert today is possible but difficult, and even with it may not help the reader's comprehension of the article (we just don't use a free image just because it's free, it should still aid in the article). Again, quoting from NFCC#1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." I cannot see how a free image of Bert today would serve the same purpose as a picture of Brent as a footballer (*) would, thus a non-free image can meet NFCC#1. (*) But as stated above, it needs to be more than just Bert in a football outfit, it should be a moment that is further described in the text of the article. In other words, there will be no infobox picture but it can exist in the body next to the section describing that key moment. --MASEM15:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A stunning job with the image, if only other editors went to that kind of effort, WP would be a much better place, oppose striken, criteria 3 met in fullFasach Nua (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Picky, but websites in non-English languages should list what language they are written in in the footnote.
"The club's decision to sign a former Axis paratrooper sparked protests, twenty thousand people attending a demonstration." Connecting word missing and number shouldn't be spelled out. "with 20,000 people attending a demonstration" is what this should probably look like.
"With 15 minutes of the match remaining Trautmann suffered serious injury..." Why not "With 15 minutes remaining in the match Trautmann suffered a serious injury..."
Youth in Germany: Hindenburg could have his full name given. This isn't the same as seeing Hitler, where there is no doubt what it's referring to. The first thing I thought of when seeing Hindenburg was the ship.
Early football career: Citation needed for "Trautmann was replaced the recently retired Frank Swift, one of the greatest keepers in the club's history." (the greatest part)
Would like to see citation at end of fourth paragraph of Manchester City, where criticism is being discussed.
Style of play: "When Russian goalkeeper Lev Yashin was asked to name the greatest ever goalkeeper..." This would work better with ever and goalkeeper reversed.
Private life: Are the names of his family members known?
Date linking has recently become deprecated. Tony1 uses a script that will take care of this for you if you ask him, or even if you don't, as I've seen him remove date links from most new FACs. If you don't want delinking to occur, you'll need to leave him a message.Giants2008 (17-14) 03:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entire first paragraph of the Second World War section is cited to one page in a book. I dunno, I just find it a bit unlikely that one page covers all that...
"through which he met the club secretary's daughter, whom he later married" - name?
"made his first team debut" - non-Football fans might not note that the "first team" refers to a team (as opposed to "first" and "debut" being redundant).... does that make sense, and can it be clarified?
"and after a competent display in his first home..." - ref for the rest of this paragraph?
I don't like the idea of having a Manchester City after most of the previous section discussed him playing for City. Maybe rename it?
"Trautmann's convalescence took several months..." - unsourced paragraph...
I think I've dealt with everything raised by you and Giants2008. No doubt one of you will let me know if I've inadvertently missed anything. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone check the images that are in the article? None of them have a fully-filled template, and I'm ready to support otherwise. I'm still learning the basics of picture-checking, or else I'd do it myself. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any more about that image, I came across it when browsing Commons for old photographs of Bremen. It also looks like my attempt to get a free image of Trautmann himself may have fallen through. The copyright holder is happy for the image to be used "on Wikipedia", but I have been unable to secure permission which includes downstream use. I have found out about a statue of Trautmann, which I might be able to take a picture of next weekend. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on and off on this one for a few months, and I think it's now the best it's going to get—and thus, of an FA standard. It's an interesting topic; a notorious website that incidentally produces a fair bit of vandalism around here. Obviously, the amount of information in reliable sources was not excessive, but I've done what I could with the information available. There's a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/4chan/archive1 with source comments by Ealdgyth and a great prose review from Dabomb87, so thanks to both. Thanks also to everyone who takes a look and comments here. Cheers, Giggy (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by jimfbleak4chan was started in 2003 in the bedroom of "moot", a 15 year old from New York City. later moot grew up in suburban New York City and started 4chan in his bedroom in 2003. Doesn't need saying twice. "moot" heading - is the lc deliberate? jimfbleak (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jim, fixed that issue up. The lowercase on "moot" is deliberate; all uses of his name on the Internet are lowercased. Giggy (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support Nice work, but I'd say it might be a little confusing to somebody not familar with the board. Maybe you could expand on some of the memes mentioned, and explain - briefly - some of the blue links, eg "an example being the O RLY? owl which bla bla or "will regularly act with the intention of accumulating "lulz"; internet speak for bla bla. Ceoilsláinte19:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The chances of Poole being his actual name are pretty low. I can't say that in the article because the closest the sources went was Lev Grossman saying it's possible. But it's almost certainly a combination of several /b/ memes, not his actual name. Giggy (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A, I see now that the likelyhood is "5%" ;. Put that in the lead though (BLP afterall). The article is basically (and correctly) about /b/, but you still need to cover the other rooms in a bit more detail. Maybe fill out "Other memes" more (so much to choose from!) and the article is very close otherwise. Ceoilsláinte08:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done in the lead (and infobox) as suggested. As for the memes - bleh, them darn reliable sourcing rules! ;-) I'm combing through sources trying to find anything else that can be thrown in. Giggy (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He, them pesky annoying rules and criteria! Anyway, I'm basically a support (see above) here, given that if there are no other available sources then its as comprehensive as it can be. I'll watch how it goes anyhow. Ceoilsláinte09:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Image:Example 4chan random board thread.png - What is the significant contribution to our understanding (WP:NFCC#8)? Don't we know what a message board looks like? Did I miss discussion of a unique design/layout? I don't see any "critical commentary" pertaining to "53 GET"; why couldn't that be conveyed by prose (NFCC#1)? Why do we need to see 5 posts which include 4 copyrighted images? That doesn't seem to be minimal use; An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. (NFCC#3B). ЭLСОВВОLДtalk04:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't "critical commentary pertaining to 53 GET", but there is half a paragraph here that talks about GETs and their significance in relation to the site's scaling. This image shows an example of a GET; how the system works, and, of course, what the board looks like in general (which helps in the understanding of other aspects of the article - eg. note that everyone has posted as "Anonymous" in this image, which is discussed in this section). Trimming this so it had less copyrighted images would defeat its purpose as the image wouldn't make sense and would be effectively useless.
I dunno if this is enough; I suppose my take on NFCC is more lax than others' and that's fine. But does the above suffice? Giggy (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
concerns - 1) Short sections. "Formation" seems inadequate. 2) Why is "Anonymity" in "Layout"? 3) "The "random" board, /b/, follows the design of Futaba Channel's Nijiura board. " I don't know what this means and I don't see anything that would help explain it. 4) "Memes" I don't understand this section, and there is little information on some of the topics. 5) "Internet attacks" section seems to not focus much on 4chan except in passing and possibly a weight issue. I also don't see why "KTTV Fox 11 news report" is in the see also. 6) I think the wiki news template might be in the wrong area, what is the MoS for such? 7) Lower case use of "moot" at the beginning of sentences. What does the MoS say? 8) Use of a "See also" section. These should be integrated into the article and not lumped into a "See also". Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this would be great - Read over the article, it looks suitable for featuring, definitely. Sammyb123 (talk) 2:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
All others look good, links check out with link checker. Actually, I had more to question, but I saw you'd already addressed them in Ealdgyth's PR source check. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly published by The State News, but that's a student newspaper (from Michigan State University). Also, even if The State News was not a student newspaper, merely being published by a mainstream newspaper wouldn't make a difference if it's a blog, which it appears to be. I don't quite think this source qualifies under Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Addendum: That's not to say that a blog is inherently unreliable, but the author of that post doesn't seem to have any third-party-published works on the topic of the article. Besides, Michigan beats out Michigan State any day.) Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've removed that one. Did some searching and couldn't find anything for that particular author either, and I understand your argument for it not getting reliability via its publisher. Giggy (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notes; I'm not clear whether the image issue is resolved, not clear on sourcing question (and Ealdgyth) is traveling (looks like a blog), not clear on MoS issues (External links to WikiNews in the body of the article, see WP:LAYOUT and we don't use non-reliable sources within articles, and Portal in External links when Portals are not external, again, see WP:LAYOUT), and please clarify the main article templates that mix uppercase and not ... are rickrolling and lolcat, for example, never capitalized? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a see also section and moved the portal stuff there. I kept the Wikinews template where it is as it's only relevant to that portion of the article (acts a la a {{see also}}). I'll ping NUL and Elcobbola for revisits. Rickroll and lolcat are common nouns, thus not capitalised. Giggy (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, you didn't need to add a See also, just move it to the first appendix. Not happy about WikiNews, but ... I'll watch for other to be resolved, but I know Ealdgyth is traveling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The old FAC dilemma... that's basically asking me to revert what Sandy suggested. (Well, she didn't explicitly ask for a see also section but I'm not sure where else to throw the portal thingy... apart from external links!) WP:LAYOUT recommends a see also section and doesn't mention portal links anywhere else. Any other ideas on layout? Giggy (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<smile> I think I was misunderstood :-) Per WP:LAYOUT, Portals go in See also (because they are internal content) and Sister links go in External links (because they are external but more importantly because we don't place external jumps, more specificially external jumps to non-reliable sources within articles). Your dilemma is what to do when there is no Seealso; I didn't suggest creating an unnecessary See also (that also breaches WP:LAYOUT). This wording from WP:LAYOUT may help:
With the exception of Works, sections which contain material outside Wikipedia (including Further reading, and External links) should come after sections that contain Wikipedia material (including See also) to help keep the distinction clear. The sections containing notes and references often contain both kinds of material and, consequently, appear after the See also section (if any) and before the Further reading section (if any).
So, the intent is to get internal content first in the appendices, external content last. So, when there is no See also, you can just put the Portal at the top of the first appendix, and when there is no External links section, Wikinews at the top of the last appendix. Besides adding non-reliable info to the body of an article via the WikiNews link, adding WikiNews to an article raises the question of 1b, Comprehensiveness. There should be nothing major left out of this article, or there should be Wikilinks to related info on Wikipedia: nothing on Wikinews should be essential unless the article fails 1b, Comprehensive. That's an additional part of why WikiNews belongs in external links, besides that we don't link non-reliable external jumps within the text. Hope this helps, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There would be no dilema, Giggy, if you just accept that I am always right and just do what the hell I say without question or complaint. Please. Ceoilsláinte20:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just discovered (yet another) case of conflicting MoS pages (WP:LAYOUT, WP:EL, WP:ACCESSIBILITY ... and newly discovered Wikipedia:Sister projects which is in disagreement with all three of them), so ... there you have it. Do whatever makes sense, we have yet another case of contradictory guidelines. I'll continue to argue there that elevating non-reliable content to a place within our article text violates our core policies, and that any external content belongs in External links, but that's me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Wasn't sure if the refs section counts as an appendix, especially now that the template is messing around with the 2 column reflist in Firefox. But whatever. I profess cluelessness on most things MOS. Giggy (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is on the verge of becoming a FA but some things I don't like.
The Anon_London_Feb10_TCR_Protesters.jpg picture gives the impression that all those in the picture browse 4chan when this isn't true, plus it is a little off-topic.
No statistics are given about how popular the website is and how many posts particular boards have. For example you have a section all about /b/ but it doesn't say anywhere how many posts there are and approximately how many posts are a day. You can use a primary source for this. Without this the reader doesn't have any idea how popular the board is. The screenshot shows there is 100,000,000+ or one hundred million posts on the entire site, should mention it somewhere.
First up, I added some Alexa info for the main site. I dunno how to get any useful primary data out of such a fast moving site (any ideas? Sorry, I feel somewhat clueless), but there's a quote here from moot on the post rate which I've thrown in [13]. Giggy (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like other website related articles you could add something like; As of September 2008 the website has amassed over 150 million posts in total. Use the homepage as a source.--Otterathome (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also think some more quotes from the media regarding the /b/ board would be helpful. I'm sure you can dig some more up.
I think the introduction to the meme's section is too short. "many memes developed by 4chan" you make the site sound like a commercial factory and the meme's were intentional and designed.
Example_4chan_random_board_thread.png we don't know the sources of all the pictures in this image, at least one is copyrighted, may need changing or tagging differently.
Someone added the Alexa link into the infobox some editors don't like this as the reliability of alexa is questionable, your better off removing it and saying 'According to Alexa it is listed as one of the top 1000 websites in the world.
If we're still using Alexa, there's no harm in keeping it in the infobox too.
I noticed the Internet portal link is now under references, this unnecassarily wraps/squashes them more. It would be better under external links or See also if there was one.
Why was the See also section removed? Seemed fine to me.
The external links section only has one link, surely you can add more. Googling 4chan came up with the following links encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/4chan 4chanarchive.org/ 4chanstatus.blogspot.com/ any of them appropriate?
There's thousands of 4chan related pictures at flickr I wouldn't agree to adding pictures of moot as it is slightly off-topic and may lead to BLP problems. Pictures related to meme's might be helpful.
Another side note thing, this article will be quickly de-listed if it isn't kept up to date and crufty uncyclopedic crap isn't kept off it. So permanent semi-protection seems like a good option.
Question, could you link me to some other featured article websites? Else some A class ones. If there are any. Comparing different qualities of the articles may be helpful.
Reference 51 says KVUE.com is the publisher this doesn't mean anything unless there's a wikilink to change to KVUE Television, Inc. Same with KXAN #48, can be wikilinked.
The Registration field in the infobox could be expanded, 'no' by itself sounds uncyclopedic. Something else like 'None available' or 'Not available' would be better.
Might want to just replace {{wikinews|American city officials warned about dirty bomb threat}} with just {{wikinews}} in the external link section so it searches all 4chan related stuff.--Otterathome (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. On the one hand, that gives a lot of unrelated results (eg. [18], the 4th hit). On the other hand, that template down there isn't doing much as it's not in the right place, IMO. Ended up stealing a template from Anonymous (group). Giggy (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What is the origin of the name "4chan"? If known (and sourceable), that info should be added to the article. —Angr19:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I assume it's based on Futaba Channel (aka. 2chan), but I don't recall seeing it specifically stated as such anywhere. The article read "(aka. 2chan)" at some point, so readers could make the connection themselves, but it appears to have been removed. Giggy (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is anonymous. The picture doesn't contain his real name or any other PII. It's also been around since before the Time interview, as have many other images of him. He may keep his identity secret (and we're not doing anything about that), but he hasn't kept his image equally hidden. Alexa stuff done and done. Giggy (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think the Anonymous picture is appropriate, it is off-topic and is only connected to the site. (as mentioned before)
The internet portal link seems to have gone, doesn't bother me if this is in the article or not though.
It's in the "Anonymous and the Internet" template at the bottom. Couldn't really fit it anywhere else without having signicant whitespace issues. Giggy (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The eon8 wikinews link is too trivial to be mentioned really.
Careful not to go too off-topic with the Sarah Palin incident, things like "these screenshots were further distributed by blogs including Gawker.com" and the /b/ quote seems too trivial to mention.
I removed the Gawker thingy. I left the quote as it gives a good (IMO) insight into how things work around there (for lack of a better phrasing). Giggy (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your help in improving it. (Just for formality sake could you strike out the "oppose" above please, if this stuff here is all resolved OK.) Giggy (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I finally got round to reading the rest of the article. This is an alien world to an old boy like me, but I understood it (I think) and couldn't see any remaining serious infelicities. jimfbleak (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is my first FA nom. This article has undergone a peer review and is currently a Food & Drink Good Article. I'm the primary contributor. Oh, and just for your reference, before I started editing, the article looked like this. If it passed, it'd be the 12th F&D FA. Thanks. Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image comment There seems to be some misunderstanding between copyright and trademark. Images that contain trademarks should be tagged {{trademark}}, could the images be reviewed with respect to Wikipedia:Public_domain to see if free images can be provided Fasach Nua (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay well I'll need some help on that. Of the four non-free images on the article, two are mine, one is from a website and is unattainable because it's a discontinued product, and one is the company logo from the website. I was under the impression that all four were non-free because they displayed the Odwalla logo, which is copyrighted. Do you want me to replace the copyright tag on the image pages with the trademark tag, or do you want me to simply add the trademark tag, or some other third thing that I'm just not getting. Thanks for your patience. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I added the trademark tag to the four non-free pics. I took the picture in question at my local grocery store. I assumed it was non-free because it has that big Odwalla logo at the top. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Referenceforbusiness is a great business reference site (hence the name) that provides free articles about different companies (like Odwalla). It's reliable because 1) many of its facts are backed up in a number of other sources on Odwalla, 2) it cites its sources, and 3) because it's not selling anything (unlike many of the other business reference sites on the internet). I have gone through and gotten the info I need from a few of the sources on the bottom of the page, but some are archived or non-free, so I just used the referenceforbusiness page for that. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a website for businesses about Corporate social responsibility. The ref in question is an article about Odwalla's response to the E. Coli outbreak. Like referenceforbusiness, this ref has sources cited at the bottom also (most of which are used in the Odwalla article now). I could easily remove this if you object; I won't lose much. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I removed the ref. It was only used twice in the article: once paired with another ref, and the other time just backing up a kind of POVy (?) quote. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update on 17 September. The one remaining reference is a borderline one I left uncapped/unstruck for other reveiewers to decide for themselves. I consider everything but that sourced well. Ealdgyth - Talk18:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE NOTE Oppose: I had a FA candidate ruined because it used a copyrighted logo. Even though there were no free alternatives, the article gained heavy opposition for the use of the copyrighted logo. I think it would be EXTREMELY UNFAIR to pass this FA candidate when it clearly has the same issue as per using the company logo! Unless of course there is an admittance that WP is biased towards some articles for some reason? Also, I don't like the image positioning. Scrolling down the pages shows all the images to be on one side of the page. And the bacteria image is kind of small, doesn't really portray information effectively. Please also note that the same FA candidate that was rejected was opposed because of inappropriate image tagging, even though there were no such things evident on the page as all images were clearly tagged correctly. I'm very sorry, but as per this, this article shouldn't be able to pass when it clearly has the same possibility of being opposed for the same unfair reasons as the Croatian national team was. Domiy (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I told them their unreal arguments were also faulty in the sense that I had fixed them up immediately after they were aroused. The article received a ridiculous amount of opposition (not just on this attempt, it has failed 3 times now). And it is clearly evident that it actually is based on preference. It gained no support whatsoever. I resolved all the issues and some of the intentionally un-satisfiable arguments were taken too heavily and hence the article failed. If its any more concern, there were also issues about reference reliability. I was asked to provide info as to why some certain references were reliable. I did so by providing the guidelines of the website and how they handle information which clearly proved them to be reliable. Racism isn't just physically or verbally violent, it strikes everywhere. I dont see why this article should be any more fairly treated than the Croatia national football team which failed continuously due to the same 'apparent' issues. I know they are not real issues and were aroused solely from preference, so I say now that this article is no more worthy than the next candidate seeing as a perfectly acceptable article previously failed numerous times based on unfair racial preference. Domiy (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image layout comment Images should be right aligned or alternated, personal preference isn't an MoS criterion afaik. If there is a better E. coli image replace it, otherwise I'd be inclined to lose it. jimfbleak (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Images, Do not place left-aligned images directly below subsection-level (=== or greater) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. For him to place images on the left side would violate the guidelines, as the only place that they could be reasonably placed would be under the headings. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yeah I did what Jeremy said, but I'm open to change! And I'm afraid I can't do anything about Domiy's oppose... it's the nature of national businesses to have copyrighted logos, etc. <:) Also, if I should remove the picture of E. coli, I will. I like it, but that's just me. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the argument is not invalid, how it was expressed sounds like a classic case of POINT. I suggest that you initiate discussion with the principal opposer(s) of your own FAC to have some form of centralized discussion instead as the way to go forward. - Mailer Diablo00:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Soon afterwards, the company expanded into new markets when it bought two companies in the Pacific Northwest and Denver, Colorado" - repetition of company..... please try another word
Same again: "during the early years of the company allowed the company to expand and grow"
Some of the job titles in the Safety issues prior to the outbreak section are capitalised, some aren't... be consistent.
""black rotten crud"),[11]" - the source doesn't include that quote
Done. Thanks for the copyedit. I fixed the prose problems above. The "black rotten crud" is in the 11th ref (third page, 5th paragraph from the bottom, last sentence). :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A source which gives no indication of being a reliable source (referenceforbusiness.com) is still in the article, citing text that can surely be texted to a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More appropriately, I'm going to have to Oppose on the actual grounds that there is instability over a source that is used numerous times throughout the article (ReferenceforBussines). Also, some statements do lack appropriate references:
By 1992 the company employed 80 people at their company headquarters in Davenport, California and sold around 20 different flavors of juice for between $1.50 and $2.00 a pint. Odwalla went public in December 1993, and the company had 35 delivery trucks, almost 200 employees, and made about $13 million a year. - Source?
Continual growth and outside investments during these years allowed the company to expand and grow: in 1991, Odwalla's revenue was $9 million, but five years later, Odwalla Inc. made $59 million in sales - Source? (I dont know if this is sourced in the lengthy references at the end of the paragraph or not. If it is, please provide specific page number/location so it can be verified here.)
Some prose issues:
This strong growth made Odwalla one of the largest fresh-juice companies in America by 1996,[11] when Odwalla was selling their products to stores in seven states and parts of Canada.[5][12] - 'Strong' can be seen as POV. A more appropriate use of word would be 'rapid' or 'constant'. Strong is a blatant descriptive POV. Also, the name of the company is used too many times in this sentence. You should replace the second use of 'Odwalla' with 'they'.
Okay, I removed the referenceforbusiness ref and replaced them with refs from Hoovers.com and Answers.com, thanks to Jeremy. Anything else I can fix? Thanks for all the reviews and help, y'all! Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its quite acceptable to use subscription references providing, as you said, they are free. You may want to leave a note on the reference stating that subscription is required. Domiy (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Answers.com doesn't seem to be a wiki. It's more of a search engine, and it's won awards from CNET, Internet Explorer, The Software and Information Industry Association, Information Today, PC Magazine, and even Forbes! (See the bottom of this page). It's partnered with the Firefox, The New York Times, CBS, and Hoovers. There is a WikiAnswers search engine linked to Answers.com, but Answers.com isn't a wiki. Is that what you were looking at? Don't the citations at the bottom of the Answers.com ref ([22]) and the number of large media companies recommending it, per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches#Websites, qualify it as a reliable source? I would think so. Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answers.com does mirror Wikipedia in some instances, however in this case it has original, cited research by the author, Frederick C. Ingram. He has provided a full list of the references used in the creation of the article. Hoover's provides many free services that did not require a subscription, including information on financials and basic history of the company and a summary of its operations. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to check which portion of answers.com you're citing; when I checked, I found that the text in the article wasn't verified by the cite, so it wasn't clear to me what you were citing anyway. If answers.com cites their sources, you should go to those sources rather than rely on an iffy second-hand source. I can't answer because I couldn't verify the text you were citing anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've looked for some of the sources, but many of the ones that I need (because I'm dealing with history from the early 90s) are not online (for exampe, one article in the LA Times from Nov. 12, 1996 is archived and I can only get an abstract) but I'll keep looking. As for Hoovers, do I add a note about how the site needs a subscription even if the article I used doesn't need any subscription? Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the link in your cite is freely available to all, no note needed; if not, you can add "subscription required" in the format field of cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References Comment - Publisher names shouldn't be in Italics. The cite template automatically displays all appropriate data in appropriate fields. In case you didn't realise, there is a 'work=' field avaliable in the cite template which allows you to identify where exactly on the site the information came from, and this data will be displayed automatically in italics. But there is no need to have all normal publisher info in italics. Additionally, some sources may lack author information! I was fortunate enough to click on a single source provided entitled 'Royal treatment from Odwalla'. The author's name is clearly displayed at the top of the article, Toops, Diane, so why is it not included in the reference? From this I can easily assume that some other sources may also lack author info. Go through all the references links and check for author names! If not given in the article, fine. But if they are present, then you must include them! Domiy (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Domiy (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I italicized the names of some of the publishers like the LA Times, because they're newspapers, etc., but I'll go unitalicize (?) the ones that don't need them. As for the stuff like BNET, am I correct in thinking that you want me to put BNET in the publisher= field and the original source (like Food & Drink Weekly or whatever) in the work= field? I don't want to start and then realize that I messed up and have to do it all over again? ;) As for the authors, I'll work on that... I thought I got all of them... oh well... Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ITALICS. Periodicals, newspapers, magazines are in italics; corporations, websites, organizations are not. Work italicizes, publisher does not. The last time I checked, most of them were correct; I haven't checked recently, but Domiy seems to be saying that periodicals are not italicized, which is incorrect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Domiy Supports now! Its only fair. The author/prime editor has gone through a lot of trouble throughout this FAC and to a great beneficial extent. This article is very specific to business terminology and a great use of research/resource. Nicely written as well. Well done. Domiy (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe you should include an external links section on the page with a link to the Coca cola company and another to the Odwalla subsidiary. NancyHeisetalk05:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. There was an external link section, but I removed it because the Odwalla website is in the infobox at the top. Also, the Odwalla site doesn't mention Coca-Cola at all... FYI SandyGeorgia, I've gotten added all of the citations for the Answers.com cite that are free and online and useful. A lot, like the Wall Street Journal and LA times, need a subscription, and some are only about the E. Coli outbreak, which is overcited. LOL Intothewoods29 (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can access the LA Times and the WSJ at home; there should be no need to use answers.com if reputable newspapers can be cited. If you need a specific citation, pls leave the details on my talk page and I'll fill it in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE I hope. :) I think I've addressed everyone's concerns. I removed the unreliable refs, and double checked that all the info is sourced, which involved bringing in several new sources. Hoovers does not need a subscription tag on the ref, because it's a free webpage. The pictures all are tagged correctly. Anything else??? Thanks. Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yeah, so close, and yet so far. I think this FAC is just waiting for a response from Ealdgyth, who's on vacation. sigh... patience is not one of my best traits. ;) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments History section could use some more content, in my opinion.
The history pre-outbreak is rather thin. Lots of description of growth, but no discussion on what actually caused this growth. Why did their juices catch on with consumers?
Added a part about that. :)
"The Odwalla plant had several minor food safety issues..." I wouldn't exactly call an outbreak of E. coli "minor". Or is this in reference to a certain timespan prior to the outbreak? If so, make this clear.
Yes, it's in the "Safety issues prior to the outbreak" section. I'm not sure how I could make it clearer... if you have any suggestions I'll change something.
"suggested that Odwalla" To whom?
changed to "suggested to Odwalla executives that the company should add..."
"Despite this, in cooperation with the F.D.A..." I don't get the use of this connector. Why is the recall in "despite" of the outbreak being a surprise?
changed to "Based on a recommendation from the F.D.A..."
"until phasing out Fresh Samantha in 2003." Phasing out meaning what? What were the consequences of this? Layoffs? Factory closings?
fixed to indicate that they just stopped selling juice under the name
"Odwalla was purchased by the Coca-Cola Company" This is rather eventful, but the paragraph breezes through it. Why did Odwalla pique Coke's interest and when? Why did Odwalla think this was a good idea? Also, why are four citations needed for the first sentence?
done Thanks for your comments. I think I've fixed everything you brought up (I hope). As for the bottle measurements, I agree it's odd, but their sold in 450 mL and 64 fl ounce containers. It's one of those odd American metric ignorance peculiarities. :) If you have any more suggestions, please mention them. Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Could the food bars paragraph be beefed up? The statistic is kinda outdated now, and much of the content is duplicated from the e-coli aspect earlier in the article.
Looking through a print archive it looks like this article's comprehensiveness could be beefed up with some print sources. Make sure your email is set up, PM me and I'll send you some stuff I've found. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)01:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing. As for the food bar statistic, it was the most recent I could find! I went through all these SEC press releases, and the final one was released in 2001 right before the company was bought by Coca-Cola. I'll keep looking for anything, but no promises. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll assemble a packet of stuff I've found later today (I got classes now :P) Maybe you can state, then, that 2001 was the last year before they got bought, thus explaining why its the latest figure? "Before Coke bought Odwalla in 2001, food bars made up..." Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)14:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I believe #8 is rather subjective. Either way, the image depicts the beginning of the climax of the internet stalker storyline, which is one of the major scenes in the episode and explicitly mentioned in the plot and reception sections. It also demonstrates what the two characters look like, which is impossible to recreate with a free image because the characters appearances have changed due to aging. For me, it is sufficiently appropriate per NFC. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume most people who would check this article with the requirements of WP:NFCC. If you want to know what the actors look like you have Image:MaCR press conference.jpg, a capture of a mentioned scene is really isnt a valid justification of significant increase in understanding. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the actors look like, not the characters. It's not just that the scene is mentioned in the plot, otherwise I might agree, but that that storyline and the execution of it was discussed by outside sources, making that interaction especially notable. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the problem is that you can't mix the styles, even for Harvard purposes. They give inconsistent results and Sandy tells me they don't play well together. Ealdgyth - Talk17:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's up to the editors of the article. I just point out the issues such as this. And I don't do the {{citation}} templates at all, so I can't really help you with the technical issues. Ealdgyth - Talk14:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I removed the citation template, because it would have been a technical nightmare trying to get that to work instead of {{cite episode}} and a couple of others. Of course, this means the harvard referencing doesn't work any more, but either way something had to be sacrificed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now the article has harvard links that don't link. If you use the Harvnb template, you have to use citation. If you use cite xxx, a different method of linking, or no linking, is needed. Now there's a mish-mash, neither-nor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I believe hollywood.com is okay because [26] "Hollywood.com is owned by R&S Investments, LLC, which is owned by Mitchell Rubenstein and Laurie Silvers, who previously founded the Sci-Fi Channel. The President and Chief Operating Officer of Hollywood.com is Kevin Davis, who formerly was Vice President and General Manager of Variety.com." It isn't just some bedroom hobby of someone's. Also, it appears there is a Hollywood.com tv cable channel in the US, [27]. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the information being sourced to it, I can deal with this. However, I would be much more worried about using it for contentious information.
OK, I will keep looking around for a "better" site, but considering the actors have done very little, I'll be surprised if I find anything. There is one alternative and that's saying the information can instead be verified by watching the closing credits of the episode. I don't like to do that unless as a last resort though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, Woops, I didn't realize this was an FAC when I just hit the article and tagged it for issues thinking it should be aiming for FA! :-P As per the tags, I feel the plot summary is too long, even for a two part episode. Its logging in at over 1000 words for me, and that's excessive. It should be maybe half that length. There are also a few unsourced statements in the production and reception sections. I'm also unclear as to what the lawsuit has to do with this specific episode rather than the series as a whole? In the production section, there is a whole paragraph that again, seems to be more about the series as a whole and not this specific episode, and even if this was one of the fedora episodes. Also, the reception section seems smaller than I would have expected. Was there any feedback/discussion/impact on the series starting with the issues presented in this episode with the internet stalker, potential child molestation (or worse), etc? -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 16:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for commenting. I myself have wondered about the length of the plot section and even asked for comments about it at the Peer Review, but I didn't get any. Anyway, there is no hard rule or guideline about it. The essay, WP:Plot summaries, says, "Plot summaries should be between 300 and 500 words for a typical episode or story, and longer as needed for adequate discussion of a longer work, especially if the plot is very complicated." I don't think this is a typical episode -- it's the pilot episode. The article is also about two half-hour episodes, so the plot should be allowed to be twice as long as a regular half-hour episode article. However, I also get that a plot summary is not a recap, as WP:PLOTSUM says.
I saw you added {{refimprove}}. I'd have preferred it if you could have used the in-line template {{fact}} so I knew which bits you meant. I have removed the paragraph regarding the website lawsuit. I'm not exactly sure if you mean the fedora paragraph in the production section isn't specific, but I think it is. The things mentioned there occurred only in this episode, not every episode in the series. If it is a different episode, please identify it so I can try to address it.
With regards to the reception, I accessed every article on the internet that mentions this episode, and the majority have been used. I also used Canadian Newsstand which covers most newspapers in Canada dating back to ~1977. Again, any that discussed it were used. There was nothing regarding the internet predator storyline's impact on the series or Canadian kids TV. I really have used everything worth using. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSTV also discusses plot, and gives the same general guideline. However, one could also look at this as a short film, and look to WP:MOSFILM for additional guidance, which allows 400-700 words for a typical length film. As such, even for a pilot episode of roughly one hour in length, over 1000 words is too long. If I'd realized it was at FAC before tagging, I'd have just dropped a note here. :P One of the two instances is gone with that paragraph removal. For the Fedora, the paragraph mentions a later episode where it appears and it seems to imply its a regular thing, not just a two episode issue? And pooh on no one addressing the storyline's possible impact. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 03:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've never even heard of this, so no views on facts at all. I made a couple of minor edits, couldn't see much else wrong, and the prose was good enough to keep me reading something in which I have no real interest. jimfbleak (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why aren't the quotations cited in the lead? Also, the attribution for the third quote is entirely missing.
Because they're used again in the reception section and referenced there. I could reference them again here, but generally anything in the lead that is repeated in the main sections is not usually cited. I fixed the attribution for the third one. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the pull quote from the co-creator/creative consultant in the Reception section?
Well, the comments are about how the characters were to be recieved by viewers, compared to other shows, so I think it fits here as well as it would in the Casting section, it's just that there is already a quotebox there. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"instead of digging up Screech and the gang..." Would at the very least need to link Screech; not a cultural reference that every reader will get. But even a link will not give any insight into the meaning behind this reference for those unknowledgeable...is the reference in the quote a bit too esoteric for general readership in an encyclopedia? Something to think about, perhaps.
Comments - I found this on the feedback request template. I believe this is the first TV review I've done, and I admit to being surprised that this hasn't received more support. Quite good overall, but still a few picky things here and there.
Plot: Seeing some tens here. Most of the time, these are given as numbers, though this varies by editor.
"As the evening progresses, Joey overhears Keith and Alison and flirting with each other..."
"and Alison has to tell Keith about Keith's hesitance about getting married." Redundancy here with about. Try to change one of them.
Production: "Co-creater Schuyler with her husband and Epitome Pictures partner Stohn served as executive producers." If the sentence is to be structured this way, two commas would be beneficial for readibility.
"Filming began July 3..." Every other date is given the opposite way. Is the preferred method different for dates without years?
United States really doesn't need a link.
Back to Plot: "Spike and Snake arrive just in time save her..." Missing word.
Cast: A structure suggestion: Move the one-sentence paragraph at the end up to the end of the section's second paragraph. It would be a great fit there. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is another short article on a battle in the Texas Revolution. It was a small battle, and as such not a lot has been written about it, but I think this article is as comprehensive as it could possibly be. Karanacs (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found two instances of the word "approximately" in the article. Personally, I like "about" better, it's shorter and simpler.
"...where the newly-formed Texian Army was located." Per WP:HYPHEN, hyphens are not used after -ly adverbs.
I assume that John J. Linn and John Linn are the same; wikilink the first instance of the person (3rd para of "Background") instead of the "Aftermath" section.
"The Texians also gained control of several cannon." Cannons.
Thank you for your comments and the compliment. I have fixed the last three issues. I like "approximately" better than about, though, so I'll keep that version. Karanacs (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've only had time to read the lead, which I found a mite confusing:-
"several men": Surely there must be a more precise way of defining these conspirators?
The connector "however", in the middle of the second paragraph, looks out of place; it's not obvious how what follows it is connected to that which precedes it.
There are also a couple of minor things: "outside of Goliad" - is the "of" necessary? And, in the final sentence of the first paragraph a comma is necessary after "Mexican Army".
It might be worth doing a general wash-and-brush-up on the lead, to improve its clarity. I will try to get back and look at the rest of the article, when I have done some overdue chores. Brianboulton (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the lead (first 3 paragraphs) lacking any inline citations, I felt uncomfortable continuing through the article, though I saw plenty of inline citations thereafter.
Comment Actually, per WP:LEDE#Citations, the lead doesn't need to be cited as long as the information which is summarized in the lead is cited below and the lead doesn't contain any contentious information, i.e. about living person, etc. In my opinion, the article and the lead aren't contentious enough to warrant citing in the lead. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The David entry in the Further reading section still needs formating assistance such as mentioned above, and you'll want to include the publisher's location.
I responded below with information on why I can't expand the battle section (no info). I also have not seen anywhere a map of the actual battle. It took place in the presidio just outside Goliad, and I haven't found a floor plan of that (nor details on where the fighting actually was within the presidio). Karanacs (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Prelude section uses the word "group" far too much. I would replace some of the instances, but the only word I can think of is "mob" and I'm not sure if that's a good term or not.
Yes, the battle section is a bit too small. Maybe put in a statement or two about how long it lasted, etc. if you can find some. I think the important part of the battle is the result (they cut of the Mexican supply chain), but the battle should be longer. Good job with the article, tho. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is almost no information available on the battle itself. It was really short, and was basically a group of soldiers standing on the second floor shooting down at a group of insurgents who shot back at them. None of the books I've consulted provide any additional detail that I could use to expand the section. The sources concentrate on the events leading up to the battle and the aftermath. Karanacs (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also done a ce of the article (especially of the lead). This should hopefully alleviate your worries about the overuse of the word "group". Karanacs (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you had your reprieve from video games in general and the Myst series in particular, but I told you the reprieve would only last a little while... :P but look on the bright side, before I inflict the last Myst title on you in the future, you might get lucky and have another non-video-game FAC from me :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)21:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments zOMG video games! Where are the hurricanes?! :)
Sources look good. Links check out with the link checker.
Wall enjoyed working with Gabriel, and hoped that he would be able to collaborate with him on future projects. I'm not sure of how relevant this is.
Overall, Revelation was received positively by critics, with the game garnering 82% and 81% averages on Metacritic and Game Rankings, respectively "With" is a poor connecting word per MoS.
Images Look fine, box art non-free but well rationaled, screenshot falls under Ubisoft's free use on WP, though it probably could use a better caption as it currently talks about the reception of the graphics though its in the gameplay section. (And what, no Uru?) --MASEM02:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just Adventure is a fairly large, established web site which features an editor who screens all submissions and does fact-checking at least once before release of a preview/review/et al (walkthroughs and release information on games has another editorial process as well; the site refuses to refactor author opinions, but as the source is an interview this isn't an issue.) The source is being used only for the comments of the interviewee, not for opinions or facts stated in the interview by the publisher. UruObsession is a fan forum, however the source being quoted is Mary DeMarle, one of the project leads for Myst III: Exile; as she is an "expert" in Exile's development, it meets the requirements of WP:SPS. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)13:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. I'm not a big fan of the "it's an interview, it must be reliable" argument, but it's borderline enough to let others decide. As for forum posts, I generally fall in the school of "don't use them" but again, that's me being more picky than the normal editor. Ealdgyth - Talk13:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, leaning oppose from Dabomb87 (talk·contribs). The prose really needs scrutiny by somebody else; if I get the time, I'll be happy to lend a hand.
"A few publications such as Computer Gaming World took issue with the control scheme of the game." "A few" is too vague to be a real help to readers, might as well get rid of it.
"Myst IV: Revelation is an adventure game, with the player experiencing all gameplay from the eyes of an unnamed protagonist." This sentence is unclear, is it implying that all adventure games have the player "experiencing all gameplay from the eyes of an unnamed protagonist", or is this a general feature of the game?
"players travel by clicking to set locations called 'nodes'"—I don't think the "to" is necesssary.
"The mouse cursor plays an important role in providing visual cues for player actions and movement." Couldn't "plays an important role in providing" be shortened to "helps to provide"?
"...the camera and journal save the player the task of copying down notes and clues onto paper as was often needed for previous Myst games." Does not flow well.
"Zip mode, the amulet, the camera, and the journal are constantly available via a menu on the bottom of the game screen."
"Years earlier, his two sons, Sirrus and Achenar, went rampant, destroying various linking books and imprisoning both Atrus and his wife Catherine." I don't understand what "went rampant" means.
Yeah, unfortunately I'm going to be busy today and tomorrow and will only have limited WP time during the weekend, so I don't think I can post comments and/or copyedit the article for some time. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"by clicking set locations called "nodes", which can be viewed 360 degrees in any direction" - maybe it's just me; the 360 degrees bit isn't making sense... can you explain/clarify what that basically means?
"Catherine hopes they have finally repented for their crimes" - who's Catherine?
I think italics should be added to the quote box in the Audio section (for the VG titles).
Support I couldn't find much. I unlinked some years that were linked when the month and day were not; beyond that, this looks pretty good. Erm, I think you should really slow down with the FAs so the rest of us can catch up! :D GaryKing (talk)22:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant no author, but it does have a FUR (bad comma or whatever). As stated previously though, any effort to grab free images would be good (though I currently see nothing missing from the images in place.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)02:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inline citations need to be in numerical order—examples:
"They decided whose last name would appear first in the company name on a coin toss. Hanna-Barbera was key in the development of pioneering animation techniques for television.[8][22][13][30]"
"Barbera's skill was as a gag writer and sketch artist while Hanna's gift was for timing, story construction, and recruiting top artists.[16][23][12][2]"
ordered those refs and others
"In 1937, Hanna met Joseph Barbera while working at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), where they are most noted for producing Tom and Jerry and live action films until 1957; when they co-founded Hanna-Barbera." Who are "they", the Hanna-Barbera tandem or MGM? Either way, change "most noted" to "best known".
Did a ce, is this better?
"In 1967, Hanna-Barbera was sold to Taft Broadcasting for $25 million, with Hanna and Barbera remaining head of the company until 1991." Change "with" to "but" and remaining to remained. At least that's how I would read it.
Fixed.
"He attended Compton High School from 1925 through 1928, where he showed a creative flair he got from his mother, including playing the saxophone in a dance band." Rather POV, don't you think?
reworded
"This interest in music continued throughout his life as he helped write songs for his cartoons.[5] Hanna became an Eagle Scout as a youth and remained active in Scouting throughout his life." It says "throughout his life" in 2 consecutive sentences; change it up.
changed it
"He also lost that job to the Great Depression." Was there a previous job he lost to the Great Depression?
not that I know of, changed
"Hanna and Barbera sat across from each other at that time and they quickly realized they would make a good team." Don't need two back references—delete "they".
cut they, and seems to need to stay. don't see what you're talking about with the refs. can you explain?
"By 1939 their winning 50–year partnership had become permanent." Three things:
MOS problem: en dash needs to be hyphen.
"winning" seems to be another POV word, as well as vague in this context.
What does "become permanent" mean?
reworded
"While the characters in Puss Gets the Boot looked slightly different, they were the model for the Tom and Jerry cartoons." While should be although.
fixed
"Puss Gets the Boot was so successful that MGM let the pair continue developing the cat and mouse theme and their most famous creation; Tom and Jerry was the result; with Tom being a bully and Jerry a thorn in his side." First semicolon should be a comma. The second phrase ("with Tom being a bully and Jerry a thorn in his side") is just weird.
"These Academy Awards are more than any other character-based theatrical animated series and more than any other series with the same characters." Delete the second "more than".
fixed
"The 11th Tom and Jerry short, The Yankee Doodle Mouse (1943)—a war-time adventure—was the first one to win an Academy Award." "one" is unnecessary.
fixed
"Despite all its popularity, Tom and Jerry has often been criticized as excessively violent." "all" is nondescriptive here, get rid of it.
fixed
"Cartoonist Tex Avery, Hanna, and Barbera worked under the animation producer Fred Quimby, who often clashed with his workers." In this context, the word "the" makes the sentence a bit awkward.
fixed
"Tom and Jerry was also ground breaking by being mixed with live action stars such as Gene Kelly in Anchors Aweigh (1945) and Invitation to the Dance (1956), and Esther Williams in Dangerous When Wet (1953)." Needs major rewording and rearranging. Information about the exact episodes is unnecessary in an article about an American animator.
broke apart. but disagree about episodes. I can guarantee if they're cut someone will say they need to be added. open to ce on this.
"Hanna branched out into television, forming the short-lived company Shield Productions to partner with animator Jay Ward," Awkward...try: "Hanna branched out into television, forming the short-lived company Shield Productions with fellow animator Jay Ward,"
fixed
"This fizzled, and in 1957 he reteamed up with his old partner Joseph Barbera, first working from Charlie Chaplin's old studio, with a view to producing cartoon films for television as well as for theatrical release." Issues:
"first working from Charlie Chaplin's old studio"—don't know what this is talking about and you might change the commas to em dashes
"with a view to producing"—too long and wordy, try "to produce"
"as well as for"—shorten to "and"
fixed all
"about a dog and cat that are pals". Add "a show" to the beginning of the phrase.
fixed
"One of the effects of television's lower budgets was the use of more dialog instead of detailed animation." Rewrite: "Because of television's lower budget, the animators focused more on character dialogue instead of detailed animation."
fixed
"Parodying The Honeymooners, its premise of a typical Stone Age family with home appliances, talking animals, and celebrity guests enabled The Flintstones to attract both children and adults." Premise is the not the word we're looking for here, maybe setting?
fixed
"The Flintstones became a phenomenal success and was the first animated prime-time show to become a be a hit."
"Barbera's skill was as a gag writer and sketch artist while Hanna's gift was for timing, story construction, and recruiting top artists." Clear up the writing: "Barbera was a skilled gag writer and sketch artist; Hanna's gift was for timing, story construction, and recruiting top artists."
fixed
"Major business decisions were made together." Put this in the actice voice: "They made major business decisions together."
fixed
"Both shows reappeared in many forms in the 1970s and 1980s."
fixed
"though it has been reported in error that Sgt. Bilko was the basis for Yogi Bear." in error-->wrongly; alternatively, you could use erroneously, but wrongly is shorter and simpler.
fixed
"As popular as their cartoons were with 1960s audiences, they were disliked by artists on artistic grounds." Why else would artists dislike the cartoons?
fixed
"The Hanna-Barbera studio was still going strong with shows such as Scooby-Doo (1969-1986) and The Smurfs (1981-1989)." We need a better phrase than, "still going strong". Also, those hyphens should be en dashes.
fixed
"Hanna was one of the first animators to see the enormous potential of television." see-->realize
fixed
In the sentence listing the awards, there are three dashes used (hyphen, en dash, em dash); em dashes should be used. One of the em dashes that is used is spaced, that shouldn't be so.
fixed
"several environmental awards for various series episodes, and were recipients of numerous other accolades on their way to being inducted into the Television Hall of Fame in 1994." This phrase is filled with vague words; edit them out as you see fit.
fixed
"They had an influential and lasting impact on television animation." "Influential" and "lasting impact" are about the same.
fixed
"In March 2005 the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences and Warner Bros. Animation dedicated a wall sculpture dedication ceremony at the Television Academy's Hall of Fame Plaza in North Hollywood to Hanna and Barbera." How can you dedicate a dedication ceremony? ;)
"Hanna and Barbera both found this no-notice closing puzzling since Tom and Jerry had been so successful." "since"-->because, reduces vagueness.
fixed
"Their cartoons have become cultural icons, with numerous characters appearing in other media such as films, books, and toys, while ." A sentence that got caught up in a copyedit, perhaps?
fixed
The sentence makes sense now, but it needs to be rewritten.
When unlinking, you accidentally removed the italic markup on some of them.
fixed ones I found
"After dropping out of college, Hanna briefly worked" Switch "briefly" and "worked".
fixed
"Their cartoons often make greatest lists, even cultural icons." Unclear.
rm'd ', even cultural icons'
"Hanna was among those first hired away from Harman-Ising for this new MGM animation unit and became a senior director on MGM's Captain and the Kids series during 1938-19." Which year is that?
ah, something else messed up during a copyedit, fixed it
During a copy-edit of the "Film" section, I reworded a sentence to read like this; "After dropping out of college, Hanna worked briefly as a construction engineer; in fact, he helped build the Pantages Theatre in Hollywood." I'm unsure whether that demonstrates encyclopedic tone , but I couldn't leave the original sentence as it was.
ok
Will leave this unstruck in case other concerned editors/reviewers have a problem.
Support by karanacs. The images now look good, and I'm satisfied the article is comprehensive. The newly added pieces bring Hanna a bit more to life. I think the prose is okay, but could still be improved. Karanacs (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Oppose for now by karanacs. I think the article has a good start, but it needs polishing to be an FA. I don't get a good feel from the article of who he was. I think the article takes for granted that people are familiar with his cartoons (and most probably are), but the lack of context for some of the information can read like a bunch of dry facts. I know that Hanna did incredibly interesting and innovative things, but I don't feel like the article gives that impression as much. I also recommend getting a new set of eyes to look at the prose. It doesn't always flow well and information is sometimes repeated in paragraphs or even within a paragraph.[reply]
I think that the Personal life section needs to be reorganized a bit. We seem to jump from Scouting to other things back to Scouting and then on to other things.
I did it chronologically. If you still want it by topic, let me know
I'm not very fond of the organizational technique used here. I am easily distracted, and it distracts me to jump forward and then backward in time. I read about him studying structural engineering (what an odd choice to pair with journalism!) and that he had to drop out. This would roll effortlessly into the first job he got after dropping out, but instead I first jumped to 1936 then to 2001. I suspect you made this choice because there is not a lot of information about his death, but I think it could be worked into the end in a Later years section.
Please elaborate on what you think is better in the personal section. In your preceding stmt you want by topic, here you want chronological. This perplexes me.
Is there any information on Hanna's reaction to being the only boy among all those girls?
added info from book
"He lost that job to the Great Depression. " - this phrasing just seems a bit dramatic to me. Did sources say exactly what the circumstances were of his job less - company went out of business, etc?
don't exactly say, but it was the height of the Depression, so it's not hard to figure out
"While working at a car wash, he met a boyfriend of one of his sisters" - The first time I read this I thought that he met the boyfriend at the car wash, but now I think that was not so. Perhaps a reword?
Can you be more specific or just edit it yourself? It reads fine to me and I can't tell what you want here.
Leon Schlesinger, of Leon Schlesinger Productions, paired Harman and Ising with Warner Bros. - I think I'm missing some context here. I don't quite get what was going on. The next sentence starts with "He", which would mean Schlesinger, and that is likely not intended
fixed
There is some repetition in the second and third paragraphs of the Film section. Both mention the 1937 establishment of the MGM animation division and that Hanna was one of its first members
merged 2nd one into 1st one
I think there is something missing in this sentence - "It was the 11th Tom and Jerry short, The Yankee Doodle Mouse (1943)—a war-time adventure—and first Academy Award win.[3]"
ah, a victim of other copyedits, clarified it
"Avery, Hanna, and Barbera worked under the producer Fred Quimby, who often clashed with his workers." - who is Avery, and is it important the Quimby clashed with his workers? Any notable incidents between him and Hanna?
tweaked Avery, no clash details found, just that Quimby was hard to work with
any information on why the MGM animation division was closed?
TV, added it
any information on why his partnership with Ward fizzled so quickly? That was the same year it was created, right?
none, they all simply say it didn't last long
This is important information: "of the effects of television's lower budgets was the use of more dialog instead of detailed animation" - but it is not fleshed out well. How did this affect Hanna or his work? Were there any difficulties in adjusting to this? - I see that this detail is in the next paragraph. That information needs to be put together.
performed surgery and copyedited
Any information on how large the company was when they first founded it?
Nope
"However, by reducing the number of drawings for a seven-minute cartoon from 14,000 to nearly 2,000, and innovative techniques such as rapid background changes to improve viewing, many people in the industry were put back to work" - first, we haven't been told about people in the industry being out of work, and second, I think it needs to be made more clear why reducing the number of drawings helps people go back to work.
elaborated
Who actually ran Hanna Barbera? Hanna or Barbera? It would be interesting to see exactly what his responsibilities were
elaborated
"ran not only through Hanna and Barbera's close friendship," - the article says that they had a close friendship, but the only evidence it gives is that they formed a company together. Is there any way that this could be fleshed out?
this was a business partnership and friendship, not personal/social. I've clarified and expanded.
There are some ellipses issues in the quotes in the Legacy section, and I think a hyphen instead of an ndash.
'fixed, I think ;-)
It mentions Tex Avery but doesn't explain who he was so that we know that it is a big deal that Hanna is compared with him.
tweaked
I think this still needs a bit more detail. I don't know who Tex Avery is, and it would be nice to have a bit of an explanation here on why he is someone to be compared to so that I don't have to go to another article to find out. Karanacs (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're looking for exactly, but I added a bit about Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck. If that wasn't it, please be more specific.
Personal life mentions that Hanna wrote some music for the cartoons, but this is never elaborated on later. Which cartoons? did he do push the musical boundaries of the cartoons? If so, how?
they only say he helped, not which cartoons specifically, except the Flintstones, so I added that and more refs
""masterpieces of animation" largely because of their music.[24]:34 [25]:133" - I think this needs a bit more explanation. The music makes them better animation examples?
added CLASSICAL music, that what the scholarly ref says
The list of awards is essentially a (long) list without bullet points. Either we need more information about those awards or we might as well break it up into a table.
I asked SandyGeorgia about this. She said to leave it as prose as is.
I see that Barbera also wrote a book. I would think that this might have useful information on Hanna as well.
There is an online copy of Hanna's book, but not of Barbera's. I'll see if I can find a copy
Addendum - I also believe that Image:WilliamHanna.png is not appropriate fair use, as it contains likenesses of copyrighted characters (Fred Flintstone and Yogi Bear). I also don't know if it is really irreplaceable - he died at a time when cameras were everywhere, so there may be someone who has one that would be PD. I recommend asking an image expert like User:Elcobbola. Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least 4 people looked for a free image of Hanna and couldn't find one. One of them was East718, whom most would consider an image expert. It was East718 who uploaded and added that image too. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a copyedit of the television section - please review and make sure I didn't inadvertently misplace sources or change the meaning of what the source said. I think the remainder of the article still needs an independent copyedit, and I'd like to see what is in the Barbera book. Karanacs (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice ce. Looks good. I feel Dabomb has been doing a good job of copyediting. I have a copy of the Barbera book coming from a library. — Rlevse • Talk •
I just did a final copyedit on the other sections, and I'm satisfied with the prose now. Please let me know what type of information you find in the Barbera book when you get it; I'll be willing to support if I am assured that the article is comprehensive. Karanacs (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The objection has not been met though. I agree with Fasach about Image:WilliamHanna.png: we may possibly have a good fair use reason to infringe on somebody's copyright with respect to the photograph. But why also infringe on the copyright of the cartoon elements that have been pasted into the photograph? No good reason I can see. And Image:Bill-hanna-and-joe-barbera.jpg is not used in the context of critical discussion of the specific documentary it's taken from; I cannot see how it adds anything to the understanding of the article that couldn't be conveyed in text (over and above showing the two men's faces, for which we already have other photos; other than that, we don't need an image to understand they won these things and were happy about it); and the "rationale" in invalid as it consists of meaningless boilerplate text, culminating in: "The image's inclusion in the article is important because it is the subject of and/or is discussed in the text" – which, as so often, is simply untrue. Fut.Perf.☼08:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, one image admin finds, uploads, writes the FUR for the image(s) in question and says they're fine and another doesn't. Obviously not a cut and dry area. Hmmm. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More comments from Dabomb87 (talk·contribs) (concerning material added from Barbera autobio):
"The family moved Logan, Utah before moving to San Pedro, California in 1917,[4]:67 but moved several times during the next two years." Repetition of "moving".
fixed
"During 1938–39 he served as a senior director on MGM's Captain and the Kids series, but that did not do well and Hanna was demoted to a story man and the series cancelled." Run-on sentence, too many "and" connectors.
fixed
"Despite the success of Puss Gets the Boot, Fred Quimby, their boss at MGM, did not want to produce more cat and mouse cartoons on the grounds they wanted a diversified cartoon portfolio." Who is "they"?
fixed
"MGM informed Hanna and Barbera's business manager to close the cartoon division and lay off everyone by a phone call." "informed"-->ordered.
fixed
"In 1966, Hanna-Barbera Productions was sold to Taft Broadcasting (re-named Great American Communications in 1987) for $12 million." I assume that this article uses American English. Per WP:HYPHEN, American English tends to join prefixes with words without hyphens: "re-named"-->renamed.
fixed
"Their division of work came naturally and they rarely talked outside of work since Hanna was interested in the outdoors and Barbera liked beaches and good food and drink." What does "their division of work came naturally" mean?
Image:WilliamHanna.png - I generally agree with NFCC#3A concerns. There are at least three copyrights here (Hanna, Yogi and Fred). I think we'd all agree that Hanna's inclusion is supported; the question, then, is one regarding the characters. Hanna-Barbera animation, I think, has a quite distinctive style. A character image in the television section, therefore, may indeed be warranted to assist understanding of notions such as "sacrificed artistic quality" and "flat characters". Ultimately, I think the reader would be best served by a solo image of Hanna and a solo image of a character; this would reduce our copyright usage from 3+ to 2 and make a more significant contribution to our readers' understanding. Otherwise, note that NFCC#10A requires attribution of the copyright holder (I doubt BBC took the image of Hanna and I know they don't hold the character copyrights) and NFCC#10C requires a detailed rationale ("To illustrate the subject" is as far from profound as they come; go further - why is seeing Hanna important?)
Image:Bill-hanna-and-joe-barbera.jpg - I see no support for this image. Its stated purpose is essentially "because it is the subject of and/or is discussed in the text". The subject (Hanna) appears in the other image (NFCC#3A) and the image itself is not discussed. The relationship with Barbera is important, but Barbera's physical appearance is not a significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8). Further, we do not need a non-free image to understand that they had a relationship or that Emmy awards were won (prose could do this - NFCC#1). Эlcobbolatalk01:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially he said that we're dealing with a copyrighted name that enjoys legal protection and that it's also widely used and known with a hyphen. He also said that there is some uncertainty in this area of MOS. So until there is a firm rule on this, I think it's best to leave as is for now. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the sake of accuracy, names are not eligible for copyright protection. "Hanna-Barbera" would no doubt receive legal protection as a trade name or even, to the extent that Warner uses a stylized version to market products, as a trademark. Эlcobbolatalk14:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Image comments - I swear if I see another tropical storm or hurricane at FAC, I'll blow my brains out :P Anyhow, all images public domain (NOAA/NASA, etc.), properly tagged with author, license, and source. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)22:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the Hurricane Gustav link—it led to the current Gustav instead of the 2002 storm of the same name.
"13 named storms, 8 hurricanes, 2.3 of Category 3 or higher"—Am I missing something? "2.3 of Category 3 or higher"?
"The same trough the spawned Tropical Storm Bertha sparked a tropical depression off the coast of South Carolina on August 5." Typo—"the"-->that.
"Ship reported discovered that the wave was accompanied by an area of low pressure." Which word is it, "discovered" or "reported"?
"The system then made an abrupt turn to the west-northwest, and remained steady in strength and course until landfall the next day, near Matagorda." "made an abrupt turn"--> abruptly turned. Just trying to keep the tenses the same in that paragraph.
"The disorganized storm moved westward then northward where it strengthened into Tropical Storm Hanna later that day." Just an opinion, but maybe a comma could be inserted somewhere to give the reader a short respite.
"The cyclone's strength continued to fluctuate, with it alternating between tropical depression and tropical storm several times." Fluctuating and alternating are about the same thing.
"This was due to the fact that many of the storms in the season such as Bertha, Cristobal, Edouard, Fay, Hanna, and Josephine were very short lived, and never reached hurricane status." "due to the fact that"-->because.
Comments:In the lead it says "However, the season was very active during September, and it ties 2007 for the record of the most number of storms forming in September, with eight."
Can you please rewrite this as it is not correct as there were 9 Tropical Storms gaining Tropical Storm Status in September 2007 where as there were only 8 in 2002. However it is the record holder as far as i am aware of the most depressions in September with 9. Jason Rees (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it looks better and you do look to be getting there but there are still some problems
1)as Mentioned above the following predictions do not have a source - NOAA - May 20 & August 8 CSU - May 31 & August 7 September& October 2
2) July 14th is still wikilinked
3) you need a landfall date for the 1st landfall of edouard
4) Can you have a bit of consistency with the spelling out of the months - for some storms you have put Oct down and for others October and Aug for August
That Should be it but i will take another look in the morning Jason Rees (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
5)
2)[reply]
The table does look a lot better but its not all been fixed yet
Gustav has no 1st landfall date
July 14th is still wikilinked
some of the dats are formatted as for example 5 september and others are formatted as september 7 can you be consistant
Also the Seasonal Forecasts is not all referenced as you state as it is still lacking sources for the following forecasts NOAA - May, & August. CSU - May, August, September, October. Jason Rees (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Any reason you link National Hurrican Center in ref 11 but not earlier or elsewhere?
Go ahead and exapnd the abbreviations for NWS and NOAA, at least on the first usage.
Shouldn't USA Today be USA Today? (work field in {{cite web}})
I already made the changes to images that breached accessibility and WP:MOS#Images, but I'm unsure if the colors in those charts conform for those with colorblindness. In general, I'm seeing accessibility issues on many hurricane FACs, so it would be good for y'all to review that guideline page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can have navboxes in the lead section, so what is wrong with accessibility? That link was the most important part of the article before it was taken out, and now it is hard to find among much less relevant articles. Also, it is now on par with List of retired Atlantic hurricane names which has very little to do with this article.Potapych (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a Navbox; the closest I can compare it to is a one-article Seealso in the lead. If the argument is that List of storms in the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season is so essential to the article that an exceptional "See also" type div box had to be created to include it in the lead, then it's unclear why it isn't simply linked in the prose in the lead. It is not currently hard to find, as it's a main link at the top of the "Storms" section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I wish I hadn't looked, Titoxd :-) 2004 Atlantic hurricane season has a lot of issues, and needs cleanup on quite a number of issues. Anyway, since you all are devising a whole new sort of "See also", being used in the lead similar to a navigational template but somewhat different, can you all please hop over to WP:ACCESSIBILITY and inquire whether this works for users who use screen readers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer if the links were added to the big infoboxes? Some of those have multiple daughter articles, so I don't know what it will look like yet.Potapych (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak object, needs a mid-season outlooks subsection, like with 2006 AHS (linked above). I fixed the Gustav landfall issue and the "7 September issue" pointed out by Jason Rees, but the article is missing one or two paragraphs of updated mid-season projections by NOAA and Gray's CSU team. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)19:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something else that is wrong is that Klotzbach was not the principal author of the CSU forecasts in 2002. He took over Gray's job starting in 2006, and the prose seems like a copy-paste of a recent season in which the roles are reversed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)19:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I just ran into the MWR of the season, which may be somewhat useful (particularly the atmospheric conditions during the season), but I strike my object. Support. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)20:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is disjointed. The season dates are given twice, unnecessarily. I don't understand why 3 storms are listed in the first paragraph while 4 others are in the second paragraph; this doesn't seem to be separated categorically by meteorology versus impact. The second paragraph is particularly disjoined, jumping from arthur to gustav with no transition, then to october, back to september, on to november, and then back to september again; there's no chronological or categorical ordering here that I can follow. I tried working on the ordering of this paragraph but I think I may have just made it worse (will take another look later). This is the main problem by far that I have with the article.
Do we need to mention Arthur by name there? Are there any other of the "several storms that affected land" that should be thrown in? — jdorje (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I never liked the ugly storms table that 2005 AHS has at the top of the storms section, I am concerned that there's no handy list of links to all the individual storm articles. The paragraphs in the storms section try to vary up the ordering and thus the link comes at the beginning, middle, or end of different paragraphs; it might be better to have each paragraph consistently give the name and link right at the start despite the monotony. There is a link table at the bottom of the article but I don't think this is enough.
A previous season FAC of mine received a suggestion not to start every paragraph with the storm name and link, so I think it's better to vary the wording. The button bar at the bottom probably does suffice. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone20:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some want consistency, others want variety. But I don't believe the box at the bottom is a sufficient set of links by itself. — jdorje (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a few citations and found all that I checked did have full dates. Also, some of the seasons say "in the xxxx season", while others are just piped to the year. Should be a quick fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Self-nom. I de-stubbed this article back in late 2002 and expanded it again in early August from 1250 words to 2400 words. Since then, other members of WikiProject Elements; Cryptic C62, Stone, Itub, and Nergaal have expanded, cited, organized and copyedited the article to its current state and size (2800 words). Along the way Nergaal nominated this for GAN and we all worked together to get the article there. I'm now very happy with the article and think it is one of the best examples of element articles of its type; Yttrium is between the FAs Francium and Xenon in its scope and amount that can be said about the element. I support this article as a nominator. Is this ready for FA yet? If not, what else is needed or needs to be fixed? mav (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish to co-nominate this article as I feel that it has demonstrated Featured Article criteria. The creators and editors of this article have done their job and more. Wii Wiki (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh :) Mira simply represents the type of red giant star that yttrium is synthesized in. I re-edited the caption to make that clear. According to the image description page for Johan Gadolin.jpg, the author is unknown. --mav (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the author is irrelevant to the copyright status when the work is that old. We don't know exactly who wrote the Bible either, and yet it is in the public domain. ;-) The authors of the book are Johan Gadolin, Edvard Hjelt, and Robert Tigerstedt. (Maybe the first author is a son?) I haven't checked the book myself, but my experience is that these "in memoriam" books often didn't mention the authors of the portraits. --Itub (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found another clue regarding this portrait: [33] Still no info about the author, but apparently Gadolin was 19 at the time (that was around 1779), and "it is likely that this portrait was painted to ease his mother's heartache when her oldest surviving child first left home. There are no other surviving portraits or photographs". --Itub (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Maralia I happened to see your nomination the instant it went up, so I gave it a quick copyedit. You did a good job taking care of piddly MOS issues (especially nonbreaking spaces). There is one thing I fixed at Geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area that you didn't seem to catch here: {{harvnb}} outputs a space in 'p. 1', but your manually typed references were in the format 'p.1'. I fixed that spacing here also, since I was already copyediting. A couple remaining issues:
Ideally, a paragraph should not consist of only a single sentence.
The second half of this sentence doesn't flow from the first half: "The chemical similarity of yttrium with the lanthanoids leads it to being enriched by the same processes and ends up in ores containing rare earth minerals."
Changed the sentence to: The chemical similarity of yttrium with the lanthanoids leads it to being enriched by the same processes and ends up in ores containing lanthanoids, forming rare earth minerals. Better now?
The infobox needs (1) nonbreaking spaces between numerals and units of measure, and (2) commas in large numbers. Seeing as it's all hardcoded (and in a million subtemplates), I'm hesitant to mess with it myself.
Thanks for your edits and suggestions for improvement! I'll make sure to address the first two. As for the third; I agree but that is a larger WikiProject Elements issue that effects all articles. I won't know if this is easily fixable until I dive in (which I'm not looking forward to due to the complexity of the template system used). --mav (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I helped a bit with what I could in terms of fact-checking and copy editing, and I think the article is ready. --Itub (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (CoI - I did the GA review) Improved since GA, even has an image of the TV phosphors. It is my opinion that it meets all the FA criteria, and is actually an interesting read for an element article (: jimfbleak (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support A fascinating, clear & concise article on an element I must admit I knew next to nothing about. I've made a few stylistic changes to the lead section (in particular removing the awkward phrase that is, which occurred twice in the first two sentences). I hope you agree that it now reads more fluently. Good luck. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk17:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency: Every element's infobox displays the stable/naturally occurring isotopes as well as the most stable synthetic ones.
Explanation: Hardly even needed, seeing how easy it is figure out why each isotope was included, but found at WP:ELEMENTS.
Aesthetics: It would be ugly to include all of the isotopes, and uglier still to try to cram an explanation of the selection into the infobox.
Redundancy: The infobox links to isotopes of yttrium, the article links to isotopes of yttrium, and the Isotopes section discusses more than just the isotopes within the infobox.
oppose I dont consider WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS a valid reason for doing something, It should not be the roll of the reader to "figure out" content, encylopedic content is more important that asthetics & I think an article should be able to stand on its own merits Fasach Nua (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in the infobox (or rather, everything in the article) is "selected information". It is called editorial discretion (something we cannot avoid as long as we have human editors), not "POV". The reason for opposition is ridiculous IMHO. --Itub (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand your statment I think an article should be able to stand on its own merits correctly, than no Germanium compounds and Isotopes of germanium articles would be necessary, because everything has to be in the main article. If you please try this trick on the article physics which also does not show the whole picture of physics. To select something out of the Isotopes of germanium article to present it in ther germanium article makes only sense if it is a selection not the whole already existing article. --Stone (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Throughout Wikiproject Elements' 10 FACs, 11 GANs, and 3 FARCs that have been successful (and various unsuccessful ones), no one has ever brought up the infobox's isotope selection as an issue. The point of FAC is to determine if there is consensus in the community that an article meets the FA standards. There is already an overwhelming consensus, which extends far beyond the WP:ELEMENTS crowd, that what you are discussing is a non-issue. Furthermore, as is also true with synopsis lengths (see Candide's FAC), the selected isotopes could be cause for edit warring and debate if inexperienced editors try to change it without thinking. But that doesn't happen, because after years of trial and error, we have already established what we believe is the best possible way to present this sort of information, a process which does not extend to include this pointless discussion. Fasach, as with anyone and everyone, you are more than welcome to critique any and all of our work so long as the ultimate goal is to make it better. However, the time has come to save some face, stop citing irrelevant policy pages instead of making real arguments, drop this non-issue, and move on to more legitimate concerns. --CrypticC62 · Talk13:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Fasach Nua: I think the problem is that the name and original intent of that part of the table was to list the 'Most stable isotopes'. And that is exactly what the mini-list is doing. I never much liked the change of title for that part of the table. Would a title change make this clear? --mav (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A list of most stable isotopes would be fine, a list of most abundent isotopes would be fine, a list of naturally occuring isotopes would be fine, a list of most unstable isotopes would be fine, but a list of "selected" isotopes screams POV Fasach Nua (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image concern about Mira fixed per above. The other image concern was already addressed by Stone (PD status is assured given age and description page says the author is unknown per the scan source). We have been using EnvironmentalChemistry.com as a reference for years now. It has proved to be a good source for isotope data in the body of element articles. But I'll see if the standard reference used for the selected isotopes section in the table and "Isotopes of..." articles can be used instead. However, that reference is not accessible on-line; meaning verifiability will be harder. --mav (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since Ealdgyth is tied up with a hurricane, I'll respond. Having post-graduate degrees doesn't indicate compliance with our policies at WP:V or WP:SPS; please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for tips on how to respond to sourcing queries. I'm not certain it would qualify as a reliable source; that could better be sorted by posting to WP:RSN. On the other hand, it's not sourcing paricularly controversial material (couldn't that easily be sourced anywhere?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Environmentalchemistry.com, like webelements.com, is a very good periodic table website. However, I don't think we should cite such websites as sources when all the information contained there can be sourced more directly from textbooks or from the scientific literature. In this case the information is about isotopes, so it should be possible to use nubase instead like Stone suggested. --Itub06:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eureka! I found two very good sources that should completely replace EnvironmentalChemistry.com: NuDat, published by the National Nuclear Data Center of Brookhaven National Laboratory (half life and decay mode) and the less pretty but no less useful Exploring the Table of Isotopes (metastable info) published by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. I'll confirm the info in the article and switch over the sources as needed. Note to self: WikiProject Elements needs to create a central repository of trusted sources with commentary on what they can and can't be used for. -- mav (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with a couple of comments: on checking the sources I saw that the DOI for ref. 42 is inactive, but I found the abstract here [34] and could ref 30, (Encyclopaedia Britannica) have more detail? Thanks for an engaging article. Graham ColmTalk12:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow. This is such a superior introduction to the subject over anything I've seen in a textbook. Quick comments on "the 6th roots of unity": Per WP:MOSNUM#Typography, and not contradicted in WP:MSM, don't superscript the "th". (That is: if you want to superscript the th, then please argue that at WP:MOSNUM or WP:MSM, but personally, I agree with the guideline.) Most readers will have no idea how to pronounce ζ or what it is; write out "zeta" and tell them that it's just a variable often used for roots. I think it would also be a good idea to explain that "the 6th roots of unity" are the 6 complex numbers that give 1 when raised to the 6th power. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Superscript OK. I have also changed zeta to z, and also omega to z, too. So this is now coherent and easier to read (the explanation of the group is just given in the text). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think, it should be OK for both people knowing about roots of unity and those who don't to use z instead of zeta. For the other issue, this is proba. your cache. I had changed the image accordingly. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was my cache — it went away after a forced reload. As for z vs zeta, I tend to agree with you that readability for non-mathematicians trumps pedantic adherence to minor stylistic conventions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
References with links to JSTOR/etc articles need to note that a subscription may be required.
I've seen many subscription-only links to references on articles here, and never seen such a note. Where does this supposed requirement come from? In regards to WP:V please note that most such references may be checked by anyone by walking into a public university library, or by asking someone in Category:Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR (including myself) for a copy. On the other hand, your point below about language is well taken. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "requirement" (unless it's in the MOS somewhere, which it could be for all I know) but it is common courtesy, same as the language part below. Most folks when they see a link, assume that they can freely access it. It's along with the requirement to note that registration is required for some other sites, or that you show when a link is to a .doc or .pdf file. If you're adamantly opposed to saying "JSTOR subscription required" or similar notation, you can remove the links or you can leave it alone for someone else to note that they think you should do it. I certainly won't oppose based on it LACKING that information. I'm kinda puzzled by the fact that you're opposed to putting it in though, it's just not that big a deal to me. Ealdgyth - Talk17:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong opinion on this, but mentioning it every time seems a bit over-explicit to me. AFAIK the JSTOR articles cited are research papers, which will be mainly interesting to scholars, who will usually know that JSTOR requires a subscription (which many universities have, btw). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Maybe I wasn't quite clear. I was only referring to it being mentioned in the "References" section with the full journal article listing once. Not in the notes section each time the article is referred to. But that's an editorial choice, so I'll mark it resolved on my end. It is, however, the usual practice for FAs, which is why I brought it up. Ealdgyth - Talk19:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason "fee required" or "subscription required" is entered as a courtesy on subscription sources is this. Although you're citing the actual journal article, you're providing a websource that those who have access to a subscription can view. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hard time taking WP:EL seriously in this context: a strict reading would seem to indicate that we should just omit all links to commercially published journal articles, leaving only the unlinked textual reference to them, but this would make verifying the content much more difficult and WP:V as a policy takes precedence over any guideline. Regardless of that, what is the proper way of formatting these within a reference? The obvious method would be to use {{JSTOR stable URL}} in the id= field, in place of the link to the jstor site in the url= field, but that doesn't work for new-style JSTOR urls such as http://www.jstor.org/stable/2690312 (the proper replacement for the older url listed for Kleiner's “The Evolution of Group Theory: A Brief Survey.”) And anyway that still wouldn't do anything about including the warning notice “DANGER: LINK GOES TO A SITE THAT IS NOT FREELY AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE” written in large bold letters at the start of each citation. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While "fee required" has the benefit of being short, it is also inaccurate; those of us coming from site-licensed IP addresses do not need to pay individual fees to access each paper. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then use "subscription required". Or don't use it, I was merely pointing out that it is usual to note that not all people will have access to the online version of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk18:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References in a non-English Language should probably note that.(I'm assuming that journal articles with French or German titles are written in those languages...)
Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. (I'm scared that I have some of these books on my shelves. No, I did not buy them myself, they are my father's and my husband's books.. but still...) Ealdgyth - Talk14:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems very strange to me too. The references being cited are the printed journal articles; JSTOR links are convenience links for those who can use them - it is preferable to have a link which some readers can use than no links at all. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson03:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in: Per WP:MSM, quote, Article authors should avoid referring to "we". This was last discussed at WT:MOS in February, I believe. AFAIK, the mathematicians on Wikipedia are generally happy with this guideline. On the general principle, whenever experts tend to use a kind of language that isn't generally recommended on Wikipedia, the compromise tends to be to use more generally accessible language in the more generally accessible articles. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I think. I found two instances of "we", in First example: the integers and Uniqueness of identity element and inverses, and fixed both cases. Are there any more first-person pronouns ? Gandalf61 (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Thus they have applications in numerous areas, both within and outside mathematics." "Numerous" is vague. "Both" is unnecessary, unless you're putting stress on that idea.
I'm not a native speaker, so I may get things wrong. However, the word "numerous" and its vagueness reflects the fact that applications of group theory can not be counted (first, because they are many, second because it is difficult to sharply tell whether something is an application or not). Also "both" is intended, in order to emphasize the generality of the concept. This is further explained in the following two paragraphs of the lead. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The abstract symbol '•' is to be understood as a general placeholder for a concretely given operation." "to be" is not necessary here.
Comment while I think the article is really good, it could really help having references in each of the introductory sections paragraphs. For example the definition, the first paragraph after the intro has no ref (although it is a definition...) Nergaal (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to introduction/overview paragraphs in every section? In that, I did not sometimes did not put a ref at these paragraphs for this is just a summary of the section content, which is ref'd at the places where the stuff is explained in greater detail. If I understand you right, putting a ref there would just be repeating the same refs that show up a little bit later (which is, IMO, not necessary). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is the audience for this article? Are non-mathy people like myself, people who have not taken calculus since high school, supposed to be able to understand it? If so, I would be happy to perform my "what does the layperson get out of this article" test on it. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The audience is supposed to be mixed ;) "Definitions and illustration" should be, I hope, accessible to a mature high-school kid (this subject is in the first place pretty much unrelated to calculus, though). Laymans are also supposed to get the right feeling of everything w.r.t. "history" and "examples and applications" (there are some technical words, which have to be either swallowed, or looked up in sub-pages, or also in the rest of the text, though, but the essence should come through). "Simple consequences..." should be fine, too, but may not be too interesting for the layman, "basic concepts" probably requires stronger interest/prior knowledge or an exposition in greater detail (which is impossible due to total length restrictions, but the subpages would be a good place for this). What does your test tell? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) I would leave "technical" out from the second sentence in the lead - these conditions are or course critical for the concept.
2) I find the two expanded examples (Z,+) and D4 to stretch the limits of encyclopedic style. Detailed worked-out examples come close to being at odds with WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. More specifically, the verbal explanation following a+(b+c)=(a+b)+c etc. is likely to be unnecessary for anyone reading the article (taught by 3rd grade?).
Butting in again: I am generally happy to let the editors make the call on length of proofs, which worked-out examples will help, etc., but I sometimes ask that they move those proofs or examples to wikibooks. If desired, the relevant section on wikibooks can be linked directly to and from the relevant section of the article, to make it easier to get back and forth. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3) In Definition, it could make sense to spell out that a binary operation is just a function mapping an ordered pair (x,y) of elements of G to an element of G. Can keep the wikilink, of course.
4) In the history section the last paragraph would be better if it did not list a few selected (if important) developments, but conveyed the general importance of groups within mathematics as well as its liveliness as an autonomous subject in maths.
5) The history section should elaborate on the emergence of the concept of group as independent of its constituent elements, a development that took place in late 19th century. The abstraction of a "group" from a transformation group is in a sense the essence of group theory and its applications.
6) The section "Simple consequences of the group axioms" seems incoherent. The first paragraphs and subsections match the section title (while including proof of the uniqueness of identity may be overkill, could be just stated to be a consequence), while the two last subsection are not really connected.
7) "Elementary group theory" is presented as if a clearly demarcated discipline. However, as I have seen it used is prgamatically to denote what ever early lecture courses or first chapters in textbooks cover.
8) Basic concepts:
It would make sense to introduce homomorphisms earlier, right before or after subgroups. Needed to talk about isomorphic groups, make more sense of quotient groups,...
Should include kernel of a homomorphism (painful to leave cokernel out, but that could be done if space is an issue)
Quotient groups would be more understandable (at least more motivated!) if introduced by the way of equivalence relations compatible with group law. One could explain that often there is a reason to "identify" or "consider the same" a number of elements in a group. Then being able to unambiguously define ("descend") the group operation to equivalence classes dictates that the equivalence class of e is a (normal) subgroup and the rest follows nicely. Currently the definition of cosets is unmotivated, as is the desire to define group operations for them.
With homomorphisms defined, the universal property of quotients would make them even more natural
Semidirect products jump out from the more elementary topics, and are indeed not described in similar detail -> consider cutting out
9) Examples introduces (Z,+) again. No need to have same example twice (three times, as it is also in the lead)
10) Discussion of the multiplicative groups of (finite) prime fields should make it clearer up front that (i) non-zero integers modulo a prime are considered with (ii) multiplication as the operation. Now risk of confusion with the additive group Z/(p).
11) Topological groups should be mentioned if Lie groups and algebraic groups are.
12) Galois groups section should make it clear that what is defined is the Galois group of a polynomial. Should elaborate to include the Galois group of a Galois extension.Stca74 (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General reply to Stca74: thanks for your comments. The very first sentence states
"This article covers only some of the basic notions related to groups. Further ways of studying groups are treated in Group theory."
Your ideas seem partly to be oriented to a more trained audience. As explained to Awadewit above, we tried to keep things as down-to-earth as possible, obviously without getting to blah-blah. While loving to talk about more sophisticated stuff such as universal properties, I do think it important to keep this current orientation. With a total limit in mind, we have to - sadly or not - exclude many topics which would be nice. You will have noticed that there is another article, group theory which is both deeper and more conceptual in scope. That said, I disagree with you in a number of points, but am surely willing to find a good consensus.
I numbered your points for easier reference.
I did notice the first sentence and do appreciate the intention of keeping this article down to earth in style. In fact, my comments were made essentially from that viewpoint. As an example, if the target audience is supposed to need the amount of guidance given in the explicit examples, then motivating concepts such as quotient groups should also be critical (8 above), and this calls for a quick (and not too technical) discussion of equivalence relations. The universal property of a quotient group, when expressed directly and without general concepts should only help to make quotients motivated and accessible, in my view at least. Stca74 (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2) Interestingly, I see the "illustration" section as the one which is actually the key step helping to understand an interested layman in understanding the topic. You are right, that the writing style there could be found in a textbook, but reducing down the slowliness there would create a less understandable article in favor of a quick treatment, which is IMO not the intention encyclopedias goal. The meaning of a+(b+c)=(a+b)+c may be clear to most readers, but was explained in order to stress the common properties of Z and D4 and any group in general. I would not like to suppress this. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3) The need of ordered pairs is spelled out pretty clearly (?) in the definitions section ("The order in which the group operation is carried out can be significant. In other words, the result of combining element a with element b need not yield the same result as combining element b with element a; the equation a • b = b • a may not always be true.") Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the importance of order comes through in the text already. My point was rather to avoid leaving something as easy to explain in a few words as binary operation behind a wikilink.Stca74 (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I very much like the rewrite. Having just tried very hard to write a summary of the history of groups, I can say Jakob has succeeded in condensing a very rich history into short, but interesting prose giving a feel for some of the important, people, topics, and movements of group theory. I think there is much more continuity now (not just straight to Gorenstein from von Dyck), so that the claim that group theory is currently active is much easier to believe. Actually, previous to Jakob's nice work, it might even have only said Gorenstein's legacy was still active, not group theory in general! At any rate, very nice work. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5) I'm not sure I completely understand what you mean by "its constituents". Please re-explain to me. But, the 19th century period is covered to some extent, right? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6) Yeah, I'm not exactly happy with this either. On the other hand, I don't really know how to do better? A separate section for the two last subsections? What do you think? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made them full sections. I'm not sure this order: Definition, History, Elementary theorems, Variant definitions, Notation makes sense. All of them should come before homomorphisms; but should they be permuted among themselves? (I see how the present order came about: start with the definition and widen out in all directions; but does it work?) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson16:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's best. To be honest, I think giving a full section to "Notations" (as short as it is) is putting it too high in the TOC-hierarchy. The simplest solution to this problem would perhaps be completely removing the Notations section. What do you think? It's a bit odd, this one. As for Variants, this could be the very last (true content) section. Another option is to put the first paragraph of this section to "Simple consequences" and merge the second one to the Applications section. I guess I will do this if nobody opposes. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8) Good point. Homomorphisms are now right at the start. Hopefully better explanation for cosets and quotients. Universal properties mentioned. (Semi)direct products scrapped (I had thought about this earlier, too, but was hesitating. But a thorough explanation of the basics is more crucial). Kernels : hm. That would be a bit of a dead end now. In light of "summary style" I'd like to refer to group homomorphism. OK? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly improved. To further motivate quotient groups, I would expand still further on how the concepts of quotient group, normal subgroup and cosets follow from the compatibility of an equivalence relation with the group law: that the equivalence class of x*y is insensitive to which representatives x and y for their equivalence classes one picks should be the most natural thing to ask. That would also motivate why one often wants to consider two elements the same if they differ by an element in a fixed subgroup, as it is now stated. I would also consider switching the order of cosets and quotients.
As for kernels, I think they would be a very good source of simple yet non-trivial examples of subgroups. Moreover, the isomorphism of G/ker(f) with im(f) would be a good way to produce a non-trivial example of isomorphism between groups, to add some feeling for the types of results one can have with groups. I would not include a proof, just statement. Stca74 (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I perfectly understand your idea to explain and motivate every single bit of the realm we created. However, and this is a serious problem, we must not indulge ourselves in going to far. I hope to have your agreement that we have to stick to the most essential points. I asked myself: would the addition of kernels and first isomorphism theorem be something which fundamentally exceeds the current article or adds to the general understanding. I think not. The "basic notions" section is to give a general feeling of these notions, much as the "simple consequences" should give a feeling how the most elementary steps are done. The points you are calling for should be, I believe, explained in glossary of group theory. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see this as an article-level consistency question - yes, not possible to carefully motivate everything in a long article, but now there is quite some discrepancy between how much time is spent on illustrating the axioms and how some important further concepts are introduced. See below for further comments. Stca74 (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9) Hm. The idea is to get a "quadrangle" of (Z, +), (Z, ·), (Q, +) and (Q\{0}, ·). In view of this, i.e. to (more or less explicitly) point to rings, I think briefly mentioning (Z, +) does help, and does not hurt. Also, it is to underline that a given set may (or may not) allow several group operations, a thing which I assume not to be evident from the start. Does that make sense? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, but then could be written to discuss the above more explicitly ("The following examples show that...") Stca74 (talk)
That, and algebraic groups are also mentioned in History and Representation Theory. Rather than removing the references, I think topological groups should be mentioned - after all, they are much simpler conceptually than Lie groups.Stca74 (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are simpler, but AFAIK they don't have that widespread use as Lie groups. What particular application/theorem etc. do you have in mind?
I grant you're obviously not asking for the trivial remarks that all Lie groups and all topological vector spaces are topological groups. To start off the long list where just the topological group structure is in the play: Haar measure on locally compact groups, all of (abstract) Harmonic analysis, idèle groups, Galois groups of (infinite) Galois extensions, fundamental groups in algebraic geometry, etc. Stca74 (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I (more or less know and) like your points, I feel that there is less of a general common basis to these concepts than to with Lie groups. I tried to come up with something ("Group representations are an organizing principle in the theory of finite groups, Lie groups, algebraic groups and topological groups, especially (locally) compact groups. Via Haar measures and harmonic analysis, the latter present another case where the entanglement of a group with an additional structure, allows considerably deeper insights than the two notions considered separately.). Perhaps this does the job? I think we can't afford an additional section for topological groups (and this would, I believe, also overemphasize the topic). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Topological groups don't need a detailed discussion, but a rough definition would probably be good. "A group combined with an apropriate topology is called a topological group." should be enough. You may want to define "appropriate" a little more, but I think people can read the article if they care (we shouldn't assume an understanding of topology in an article on groups, so it's pretty meaningless to start talking about continuity of operations). --Tango (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12) Is "Abstract properties of Galois groups [...] associated to polynomials" not explicit enough? For G.gps of Galois extensions: I think we don't have the space here (would have to tell about field extensions, field homomorphisms). The case presented is the key case, right? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is with the first sentence: "Galois groups are groups of substitutions of the solutions of polynomial equations." It looks conspicuously like the definition of Galois groups, for which it is inappropriate. I do not think mentioning fields here would be an issue for anyone who has read the article this far - we've already talked in passing about differentiable manifolds, fundamental groups, error-correcting codes (as we should). Stca74 (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed most (all?) of the WP:access violations. There still remain some MOS issues with some images on the page, but (obvious) resolutions of those lead to other MOS issues, so I'm still contemplating how to fix those. (The main issues are the left floated images at the start of the "notations", "examples" and "Lie groups" (sub)sections, which when floated right can lead to unwanted stacking behaviour for wide screen layouts.) (TimothyRias (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Conditional Support. So far nobody seems prepared to commit themselves on this one. I've spent the best part of this morning thinking about this. It is certainly an excellent article; but there is an issue with regard to accessibility. I've looked at the 14 or so mathematics FA, (eight of which are biographies) and only 0.999... and 1-2+3-4+... are comparable, (the second one has been on the Main Page). And although it would be difficult to make these FAs and this candidate as engaging to the lay reader as Infinite monkey theorem, more of a effort should be made. My condition is a re-write of the Lead—since this is what will appear on the Main Page should it get there. In the current Lead the links do not help the lay reader, please try to introduce the subject in plain English where possible. I would start with the history paragraph, then give the subject some context in the real world and save the more esoteric definitions for the end. Graham ColmTalk11:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I tried to address your concern in my recent edit. I did not start with history, basically because I think the historical first steps are, while important, pretty far from what groups are (now). Also, it is nicer to have the historical thread in the last paragraph. However, the first paragraph should be more accessible now. Also it emphasizes the importance of groups at an earlier stage (criticized by Awadewit below). OK now? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments First off, for the layperson unused to reading about mathematics and unfamiliar with groups, this article is long. I grew exhausted and had to give up before the end. I got to "Cosets" and then the article became too complicated. I skipped to "Examples and applications", but I sort of lost steam after "Rationals", so I didn't read any further. If anything after that point is really important, you might consider moving it earlier in the article.
Thanks to you and your roommate. It is true that the article too long/dense for easy reading. It may be comforting to know that the content of the "Basic concepts" section takes weeks to teach in undergrad, let alone the more advanced concepts. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Groups underlie many other algebraic objects such as rings and modules; they are a central organizing principle of algebra and contemporary mathematics - This statement seems like it should be near the beginning of the lead - when I got to the end of the lead, I was like "oh, that's how important groups are!"
For every integer a, there is another integer b = −a such that a + b = b + a = 0. −a is called the inverse element of the integer a. - I found this notation confusing. My roommate (who is much more mathy than I) came up with two alternatives that made more sense to me:
For every integer a, there is another integer b, such that a+b=b+a=0. b is called the inverse element of the integer a, which we denote -a.
For every integer a, there is another integer -a, such that a+ -a=-a+a=0. -a is called the inverse element of the integer a. (I like this one the best.)
I adjusted this. I chose (a variant of) your first suggestion as it better reflects the way one would check the axioms for a more difficult case. (It makes it clear to the readers that -a is used as a notation for the inverse, which in this case coincides with minus the number in the familiar sense.) (TimothyRias (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The associativity constraint is the natural axiom to impose in order to make composing more than two symmetries well-behaved - "well-behaved" sounds strange to a lay person
given three elements a, b and c of G, there are two possible ways of computing "a after b after c". - G needs to be defined - this is the first time it is mentioned in the article.
The "Worked example" was much harder for me to grasp than the integer example. I had to get out a book and rotate it to really understand everything. :) I was wondering if putting the definition between the integer example and the worked example would help. It would have helped me.
Aha. How would it have helped? (We had the definition at the very beginning at some point, now it is at the very end. We haven't tried the middle so far...)Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I kept looking down at the definition while I was trying to understand the "Worked example". For me, the integer example was more intuitive. I would like to be able to suggest putting the definition first, but several years of teaching has suggested to me that concrete examples are often the easiest way to explain a new concept (sadly, not the most accurate). However, the second example started to confuse me a little and I got bogged down in the details of the example. But that is just one reader's reaction. I am not "everybody". :) Take what you will from that. Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of a group is an abstract formulation incorporating the essential features common to the integers and the above symmetry group - This reads as if the integers and the D4 group are somehow essential to the definition of "group"
The integers and the symmetries of the square are just two out of many entities having essential features in common - Why do we even need to mention the integers and the symmetries of the square in this section? Why not just begin with the definition? I found this beginning confusing. I kept thinking that I was missing something - that perhaps integers and symmetries were essential to groups in a way that I had not grasped. Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. One the one hand, these examples are in a sense crucial, but the aim is not at all to tell this, rather to tell that these are two examples of something which one encounters pretty often in maths, so there is a general definition comprising many things (including these two). My next take: "The integers and symmetries of the square are just two of numerous mathematical objects having essential structural aspects in common. The ubiquity of similar entities calls for a general definition which opens up the way to understanding these items disregarding the concrete provenience of the object in question. A group(G, •) is a set ..." What about that? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about something a little less wordy: "Integers and symmetries of the square are just two of many mathematical objects that share the same structural aspects, demanding a general definition for the class. A group..." Awadewit (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Birth and death dates of mathematicians are not consistent in the "History" section - either include them or don't.
To prove the uniqueness of an inverse element of a, suppose that a has two inverses, denoted l (left inverse) and r (right inverse). Then l = l • e = l • (a • r) = (l • a) • r = e • r = r, so l and r must be equal. - If this proves there is only one inverse, I can't see it. Also, it was quite difficult for me to figure out how this proved uniqueness. Perhaps some more explanation? I feel like the reader is doing a lot of work here.
The thing is, I really have trouble looking at the equation and figuring out what it is saying. I rarely look at equations. :) Without some accompanying words to explain it, I just kind of sit here, scrolling back and forth, trying to remember what every part of the equation means and how they fit together. I don't how much this section matters for non-mathy people, but I can't just jump into it, apparently. I'm really sorry. I feel really silly right now. Awadewit (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't feel sorry, the incapacity is at my side. Have another look, I added an explanation of every single step in the chain of equalities, so no need to scroll hither and thither. Better now? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the equation were presented like this:
l
=
l • e
e is the identity element.
=
l • (a • r)
r is an inverse of a so e = a • r.
=
(l • a) • r
Use associativity to rearrange the parentheses.
=
e • r
l is an inverse of a so l • a = e.
=
r
e is the identity element.
would that make it easier to understand? (Of course coupled with the explanation in the text that this shows that l = r i.e. they are the same element.) (TimothyRias (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Similarly, if the equation n • m = e holds (or m • n = e), that suffices to conclude that n is the inverse element of m - At this point, I felt like the article slipped into textbook writing rather than encyclopedic writing. What are n and m? How does this prove the uniqueness of the identity element?
These basic concepts form the standard introduction to groups (see, for example, the books of Lang (2002, 2005) and Herstein (1996, 1975)). - Perhaps make the parenthetical a footnote?
The group operation on this set (sometimes called coset multiplication, or coset addition) behaves in the most natural way possible - Behaves in a natural way? This language is confusing to non-mathy people.
Overall, I thought the article was accessible, but somewhat difficult; I definitely understood the major ideas (my roommate made me explain them back to him), but not the more advanced concepts (to be expected). I sat for awhile and read it, digesting it and rereading it. I did not understand everything the first time I read it, but I think most of the ideas are clearly stated both abstractly and with examples. I believe most readers unfamiliar with groups will struggle a bit, but that is the nature of highly abstract subjects. Nice work. I will read the rest of the article over the next few days. Awadewit (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with final comments - I've read the rest of the article now and with some minor prose adjustments I am happy to say that I think it is a good introduction to the topic. I learned! I am so happy! Since I am a newbie to this topic, I cannot speak to the comprehensiveness of the article. I did note the Springer-Verlag textbooks, though. They look very reliable. :) Might I also add how eye-catching the Rubik's Cube image is at the top of the article? When I clicked on the article, I said to myself "Cool! A Rubik's Cube! I'm going to read this article!" Very effective. (Am I lame or what?) Awadewit (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not understand the "Nonzero integers modulo a prime" section but this is my fault because I didn't take the time to understand modular arithmetic.
I understood paragraphs 1,2 but not really paragraphs 3 and 4 of "Finite groups" but I think this is ok. The other material seemed a bit too advanced.
So, when people say "nontrivial" on Wikipedia, are they referring to Trivial group? Wow. Cool.
Yes, somehow. In maths, the "trivial" blahblah is often something which is zero, either as a function or in general an object which contains just zero (such as the trivial group). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The monstrous moonshine conjectures, proven by 1998 Fields Medal winner Richard Borcherds, provide a surprising and deep connection between the largest finite simple sporadic group, called the monster group, and modular functions and string theory. - Not that I would understand the connection if it were explained, but it is worth pointing out that said connection is not mentioned. :)
This remark is formalized and exploited using the notion of group actions, which means that every group element performs some operation on another mathematical object, in a way compatible to the group structure. - wordy
This way, the group leaves its footprints on the mathematical object. - Poetry or something I am missing? It is odd to suddenly have this evocative image in the middle of an article largely written without such language.
In the example below, a group element of order 7 acts on the tiling by permuting the highlighted warped triangles (and the other ones, too). - It is not really clear what "example" is being referred to.
Not only are groups useful to get hold of symmetries of molecules, but surprisingly they sometimes also predict that molecules will not be perfectly symmetric, as in the Jahn-Teller effect, the name given to the distortion of molecule of high symmetry when it adopts a particular ground state of lower symmetry from a set of possible ground states that are related to each other by the symmetry operations of the molecule - sentence is too long Awadewit (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit more history seems in order; we are left with the impression that nothing much happened between the formalization of group theory and Gorenstein. Perhaps as little as "Sophus Lie expanded the subject to continuous [or "differentiable"] groups"; no need to be technical about Lie groups there. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson16:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also replied above. I think your comment was very accurate, and I think Jakob has worked a miracle addressing it. The new text gives a much smoother path from von Dyck to Gorenstein. Of course, adding Lie's name to the list including Weyl and Cartan might not hurt, but any summary confined to just a few paragraphs will have to omit virtually all of the giants. He is at least mentioned earlier in the section, so perhaps in a section under such space-constraints, mentioning him twice would be too much! JackSchmidt (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I found this article was a very good introduction; most of the concepts were explained clearly. Just a few comments:
"a few conditions" in the lead: Why not enumerate them? There are only two, after all.
"mathematical origin" in the lead - I'm unsure if this should be "mathematical origins".
Why is "Variants of the definition" a separate level-one header? Shouldn't it be under "Definition"?
"Galois' ideas were first rejected by his contemporaries, and published only posthumously." - why "first"?
"group of n-th complex roots of unity" - I'm fairly sure that a certain article is needed there. I'm also unsure why "complex" is necessary, but that part's your call.
Plenty of passive voice in the "history" section which makes it a bit difficult to read.
Thanks for the comments. Let me reply point by point:
Well the actual number of conditions can be debated. The whole old 3 or 4 axioms debate. The actual number itself is not important so saying "a few" in the lead seems accurate.
Good question. The short answer is because of some recent edits due to some other FAC comments (see above somewhere.) I think we could get away with moving it to the definition section. (although the abstractness of this sub section may deter some readers) I'll let Jakob decide.
I have now split the "Variants" into "Generalizations" (top-level), and merged the rest into a footnote (concerning mentioning or not the closure axiom) and a paragraph in the "Simple consequences of the axioms" section. That seems to be more natural. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "first" because it was the same contemporaries that later published his results. (Galois died very young).
Yes you might argue that root of unity already in some sense implies complex, but there are plenty of readers that would not know this so I see vey little harm in it being there.
Ah, okay. Two were unambiguously identified in the lead before, though I note that's been changed.
It's been changed.
It's been moved down and renamed "generalizations"; I won't argue, though I still disagree with that placement.
Yes, but something like "...was first rejected bu his contemporaries, then..." would make more sense in that context. Right now, there's no identified "second" to go with the first. (A rather bad explanation; sorry)
Arb break (temporary break added by SG on request)
Further comments
After a fresh complete reading of the article, I have the following comments to make. The article has improved during the FAC process, but I think there is still work to do.
Structural concerns:
I still do think that the space taken by very detailed examples early in the article is not fitting to an encyclopaedia being a reference work. On the other hand, examples are important in introducing an abstract topic, so much should be retained. But in any case, I think the actual definition should appear before the detailed examples - now the reader must work through a significant amount of text and pictures before getting to the definition, which in turn is (at least as far as maths go) very simple. If some preparatory material should go before the definition, it should be there to motivate the definition, explaining that "operations" each having and "inverse operation" occur in many situations and that it has turned out to be useful to abstract the [following] definition to work with the common features of such situations. Readers should also be better able to focus when studying the examples if they knew what features to look for.
OK, I have put the definition in the middle (as suggested by Awadewit above), so that the reader should be able to see at the same time the Z example and the def. I also trimmed down the explanations a little bit. I think calling the definition "very simple" is not appropriate for part of the readership we are aiming for. Citing Awadewit above: "I rarely look at equations." Such readers will even more rarely come across abstract symbols. So, if we want the lay reader to understand anything at all, we have to be lengthy on the illustrations. I propose not to stick too much to the WP:not a textbook dogma at this point.Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simple consequences of the group axioms is a bit of an orphan after some recent restructuring. The few claims made could well be moved (in a condensed form - no need for proofs here) to the end of the Definition subsection as remarks.
My idea of the article (and the topic itself) is roughly this: the definition is the starting point. Next level is fooling around with the symbols we just created, e.g. show that there is only one inverse. (Having the proof here is not because it is a terribly important proof, but to give the flavor of what the topic is about. Again, by the above responses, things like that are far from trivial; and could not be written down ad hoc by a newcomer). The third level is basic structural concepts like homomorphisms etc. The fourth level (has to be dealt with more detailed in group theory) is using "external" ideas such as representations, geometric actions etc. to understand groups. To structure this "ascending path" of complexity (steps 1-3) in etapes, I prefer having a separate section for "Simple consequences". Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abelian groups and cyclic groups are in an odd place in Basic concepts: the definition of abelian groups fits arguably best in the Definition section. On the other hand, any results on Abelian groups + main article template, as well as the subsection on cyclic groups, belong more naturally in the same section with Finite groups etc.
OK. Abelianness was indeed defined several times. I moved this section to Examples, prioritizing cyclic (the only "fact" we had about abelian groups was the fundamental theorem on f.g. gps). This is now also in succession of F_p^x, a cyclic group, so the flow is better. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Examples and applications lacks clear structure and flow of presentation. Galois groups and fundamental groups (now only in passim) as well as symmetry groups do indeed qualify as examples in addition to the (currently overemphasised, in my view) groups of various types of numbers. However, finite groups are more a subclass of groups, while Lie groups are rather groups with additional structure. I would propose the following:
Split Finite groups into an own higher level section - the topic is clearly important enough.
Condense the first examples, and consider adding one or two examples from other parts of mathematics than algebra (e.g., fundamental groups expanded into a subsection)
Create a new section for "Groups with additional structure". After introducing the point that it is often natural to endow a group with additional structure (the additional structure sometimes being the "more immediate" one), I would introduce, following WP:SUMMARY, the three subsections below:
Topological groups: natural to make the point that introducing distance between points makes sense, and that there is a slightly more general concept of topology, and that if either is present, it makes sense to require that the groups operations are continuous.
Lie groups: could be moved from the present article
Group objects in a category. More "advanced", granted, but the natural place to have the main article reference to group objects is rather Group than Group Theory, which in my books is about ordinary groups, ie, group objects in (Sets). Should mention how the previously discussed examples are all group objects (in sets, topological spaces and manifolds).
I really think introducing such content escapes the scope of the article, both in length and depth. It's not that I don't write about the topics (actually we did have something similar at some point), but AFAIK neither group objects nor topological groups are top-priority notions related to groups (so as to deserve a separate sub[sub]section). However, I will ask the guys at WP:WPM to comment on this here. If there is a consensus toward your opinion, I agree to include more, but then we have to sacrifice some other content. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Stca74 on this. A section devoted to groups with additional structure should be very instructive for readers as to the one of the ways groups play a role in modern mathematics. As for the length concern, as I have said before, the article is not extremely long, (at least for a large topic such as groups too which many books have been devoted in their entirety) There is some room for expansion. As long is the whole thing stays below 100k (it is at 81k now), I think we should be OK. (TimothyRias (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
But a previous reviewer (Awadewit, I think) has said that the article is already too long, and the rule of thumb in WP:LENGTH says that an article that is larger than 60 KB "probably should be divided" for better readability. As often happens with mathematics article, we are in a cleft stick here - if we attempt to make the article accessible to a general audience then it becomes too long and the general reader becomes bored; if we keep it concise, then we are accused of being inaccessible. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to emphasise the existence of inverse elements as the crucial part of a group's definition already in the lead.
Hm. First I think the lead should not be too detailed. On the other hand, I don't see a priority of the inverse axiom over the other ones, esp. associativity: the inverse axiom as stated requires the identity axiom, and comparing loops or quasigroups with monoids, I think monoids are the thing which can be actually used for something, where as the other seem a pretty much esoteric idea(?) Also, you can associate a group to any semigroup; can one do so in absence of associativity? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, my reason for my proposal was essentially your argument against it: associativity is so natural (for audiences that haven't yet seen Lie algebras) that it goes unnoticed, and thus it is the invertibility that catches attention. Surely agree with you on monoids. And as formally the axioms have equal weight, happy with your point.Stca74 (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Arsenal of group theory" does not sound very encyclopaedic in style.
Reiterate the proposal to discuss quotients before cosets and explaining why the definitions are set out the way they are (what can an equivalence relation compatible with group operation be like?"
I tried to emphasize the necessity to put the definitions the way they are (by calling for a general structural principle, i.e. more or less in the background stands category theory). It's right that this wasn't done so much yet. Now it is. Saying that the map G → G/N should be a group homomorphism is, IMO, a shorthand for the explanation that the equivalence relation has to be compatible with the group structure etc. Right? (Kernel and image also mentioned). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As follows: It often makes sense to partition a group G into disjoint subsets, considering any two elements x and yequivalent (written x~ y) if they belong to same subset of the partitioning; one calls ~ an equivalence relation on G and the sets in the partitioning equivalence classes (for the equivalence relation in question). In such a situation it is natural to ask if the group operation is compatible with the equivalence relation in the following sense: whenever x~x ' and y~y ', then xy~x'y'. If this holds, then one can define a binary operation for the set of all equivalence classes in the following manner: if X and Y are two equivalence classes, one sets XY to be the equivalence class of xy for anyx in equivalence class X and y in Y - the compatibility between the group law and the equivalence relation guaranteeing that the the choice of x and y in their equivalence classes does not affect the outcome. Under these conditions the set of equivalence classes is in fact a group: its neutral element is the equivalence class of e, and the inverse of the equivalence class of x is provided by the equivalence class of x-1. This group of equivalence classes is called the quotient group (by the equivalence relation) and denoted by G/~or more often by G/H if H is the equivalence class of e. The function which maps an element x of G to its equivalence class is in fact a homomorphism from G to G/H, called the canonical projection, and its kernel is precisely H.
If ~is an equivalence relation compatible with the group law, then the equivalence class containing the neutral element e of G is in fact a subgroup H of G (it is the kernel of the canonical projection homomorphism). Moreover, it follows that then x~y precisely when x-1y belongs to H, or in other words when y belongs to the cosetxH of all those elements of G that are of the form xh with h in H. In particular x ~e precisely when x is in H. In fact, it can be seen that the subgroup H satisfies further the condition that xH = Hx; such subgroups are called normal. Conversely, it can be verified that if H is any normal subgroup of G, then the equivalence relation for which x~y precisely when x-1y belongs to H, is compatible with the group law of G. Then the equivalence classes are precisely the cosets xH with x an element of G.
Obviously the previous discussion can be expanded if desired. It could be good to discuss a simple example between the two paragraphs. The above is (a simplified version) of the approach taken by, e.g., Bourbaki, and in my books fairly normal way of introducing the concepts. Stca74 (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's remember that we are not writing a textbook here, and our goals should be clarity and simplicity, not abstract elegance and completeness. I think the current order - subgroups, cosets, quotient groups - is fine. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more on the first sentence. Apparently clarity is in the eye of the beholder - I understand you are saying that the up-front introduction of cosets is likely to be clearer to the intended (possibly non-mathematical) audience than the one via equivalence classes? Be it as it may, I do not see how the sketch above would be "more abstract" or "complete" than what is in the article now. Cheers, Stca74 (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Stca, for your draft, but I also prefer the current version. We all agree that the mathematics is the same. So its only about which fact comes when and how: you are starting with any partition (which I have trouble to motivate as such, I have to say) of the group and then come to the conclusion that it better be a partition of cosets. I was starting with a subgroup and the associated cosets and said in the end that for G -> G/N to be a group homomorphism, the given definition is the only possible one. So, the only difference is that you gain this insight at an earlier stage, at the cost of talking explicitly about equivalence relations.
By "elementarily" I meant something which avoids any additional notions (such as eqn. rel.). A quick glance at two books (Artin Algebra and Lang Algebra) reveals that Artin chooses your account, Lang starts with cosets of normal subgroups. I don't know how to resolve the "problem" w.r.t. to some termination of this FAC, but I feel it fair to say that both approaches have their merits, the one is more direct and elementary, the other one a bit more conceptual, but none of them clearly outweighs the other? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lie groups should mention the crucial point that the group operations must be smooth functions - i.e., spell out the meaning of the word compatible. The fact that one can consider continuous paths is hardly the reason Lie groups have been called continuous groups.Stca74 (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't have historical references at hand, but my understanding is that Lie introduced the term in the late 19th century in a non-technical manner to distinguish "continuous" transformation groups from discrete ones. The Montgomery-Zippin result that a finite-dimensional locally compact locally connected metrizable group is a Lie group is from the 1950's and thus much later than the introduction of the name continuous group - how much could have been conjectured in the 19th century I cannot verify right now. But in any case the present text ("Because of the manifold structure it is possible to consider continuous paths in the group. For this reason they are also referred to as continuous groups.") should be clarified. One can obviously consider continuous paths in any topological space, thus in any topological group (even if one would then get only trivial paths in some cases). One could also leave the whole remark out and just mention that historically Lie groups have been also called "continuous groups", a terminology which is less used nowadays as it is somewhat ambiguous wrt topological groups. Stca74 (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hard part of the Montgomery-Zippin result is the implication that any finite-dimensional locally compact locally connected metrizable group allows a compatible manifold structure. The inverse implication is fairly trivial and probably was so to Lie. (well at least at an intuitive level since at time most of the above concepts weren't really formally developed.) Note also that (a non-trivial) path in a (transformation) group is precisely what is intuitivly meant by a continuous transformation. But I agree that the phrasing in the article is somewhat awkward. Pending what we decide to do with "groups with additional structure", I will rephrase it. (TimothyRias (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Sure, the inverse implication is completely trivial, and my point indeed was that it is unobvious and was unknown in the late 19th century that there is a topological characterisation of Lie groups. The best historical account I could check was the Historical Note to Chapters I-III of Bourbaki's Lie Groups; it discusses Lie's original papers and letters in some detail and appears to confirm my view of how the term "continuous group" was used. No reference to paths in the group. Agree with your point on paths in transformation groups as corresponding to intuition, though. Agree also with your proposal. Stca74 (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) "From an abstract point of view, isomorphic groups carry practically the same information." What does 'practically' suggest? If it does suggest anything, it should maybe be made explicit.
3) "a subset with an unrelated group law does not qualify as a subgroup" please clarify what is meant by 'unrelated' (I see this is explained just after, but it is still a bit disturbing).
Sorry, I don't get it. What exactly is disturbing you? Unrelated is supposed to mean a group law in the subset which has nothing to do with the group law in the bigger set. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What bothers me is that you don't go straight to the point. "a subset with an unrelated group law does not qualify as a subgroup" is not the same thing as "a subset with operation a restriction of the mother group's operation is a subgroup" so you can't write "the group structure has to be respected when passing from the smaller group to the bigger one, i.e. a subset with an unrelated group law does not qualify as a subgroup". Anyway, you seem to want to say the same thing three times in a row:
->"the group structure has to be respected when passing from the smaller group to the bigger one" (an "intuitive" definition)
->"a subset with an unrelated group law does not qualify as a subgroup" (IMH useless)
->"H is called a subgroup if the restriction of • to H is a group operation on H" (the formal definition)Randomblue (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly right. I removed all allusions in this direction in that subsection, just at the end of quotient groups there is a little survol over the relation of subs to quotients and homomorphisms. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4) "This choice is dictated by the desire" is a bit of a poetic formulation.
" and – if division is possible, such as in Q – fields" or "objects – be they of geometric nature, such as the introductory symmetry group of the square" or "models – imposing, say, axial symmetry on a situation will typically" or "serves – in the absence of significant gravitation – as a" Randomblue (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't say that I understood every word, but I thought it was as clear as an article of this nature is ever going to be I even made a tiny edit,jimfbleak (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images (temporary break added by SG at request)
Comments regarding images:
Image sandwiching in "Examples and applications" section (MOS:IMAGES); perhaps consider {{multiple image}} in a vertical alignment?
Is this a hard criterion? I have to say, it looks better, IMO, if one is right, one is left, instead of two at the same side. I would personally leave it like this. OK? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 3 requires "succinct captions". The "fundamental group of a plane minus a point" and "unit circle in the complex plane" captions appear overly verbose and, for me, are in TLDR territory. Please consider integrating the detailed explanations into the surrounding prose or image summaries.
In fact, a solution here might be to remove the picture altogether: in the example the hole gets detected already by the set of homotopy classes of loops (with base point), the group structure (infinite cyclic group) is irrelevant for the question at hand. Cases where the different group structures on the same-cardinality set distinguish spaces from each other (simplest? one detecting 2 holes vs. one), could require long explanations, I'm afraid. But still, if this example is wanted in the article, it would be worth at least mentioning that often the group structure is needed to tell spaces apart. Stca74 (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have trimmed the caption and explained the image in the text. (Wouldn't want to remove the image, since it helps understanding what loops are talked about). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of self-made images, which these presumably are, an explicit assertion of authorship is needed (this image, also used in the article, is a good example); we can't rely solely on the implications of a self-variant copyright tag. Эlcobbolatalk15:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good article, adapted to today's requirements.
In the external links, maybe adding the Springer article, it's a different point of view than Mathworld and Planetmath.
In the historical references, Historically important publications in group theory may use another formatting, similar to {{main|...}} to differentiate it from actual publications.
There is a blank space in the Generalizations section, maybe reducing the size of the template or adding more text.
In the see also section also, it may be worth to make two colums or add other relevant articles. Group ring, group algebra, Grothendieck group doesn't seem less relevant thant CPT symmetry (these are examples of constructions of groups or based on groups). The template affords already several examples of groups, maybe Euclidean group and Poincaré group should be moved to the template. CenariumTalk14:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I preferred to remove the mention of the Grothendieck group in the Generalizations, this is defined for abelian semigroups (though there is a similar construction for semigroups in general) and seems to stray away from the main point. However, I think that all the material on group objects should be moved in this section, it's not really needed when dealing with topological groups and would fill the blank space. I also think that the example for a monoid should be the set of natural numbers with 0 and +. This is the most canonical and fundamental non-nul monoid. CenariumTalk22:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reinstated that sentence and did now mention N. I think the Gr.gp. is interesting insofar as it generalizes a well-known and "natural" construction, of whose generality few readers will be aware. So I think it's not off-topic. The group objects should be in one place. (As an aside: I think content matters have priority over layout questions. Layout depends on so many factors.) Rethinking the situation w.r.t. the external links, in particular the SPringer ref you mentioned, I now agree with Eubulides below that these pages hardly add any content. So I removed that. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you all have a look at the non-standard use of WP:ITALICS throughout the article text? It's unclear why they're used. Also, there are mixed citation methods ({{cite book}} and {{citation}}, Ealdgyth catches those, so perhaps they were added after she went through, see WP:CITE, the citation and cite xxx templates produce different citation styles and they shouldn't be mixed. In this case, cite book should be changed to citation.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean? I have removed some cases of over-emphasis here and there, but grosso modo it seemed OK to me. The types of italics we have are highlighted notions that are crucial (such as simple group), emphasis ("it does not form a group"), titles of mathematical works (Disquisitiones), and a lot of variables. The manual is not so clear whether highlighting most important notions is OK, but I believe it is (it is also standard practice in math texts, btw). For example, in the Cosets section, not highlighting left and right cosets would make the actual definition more difficult to find without reading the text. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think closure should be mentioned in the lead. Closure is not a group axiom, it's a tautology, still used nowadays because of the influence of history and traditions. Finiteness is mentioned at the end of the intro. CenariumTalk00:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the first sentence makes it clear enough that the result of the operation is also an element of this set, then it's not needed to say "this is called closure". Finiteness being not a group axiom but a property of groups shouldn't been mentioned straight away, but since the class of finite groups is so important, it should be noted in the intro, like the Lie groups. CenariumTalk00:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support(was Comment). A wonderful article. I made some minor editorial changes. I'd like to change this to "Support" but there are some (I hope easily fixable) problems:
Group (mathematics) #Citations contains many citations that are hard to follow. Merely citing a book isn't enough; we need book and page number, or at least book and chapter name.
Group (mathematics) #References seems to contain many references that are not cited. I suggest these be removed, or moved to a subsidiary article ("List of references for group theory", or something like that). For example, Devlin 2000 does not seem to be cited (this is the 2nd reference listed; I did not check them all). There's no need for this section to list material that is not needed to support the claims in this article.
Group (mathematics) #External links should be removed. The external links in this section all seem to satisfy the first criterion given in WP:LINKS #Links normally to be avoided, "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." They all seem to be merely short introductions to groups, which are a subset of what's in this page. There's no need to have external links to pages like that.
I agree with the remark on external links. There's also wikibooks, which shouldn't be left alone in an external links section. So we should remove it altogether, or put it in the See also section. (I'd prefer the former option.) CenariumTalk10:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As regards reference sources that are not explicitly cited, WP:CITE allows general references which are "not linked to any particular part of the article". Alternatively, these sources could be moved to a "Further reading" section, as per WP:LAYOUT. Moving them to a separate "list" article is a bad idea, because it would surely be nominated for deletion by the anti-list brigade. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
External links: I removed 2 of them. The remaining two do provide additional information.
"Superfluous" refs: I removed two of them and corrected a small number of formatting errors. The Devlin reference I kept, because this is actually the only layman exposition among the references given (though not explicitly cited). I think making up a Further reading section for this one ref is a bit exaggerated.
Unprecise references: I'm a fan of valuable reference information, as you may have seen from the length, depth and quality of the ref sections. However, I disagree with you on this point. As you can see, we did care for exact references where possible and/or necessary. I.e. if a particular fact (e.g. "An infinite cyclic group is isomorphic to (Z, +),") is cited, then the precise ref with page and theorem number is given. However, making reference to the entire (more or less) oeuvre of Sophus Lie, for example, or general statements such as "... as do adele rings and adelic algebraic groups, which are basic to number theory." does not make sense by providing a particular chapter or even page. Many of the advanced references are just pointers to big topics, of which whole books are written. Any reader willing to consult the reference will face the situation that there is more to know than just a single page. Often it is even more than a single chapter. The last resort: if it should be a single chapter in a particular book, a quick glance at a book's content or glossary. OK? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining the point about citations to entire books. I was incorrect, and I struck that comment.
I mentioned Devlin only because I did a spot check and found it wasn't cited. I just now did another spot check and found that the next entry in that section, Dummit & Foote 2004, is also not cited. Since I've checked only 3 entries in that section, and 2 were not cited, I suspect that the problem occurs more often than twice in that section. I suggest going systematically through the section, finding every entry that is not cited, and moving it to a Further reading section (or to some subarticle).
The cases for the two remaining external links are weak. Both of these links look like citations, not like external links. Neither link meets the criteria in WP:LINKS #What should be linked or WP:LINKS #Links to be considered. If it's important, for example, to link to O'Connor & Robertson 1996 in order to give the reader info about the history of group theory, then Group (mathematics) #History should cite O'Connor & Robertson. If there's no reason for Group (mathematics) #History to cite O'Connor & Robertson, that suggests that O'Connor & Robertson do not need to be linked to here (though perhaps the subarticle History of group theory should link to it). Similarly for the other external link.
Sorry for the superfluous ref one: I did check the refs one by one yesterday, but somehow missed the "General refs" section. Dummit & Foote now removed. (I hope you don't prove my complete idiocy by spotting another one :)) Also removed the two links. I think they don't hurt, but perhaps you are right, they don't add that much content, and all of the tiny little pieces of additional material is certainly covered 15x in the other references. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following up; this addresses all the issues I raised, so I changed "Comment" to "Support". Again, this is a wonderful article; I'm jealous! Eubulides (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the endless nitpicky questions, but the more technical articles present special challenges :-) Have you all reviewed the Group table of D4 and the chart in "Generalizations" for WP:ACCESSIBILITY and color-blindness? A question on the talk page there usually gets a quick answer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just "checked" this by displaying the images in monochrome. The Group table of D4 indeed has problems; maybe this can be fixed by using different stipple patterns as well as colors? The chart in "Generalizations" is OK, though, because it uses {{yes}} and {{no}} and the text suffices to disambiguate. Eubulides (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a more precise caption, so colorblind etc. can still figure it out. (Sandy, does this mean that the less people understand of the topic, the more they are into nitpicking? I wonder, because the FAC here has for the most part brought to day lots of formatting aspects, but, except for Awadewit and Stca74, few fundamental improvements). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking if I don't understand Groups, since I'm doing the nitpicking, I wonder how I ever got through grad school :-) I try to avoid opining on content because of my position of FAC delegate: I've expressed my views on our Math FAs in past FARs. If you want my opinion, yes, I believe that some of our past Math FACs and FARs did not get enough scrutiny, particularly to the quality of the prose, possibly because some of the reviewers did not understand the content or believed it was the Math they didn't understand, when in fact, it may have been a prose issue. If I misunderstood the implication in your reply, please disregard :-) What I meant about technical articles presenting special challenges, in this case, is that the images used here are not typical of other kinds of articles, so there are more issues to consider. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, I didn't mean to judge your comment. Was just a general thought. As for understanding or not, the truth is mostly somewhere in the middle between writers (not only in WP) shielding themselves with fancy vocabulary, and readers shielding themselves with a (not necessarily extant) capability of understanding. OK, I'll stop musing. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has passed GA, and had a nice Peer Review as well as copyediting by the usual suspects. The only concern might be the image, which is indeed racing out of the article. I prefer the racing pic to a boring standing pic, and did not want to flip the only racing pic I know of, so he must forever race off the page. Otherwise, please tell me what needs improvement! Ealdgyth - Talk02:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a general note on WHY I won't flip the photo. Race horses always race in one direction on the racetrack. If I flipped the photo, it would instantly betray that the photo had been altered, because the horse would then be racing the "wrong" way. That's why I won't flip. Ealdgyth - Talk21:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I copyedited weeks ago, and the article is much improved since then. I also like the racing picture and would prefer it stay as is. I did check the sources and they all look fine. Karanacs (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I also did a little bit of copy editing as well, but not much ... the article is very strong, and well-sourced, particularly given the difficulties in finding biographical information on famous horses other than Thoroughbreds. Montanabw(talk)19:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current refs 21 and 39 only have titled URLs, I realize that the full citations are below, but shouldn't the inline cites have more info?Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth uses a format where shortened sources are given in Footnotes and full source information is given in References; the full citation is given below. (Responding because she indicated she is traveling.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like some of the wording in this article and it lacks sufficient media in my opinion. At least another image or other media communication should be included in here to meet the FA criteria aspect at the very least. Also, some prose issues I have some concerns about:
The horse is deceased and any images used would have to be fair use. One is enough. Pictures, when available and appropriate, are the FA criteria. But we're also a free encyclopedia which means we try to avoid fair use images when possible. Ealdgyth - Talk11:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"that lived from 1953 to 1983". Need to reword this. It's more important to talk about his career span rather than his life span. This should be done in an expanded prose which outlines his racing tenure and then his date of death. Furthermore, I see it is briefly mentioned further into the lead. This is bad layout. Such info like his prize money etc should be of initial importance and be in the first couple of sentences.
Since he was a very influential breeding stallion also, I disagree. His lifespan is more important than his racing career, he wasn't famous just for his racing career. Treat him just like a person, is how I approached the article. All of the important information you're requesting is included in the first paragraph of the lead, you just want to rearrange it, correct? This is the lead for a very short article (it's only 11KB of readable prose), we don't want to overload the article Ealdgyth - Talk11:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of WikiProject Equine, I concur with Ealdgyth. A race horse's career is inevitably somewhat short, their legacy is the quality of their offspring. In the Quarter Horse racing world, particularly during the lifetime of Go Man Go, prize money was not comparable to Thoroughbred racing and it would be putting undue weight to emphasize it much more than it is now. Montanabw(talk)19:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Neither of his parents was raced." Shouldn't it be 'were raced'?
I defer to the copyeditors on this. I believe "was" is correct though, since "of his parents" is a dependent clause describing "neither" which is the meat of the sentence. Stripped of the clause it would be "Neither was raced." which is, I believe, correct. If Im wrong though, wouldn't be the first time, as I'm not a grammar expert.
Ealdgyth is correct that a singular form goes here, but it still looks weird, so I tweaked it a bit and just removed the word altogether because either way, it's passive voice (grin). Montanabw(talk)20:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Go Man Go was considered to be of difficult temperament." By who? Is this POV or is it an actually released reputation of the horse which analysts or other experienced persons declared? If so, state who exactly. And in my opinion, this kind of info should be referenced in the lead.
It was considered by many. It is sourced in the body of the article, including a quote from an owner refuting it. It also is sourced to a noted QH racing writer. And, to be quite honest and fair here, the very next sentence, where he throws his jockey and runs around the racetrack kinda proves the "difficult" temprament here. Most horses don't DO that. If you really insist, I'll footnote it, but the source itself says pretty much the same thing. "As a youngster .... Go Man Go was fiery and spirited." and then goes on to quote Walt Wiggins. Later in the body it gives names for folks and quotes of who thought he was difficult. Ealdgyth - Talk11:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is well sourced. And per wiki MOS, no footnotes in the lead, as all info in the lead is referenced in the article itself. I tossed one footnote that got put there. Montanabw(talk)19:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats pretty much just the lead. I've only had a brief read of the rest of the article but these issues need resolving right away I think. One more thing though, in the Pedigree section, the note related to the astrix sign at the bottom should be placed in a seperate footnote, reference, note. Domiy (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Their last meeting, on September 6, 1959 at Ruidoso Downs, was also Go Man Go's final race, and was the only one of their races won by Vandy's Flash. Remove the word "also".
It might be interesting to provide a general overview of horses, such as how long they live and how many offspring they produce. I took a double take when I read, He sired 942 foals, of which 552 earned their Race Register of Merit.
Heh. You've run into the issue of OR and horse articles. I could say "That's a REALLY large number for stallions" but it'd be OR, based off my own knowledge. There just aren't many statistics in reputable sources saying what the 'average' amount of foals a stallion sires. And in any case, it wouldn't really apply much, because sucessful race sires sire a LOT of foals. The age stuff is in Horse, and it's a bit off topic here. If folks wanna know the life span, etc of horses, I figure they are better off reading the horse article, but yes, he lived a long time for a horse. Normal lifespan for QHs is mid twenties. Ealdgyth - Talk11:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'll be on the road today (which is why I didn't do a source check this morning) and won't be available to check concerns until tomorrow morning. I'll be a bit less available than usual until early next week. I'll have internet, just am going to be away from home so won't be the "instant" access most folks are used to from me. Ealdgyth - Talk12:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by jimfbleak:*I seemed to have to read quite a way into the article to establish that this is an American horse.
broodmare sire - As a geegee know-nothing, I thought sire referred to the stallion?
This is one way to say "maternal grandfather" or "maternal grandsire", or sometimes, "sire of broodmares"...long discussion over at WP Equine about this terminology. FYI. Montanabw(talk)19:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support and further comments by jimfbleak I'm happy to support this article now that the issues above have been addressed, but three further points — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs) 06:54, September 12, 2008 :*caught and reloaded – should this be remounted?
:*As a broodmare sire, or maternal grandsire, his daughters have produced… - still confused by this, from the comment above he is the broodmare sire, not his daughters – or have I misunderstood?
This is more horse lingo. It's referring to his statistics that are specifc to what his daughters produced. Very important to racing folks, not nearly so interesting to non-racing folks. Needs to be included for compreshensiveness. Ealdgyth - Talk18:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support -
Background and early life: "Ferguson paid $350 for her and bred her in 1952 to Top Deck, resulting in Go Man Go the next year." Should this be "Go Man Go's birth the next year."? I'm really not sure.
What does get mean? It sounds like offspring, but I'm again unsure. It links to a disambiguation page, so consider finding a more pertinent link if one is avaliable.Giants2008 (17-14) 23:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What leads me to believe that this particular site is reliable is that all of the main facts presented in it are supported by other sources I have. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Nice job. The article, however, seems to omit the details of his various awards. I don't mean full details, but something more than "he was given this, he was given that." For example, perhaps something along the lines of this change:
"During his service with the Americans, the commander of the 27th, Major General John F. O'Ryan, recommended Murray for the United States' Distinguished Service Medal.
During his service with the Americans, Murray was recommended for the United States' Distinguished Service Medal by the commander of the 27th, Major General John F. O'Ryan. The D.S.M. is the highest non-valorous military and civilian decoration of the U.S. military. General O'Ryan's recommendation stated that Murray's "...knowledge, activity and fearlessness... assisted materially in the control of the attacking forces".
I have also now expanded on his Distinguished Conduct Medal and Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George awards; I think the others were already adequate, if not I'll have a look at them too. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:LEAD, on the other hand, seems a mite long. I'll think about this for a while and get back to you...
"Becoming a No. 2 on a machine-gun, he served during the Gallipoli Campaign where he was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal, before the withdrawal from the peninsula." Issues:
I don't think machine gun should be hyphenated. This is something I see throughout the article.
I originally didn't have them hyphenated, but the copyeditor's whose help I enlisted believed they should be. However, after looking at the machine gun article on WP, I have concluded that it appears they shouldn't be hyphenated, and as such have removed it. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't need to be a comma after Medal but I think there should be a comma after Campaign.
Fixed
"Soon after his Victoria Cross action, he was promoted to major, and earned a Bar to his DSO during an attack on the Hindenburg Line near Bullecourt." I'm not familiar with all things military, but should Bar be capitalized?
Per WP:MSH, should "Repatriation" be uppercase in "Western Front, April 1917 to Repatriation, March 1920"? The word isn't used again in the text (?), so I don't get a sense of why it's used as a proper noun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One thing people sometimes overlook is that information in notes also needs to be supported by citation. Your long note on the discrepancies of his year of birth is unreferenced. One method used by historians to cite within footnotes is to use a parenthetical citation in the note, something like: "According to Franki & Slatyer (p. 3), his birth certificate states 1 December 1880", which is a simple fix. Personally, I think that this footnote would be better placed next to the birth date in the "Early life" section rather than in the lead, where it distracts and (on the screen I'm viewing right now) causes the dates to wrap in an unsightly way. —KevinMyers13:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I first came across this article at Milhist A-Class review, when it passed muster, and see the prose has been massaged and improved since then. --ROGER DAVIEStalk12:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, all! It's been several months since my last FAC, and in honor of the start of the American college football season, I've put 2005 Sugar Bowl through a rigorous pre-FAC process and believe it is ready to run the gauntlet thrown down by yourself. This article follows in the style of two previous bowl game FACs: 2008 Orange Bowl and 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl. Its weakest element is perhaps a lack of images, but because I was unable to find sufficient free-use images, I decided against adding fair-use ones at the present time. If you disagree, add a comment to that effect, and I'll be happy to work with you on that. This article was promoted to Good Article status in July and since then has been informally peer reviewed by three editors within WP:CFB. I feel this article ranks among Wikipedia's best and meets all requirements for featured status. If you feel otherwise, please leave a comment, and I'll be happy to address it in turn. I have run both the disambiguation checker and external links check tools on this article and have fixed things where appropriate. Thanks for taking the time to review this article, and have a great day! JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, looking over WP:NFCC, I don't see a problem here. I think the Sugar Bowl logo is appropriate for each Sugar Bowl game (esp. if its the version used for the game, some of these logos change over time). It fits the same logic of using team logos on the top of their season pages. Saying that shouldn't be dismissed using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS when a person is pointing to FA examples, which are considered model Wikipedia articles. --Bobak (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals.
Comments Support - I provided a pre-review that can be found on the article's talk page. Picking up where I left off...
Defensive matchups, Virginia Tech: One-sentence paragraph here. I actually think this would match well with the next paragraph. If you disagree, keep in mind that my new monitor is making everything look stubby. A 20-inch flatscreen will do that to you. :-)
Done.
Game summary: There is an article for football officials at Official (American football). If nothing else, it can be used for the red link.
Done.
First quarter: "then completed a four-yard pass to wide receiver Eddie Royal two plays later for the game's first down." Look at this carefully, because "the game's first down" is problematic. First first down would be quite redundant, but someone with your experience should have no problem fixing this.
Done.
"instead punting in the ball away."
Done.
Which Auburn player intercepted the pass? Sorry if that's a bad memory for you, but that jumped out at me immediately.
Done.
Second quarter: "Auburn's offense took over at its one-yard line after the Tech failure." To avoid any appearance of POV, I would put it "after Tech's failure to score."
Done.
Third quarter: "Scoreless and down by 16 points, Tech needed to score." A bit repetitive, don't you think?
Done.
Fourth quarter: "Despite the short distance, however, Pace missed the kick." However is an unneeded word when paired with despite.
Done.
"stopping the clock when each of the three stoppages were used." Stopping and stoppages together don't look so good.
Done.
Post-game effects: I'm overwhelmed by the first paragraph, if you get what I mean.
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk·contribs)-Yay, another college football article—something I can understand!
"On the Virginia Tech side, senior quarterback Bryan Randall had a statistically significant season"-casual readers might not know what a "statistically significant" season is for a quarterback.
Changed.
2005 Orange Bowl has been linked twice.
Unlinked.
"Fortunately for the Hokies, they did just that." Sounds unencyclopedic to me.
Changed.
"Auburn went into the SEC championship game undefeated and in third place nationally." "went into"-->entered.
Changed.
"With the winner of the BCS Championship Game guaranteed to win the Coaches Poll," I don't think it's possible to "win" the Coaches Poll.
Changed.
"In the weeks leading up to the game, media coverage of the game focused on Auburn being left out of the national championship game," How about:"In the weeks leading up to the game, media coverage of the game focused on Auburn's exclusion from the national championship game".
Changed.
"a point of controversy for Auburn fans and other observers in the weeks leading up to the game." point of controversy-->controversial point.
Changed.
"Humes was on the field slightly less than Imoh, but earned 595 yards and five touchdowns with 124 carries." Technical term: with should be on.
"Official attendance was listed as 77,349.[57] Mike Tirico, Tim Brant, Terry Bowden, and Suzy Shuster were the broadcasters for the television broadcast, which was aired on ABC." The word "broadcasters" is repetitive because the word broadcast immediately follows. Try announcers.
Fixed.
"Approximately 10 million households watched the game on television in the United States, giving the game a Nielsen Rating of 9.5 and making it the 24th most popular Bowl Championship Series game in terms of television ratings." Approximately-->about, simpler wording.
Fixed.
"The traditional pregame singing of the national anthem was done by singer Brad Arnold from the band 3 Doors Down." Shorten this sentence some: "The traditional pregame national anthem was sung by Brad Arnold from the band 3 Doors Down." It's understood that the national anthem was sung by a singer.
Fixed.
Kickoff is also overlinked.
Fixed.
"Virginia Tech began the second quarter in possession of the ball, and driving down the field." Grammatically incorrect: "Virginia Tech began the second quarter with possession of the ball, and drove down the field."
I removed the comma instead, making it a dependent clause, which it should've been in the first place.
"Together, the various organizations presented a pirate-themed show based on the character of Jean Lafitte, a noted brigand who made his home in New Orleans—site of the game—during the War of 1812." Various is vague. "made his home" can be shortened to lived—unless it's important that the brigand actually built his own home in New Orleans.
"A missed two-point conversion made the game 16–6." Two-point conversions aren't hit-or-miss things, try "unsuccessful".
Changed.
"With almost no time remaining in the game, however, Virginia Tech was forced to attempt an onside kick in order to have another chance on offense." Delete "however", this sentence doesn't contradict the last.
Changed.
"For the defense, Virginia Tech cornerback Jimmy Williams was the star performer." "star performer" seems a little POV, try "top performer".
Changed.
"Three players had one sack apiece—two for Virginia Tech and one for Auburn." Apiece is unnecessary.
Changed.
"Auburn's thin margin of victory over Tech put a split national title in doubt, though not out of reach." "a"-->the prospect of, the current version is unclear.
Between the Auburn defense section and the Virginia Tech defense section, there are inconsistencies in the yardage formats used: ((allowing only 11.2 points per game)—only is POV, (allowing 269.5 yards per game), (106.5 yards per game), (149.8 yards allowed/game). Use one format.
Changed to "per game".
"Linebacker Vince Hall ranked second on the team in total tackles with 62 during the regular season prior to the Sugar Bowl.[50] Fellow linebacker Mikal Baaqee was first on the team, with 63." There's nothing wrong with these sentences, but why is the player with the second-most tackles mentioned first?
"Visiting fans of both Auburn and Virginia Tech injected tens of millions of dollars into the New Orleans economy, despite high food, travel, and lodging costs that had some fans scrimping on spending during their trips." Wording changes needed: "The visiting fans of Auburn and Virginia Tech injected tens of millions of dollars into the New Orleans economy, despite high food, travel, and lodging costs that forced some fans to cut discretionary spending during their trips."
Changed.
"On the defensive line, defensive tackle Jonathan Lewis was considered a key player. Though limited by a cast protecting a broken pinky finger suffered during Virginia Tech's game against Virginia, Lewis was expected to be a key player against the Tigers." Repitition of "key player".
Changed.
"There, however, the Tech offense stumbled." I don't like the word "stumbled". It makes it sound like the offense tripped and fell or something. (Picky, I know)
Changed.
"Together, the various organizations presented a pirate-themed show based on the character of Jean Lafitte, a noted brigand who lived in New Orleans—site of the game—during the War of 1812." Because of the word "together", I don't think "various" is needed.
Changed.
"Upon receiving the post-touchdown kickoff, Auburn began to run out the clock." "Upon"-->After, just because it's simpler that way.
Changed.
"Auburn quarterback Jason Campbell, who finished the game having completed 11 of 16 passes for 189 yards, one touchdown, and one interception, was named the game's most valuable player."
Changed.
"The Sugar Bowl marked a homecoming for Tech punter Vinnie Burns, who played high school football 15 miles from the Louisiana Superdome, site of the Sugar Bowl." "marked"-->was
"Their first win in the new conference was followed by their first loss, however, as the Hokies lost the next week to North Carolina State, 17–16, when Tech kicker Brandon Pace missed a last-second field goal." Was the conference really "new"?
Changed. I was trying to say Virginia Tech's new conference, but it was kind of awkward. Thanks.
"The Auburn Tigers, meanwhile, had completed their first 12-win regular season, and won their first conference championship in 15 years, but in the final BCS rankings, Auburn was third, behind USC and Oklahoma." No comma after season.
Changed. Darn dependent clauses.
"With little time remaining before halftime, Virginia Tech was forced into a hurry-up offense." "was forced into"-->used.
Changed.
"On the first play of the drive, Bryan Randall completed an 80-yard touchdown pass to Josh Morgan. The play traversed the length of the field and the score plus the extra point cut Auburn's lead to 16–13." "Traversed the length of the field" is unnecessary after a sentence that tells about an "80-yard touchdown pass".
Support - I've made some minor tweaks based on the successful 2007 USC Trojans FAC, and I think this article is quite well done. I would suggest posting a request (possibly on a fan board) to some VT or Auburn fans who might have digital photos of the game that they might be willing to release under the appropriate license. --Bobak (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sugar Bowl Logo.gif - is not low resolution (NFCC#3B) and does not identify a copyright holder (NFCC#10A). These are easily remedied. I don't believe the image needs to be removed, but the purpose "providing its chief graphical identifier" is rather weak. Please elaborate as to why this is important (WP:RAT vis-a-vis NFCC#10C requires a detailed rationale).
I've added copyright information and more information about how this logo differs from the current one being used. I'm unclear about the low resolution qualifier, however. I've run into this problem in the past, and would appreciate some guidance as to what the guidelines are for this ... I haven't been able to find them. What qualifies as low resolution? To me, 500x300 is low resolution, but I understand that standards may be different. Where can I find information about what qualifies as low resolution for this rule? JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it meets the FA criteria. This article has addressed all and any concerns brought up in it's GA and Peer reviews, as well as previous professional wrestlingpay-per-view articles FAC's (such as SummerSlam (2003)'s). The article is readable to the non-wrestling fan, as it does not contain any jargon and is easy to read. The article is written out-of-universe, and contains reliable sources. Any concerns will be addressed. -- iMatthewT.C.00:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first two could be fixed without replacing, but whatever. The link provided for the third image (here) doesn't contain the statement quoted. —Giggy03:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, second what? Second Great American Bash? Second professional wrestling pay-per-view event? Second professional wrestling pay-per-view event produced by WWE? "such annual event" adds no value in its current position since readers don't know what exactly it's referring to. BuddingJournalist11:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"portrayed either a villainous or fan favorite gimmick" How can a gimmick be "villanous"? Or is this some sort of wrestling slang that should also be linked?
"The name of a wrestler's character" Tension in tenses. Also, is this sentence necessary?
I've added the publisher, and for the pwwew.net sources, they are only used in the article for SmackDown! results. PWWEW copies their results word-for-word from WWE.com, a reliable source. See [40] and [41], [42] and [43], [44] and [45]. -- iMatthewT.C.15:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don't you just use WWE.com? Did you pay attention to my comment below about the statement in the lead?--SRX15:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to echo SRX here, if they copy word for word the WWE, just use the WWE so we don't have concerns about linking to a copyright violation. Ealdgyth - Talk15:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments - The opening has been reviewed already, so I'm skipping it.
"This event helped WWE's pay-per-view revenue, which was $4.7 million higher than the previous year's revenue." I recall seeing something similar in a previous wrestling article here, and I don't like it any more now. How about "This event helped WWE's pay-per-view revenue increase by $4.7 million from the previous year." I may be copying myself from before, but I do think it's better.
Background: The sentence involving the 2005 WWE Draft should be split in two. I would have the first sentence be the explanation of the draft, then describe the event in another sentence. I also see that the real-life names in parentheses didn't last long.
"leaving Smackdown! without a top-tier championship, a championship used for the heavyweight division of Smackdown!." Way too wordy. This is more like it: "leaving Smackdown! without a top-tier championship for its heavyweight division." Even if this is meant to be out-of-universe, it still needs to be revised.
"who was the final draft pick in the 2005 Draft." Draft is being used redundantly. The first instance can be removed and it will remaini understandable.
"JBL and Orlando Jordan tried to attack Batista, but he countered the attack by attacking JBL and Jordan instead." I'm being attacked with attacks. Variation would be a plus here.
Chris Benoit doesn't need his first name given in consecutive sentences.
Prelimminary matches: No explanation for the Doomsday Device. This is an exception to the apparent rule.
As a common word, Arabic doesn't need a link.
One term that could be linked somewhere is tag team. This is a fairly well known word, but some may think that it's jargon.
Main event matches: (managed by Candice Michelle as the guest referee). Technically, this could be changed to (managed by Candice Michelle, who was also the guest referee).
A general note before I go: The move descriptions are much less wordy than the last wrestling FAC. Well-done. Unfortunately, this has resulted in walls of blue text. Can the blue possibly be reduced a bit? Giants2008 (17-14) 18:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow I am offended by that last comment by Giants, but is all good. Anyways, one thing I want to mention before I review it further, as people pointed out in the SS 03 FAC, the statement about wrestling being scripted should go to the background because that is what it basically is and it interrupts the flow of the lead.SRX20:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more small batch of comments for this article.
Aftermath: "where it was announced that their match at SummerSlam would be a No Holds Barred match match..." Another match two words later.
I'm going to suggest moving the bit on the Batista-Guerrero feud and Guerrero's subsequent death to the end of the following paragraph. It's a little weird for me to transfer from his overdose to more on his feud with Mysterio.
It doesn't say in Guerrero's article that he died of a drug overdose; the page says that he was killed by heart failure, though past drug and alcohol problems contributed. Could probably use a reference anyway.
We don't need Chris Benoit and Orlando Jordan's full names twice in that paragraph. Just the first time would be fine, then use only their last names. Oh, and consider changing twenty-six to 26.0. Would match well with the rest of the paragraph.
Reception: "but that was reduced for the Great American Bash (2005)." Why is the year in parentheses? Come to think of it, I also saw this in the last wrestling FAC. Is this a standard I don't know about?
"rated the entire event..." Don't think this word is needed.
Before I make a decision to support this, I'd like to ask why there seems to be much less detail about the matches than the last wrestling page here. It actually looks like there are more details in the Background section than for the event itself. Here's one example: "Guerrero than tried to score the pinfall, but Mysterio countered by pinning Guerrero to win the match." It feels like something is being lost in translation. I'm sympathetic on this because of the need to avoid jargon, but I want to see what you think on this.
I've completed the rest of your requests. To be honest with you, I think that removing jargon was a good idea, but I felt that SummerSlam went a bit too far. I feel that this article removed jargon and fully explains the terms without going overboard and without giving readers a headache. -- iMatthewT.C.01:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm offended once again :) If I am correct, you read it before many many many fixes were done to reduced the load of explaining terms, and it was cut down so it wouldn't "give you a headache."SRX01:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first match on the card was between MNM (Johnny Nitro and Joey Mercury) (managed by Melina (Melina Perez)) - instead of using parenthesis within parenthesis, use brackets within the parenthesis.
In the event section, this was brought up in the SS FAC (I think), but instead of linking the moves all the way to "down to the ring mat," you should only link up to like "slamming." For example, "lifting him up by the throat and slamming him down to the mat." Reason is because it seems to repetitive because it is linked throughout the section. Another thing is that instead of saying "to the mat" over and over" you can just say "slammed him down" as it is established earlier that they are on the ring (mat), unless stated otherwise that they are outside.
Prose—It's kind of OK, I suppose, and I must try to disregard my utter boredom at the topic.
"There was also a feud between ..."—not a good start to a paragraph. What exactly is "also" in relation to? The blah also featured a fued between ... could be a little better.
At least on paragraph needs to be split. "The main event at the Great ..." is a whopper. Puts off the readers to see a daunting mass of text. Help them through it. Tony(talk)12:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: So far I've only got to the lead and background sections, but there's enough here to be going on with.
Confusing and awkward sentence in the lead: The main event was Batista versus John "Bradshaw" Layfield (JBL) for the World Heavyweight Championship, a championship that was to be won by the champion competing in matches against his opponent. Multiple issues here:-
Which of the two was the champion before the bout?
Repetitions of championship and champion make the sentence awkward to read.
"competing in matches" (plural) when the subsequent reference seems to be to one bout.
Somehow, it seems a bit redundant/obvious to say that the championship was to won by the champion fighting against an opponent. How else would it be won? There is a case for ending the sentence after "World Heavyweight Championship".
Second sentence of final lead para begins "This event..." Since you have just mentioned the following year’s event, you need to clarify that "this event" means the 2005 event
"Wrestlers often used a stage name" should be in present tense
The parenthetical form of John "Bradshaw" Layfield has changed, without explanation, from "JBL" in the lead to "John Layfield" here. I see that further on in the para he had become JBL again.
"announced a match between six wrestlers for an unannounced..." Eh? Suggest you say "for a new top tier..." and drop the unannounced bit.
"Instead, he won..." should be "Instead he had won..."
The phrase "...who was the final draft pick in the 2005 Draft" needs explaining. Does it mean "...who was Smackdown!’s final 2005 draft pick"? If so, to avoid the repetitions in the next sentence you could run the two together: "...who was Smackdown!’s final 2005 draft pick, making the World Heavyweight Championship exclusive to Smackdown!"
"The following week on Smackdown!, Batista faced Christian in a standard match". Was there a particular relevance in this otherwise undiscussed bout?
"After the match JBL successfully attacked Batista..." Was this in another match, or some piece of staged out-of-ring brawl?
The sentence beginning "Batista appeared..." needs reworking. I appreciate that the difficulty arises from your attempt to explain a "spinebuster" to non-fans like me, but I think "Batista appeared, and as JBL fled the scene, performed a spinebuster on Jordan – where the wrestler picks up his opponent, turns him around halfway, and slams him onto the ring mat" would be clearer, with less repetition
Could you say "At the No Way Out event," for the sake of clarity?
I think this comes from an earlier review suggestion, but I find the formulation after MNM (brackets within parentheses) awkward and difficult. Would it not be better to say "(Johnny Nitro, otherwise John Hennigan and Joey Mercury, otherwise Adam Birch)"?
"...in a rematch for the titles" (plural) – but only one championship title has been mentioned.
I don’t think "number-one" is usually hyphenated, but it is frequently capitalised as Number One
Sorry, that all I have time for now, but I'll try to come back and do the rest. I've done a couple of small fixes on the text while going through. Brianboulton (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the "managed by" information introduced in this section really necessary? It clutters the text with parentheses within brackets, and disturbs the flow. Too much tangential information, I would say.
Brackets within parentheses – suggest same treatment as in Background section
Repetition of "performed" – suggest change one of them to “executed”
done
"titles" (plural) for one championship?
done, see below comment
The "eighth longest reign" doesn’t sound particularly notable. Longest, or second longest, might be, but eighth?
done
It’s not clear who was "using his legs to resemble a pair of scissors". If, as I believe, it was Booker T, then the sentence might be better as: "Booker T won the match, using his legs to resemble a pair of scissors and kicking Christian, who was bent over forward".
Is "got the pin" wrestler’s talk for "pinfall"?
"men in masks walked out" - what does this mean? Is there a better way of describing their entrance?
done
"The men who appeared for Hassan’s entrance..." – are these the masked men who "walked out"? If so, the entire sentence should be rewritten along the lines: "These men interfered in the match, but Undertaker retaliated by removing them all from the ring".
done
Last para of the Preliminary matches section is rendered nearly unreadable by the multiple names and the bracketing. The "otherwise" ploy won’t work here – there are too many names. Don’t know what to suggest, other than to remove all the names except those involved in the backflip and legdrop.
Managers are often intricate parts of matches. They may interfere on behalf of their managed wrestler, distract the referee, or other similiar occurences, so I'd say it's necessary. Titles shouldn't be plural. Championship=Title. If you pluralize it, it suggests it's more the one championship. A tag team Championship is ONE championship, ONE title, but TWO belts. So that should indeed be changed. I fail to see how "got the pin" is at all jargony, but yes, it would mean a pinfall. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Section heading "Main event matches": The section describes three matches, the third of which is called the "main event". In what way are the first two bouts "main event matches" rather than preliminaries?
Main event means most hyped matches, in literal terms the main event is the last match, but the most hyped matches are also classified as main events, which is why the other ones are there.--SRX22:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...that Mysterio and Guerrero’s families did both not want revealed" is badly mangled prose. Suggest: "...that neither Mysterio’s nor Guerrero’s families wanted revealed".
If it’s a safe assumption that "Bra and Panties" matches are exclusive to female wrestlers, then the sentence beginning "The only way..." can be rewritten with better grammar (and removed redundancy): "The only way to win a Bra and Panties match is to strip your opponent down to her underwear".
JBL is mentioned with his full and parenthetical names, while Batista is just Batista. Also, the manager information is given for JBL but not Batista. As this manager plays an active part in the bout, that’s fine. Re above comment on the naming of managers, I think the rule should be that they should only be mentioned when they participate in the event in question. But what do I know?
(Aftermath) "Batista defeated JBL in a to retain the World Heavyweight Championship". That's how it's written - something wrong here.
"...and not Ray Mysterio" – the "and" is redundant
"who had been suspected to be" should be "who had been suspected of being" or, more simply, "who was thought to be"
Steel cage match needs link or explanation
Saying that the feud ended with Guerrero’s unexpected death sounds as though his death was part of the wrestling scenario, and is a bit disrespectful, particularly as you say nothing more. I would replace this sentence with: "However, Guerrero died unexpectedly, of heart failure, on 13 November 2005". You might also mention his posthumous accession to the Hall of Fame (which I picked up from his biographical article)
26.0 not necessary. 26 will do
Why is the pay per view number compared to the next year’s Bash, and the revenue compared to the last year’s?
General note: I don't think this article was ready for FAC when it was nominated - too many problems with the prose, which a good peer review would have sorted out. It's looking a lot better now, however. I don’t find wrestling articles that easy to read, but I’ve done my best with this one, and I'd say it’s looking pretty good. I’d like to read it through again when the above have been attended to, but please note that after 11 September I will be out of touch for a while, so it would be best to respond quite quickly. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The editors have worked hard to provide a non-jargonistic wrestling article, and have been responsive to my numerous suggestions. It is difficult to achieve a balance whereby the prose is comprehensible to the non-fan yet doesn't insult the aficionado. I think they have achieved their aim; no doubt minor niggles will arise over the prose, but that's true of many a promoted article. I will sign off with one final quibble of my own: the general form in the body of the article, where a wrestler has a stage name, is to give the stage name unlinked, followed by the real name, linked. In the lead, in the case of John Layfield, this format has been reversed. Other than that, well done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will the person who added the Done templates please remove them? See the WP:FAC instructions, they slow down the page and cause template limits problems in archives. I would remove them myself, but there are too many. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I did it. In the future, please thread your responses (don't edit reviewer comments) and review WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Hillsgrove Covered Bridge has had a very helpful peer review (thanks to Dincher and Brianboulton) whose suggestions for improvement have all been addressed. I believe this article, which follows the FA models of Cogan House Covered Bridge and Forksville Covered Bridge, meets all of the Featured Article criteria. This is a self-nomination in that I have made most of the edits to the article, but I have sought feedback from many and have received positive comments. This is a quite interesting bridge and I hope the article does it justice. Thanks for any feedback, Ruhrfisch><>°°21:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image check - as noted elsewhere I am a bit uncomfortable answering the questions as I thought the focus would be more on PR than me, but I will try to do better soon, Ruhrfisch><>°°02:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite these restorations, as of 2006 the National Bridge Inventory found it to be "Functionally Obsolete", with problem foundations and railings, and only a 16.5 percent structural sufficiency rating." I find only to be a rather POV word.
"The village of Hillsgrove is where the first settler in what is now Sullivan County, Daniel Ogden, built a cabin circa 1786." This sentence needs some rearranging.
Changed to "The village of Hillsgrove is where Daniel Ogden became the first settler in what is now Sullivan County, circa 1786." Hopefully this is better - suggestions welcome too. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°°10:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps wikilink condemned in the 3rd paragraph of "Overview"?
"In 2001, Pennsylvania had more surviving historic covered bridges than any other state, with 221 remaining in 40 of its 67 counties." With + -ing is almost always an awkward construction, use a semicolon instead: ""In 2001, Pennsylvania had more surviving historic covered bridges than any other state; 221 remained in 40 of its 67 counties."
Two of the five bridges that remained in 1954 were razed by 1970, when PennDOT considered..." I assume that PennDOT stands for Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, spell it out and wikilink since this is the first instance of the word.
"In addition, the sufficiency rating of the bridge structure was only 16.5 percent,[a] the foundations were 'unstable for calculated scour conditions', and the railing 'does not meet currently acceptable standards'." That last quote uses a different tense from the rest of the sentence. Perhaps shorten the portion of the direct quote and change the tense: "In addition, the sufficiency rating of the bridge structure was only 16.5 percent,[a] the foundations were 'unstable for calculated scour conditions', and the railing did not meet 'currently acceptable standards'."
"Its overall condition was deemed "basically intolerable requiring high priority of corrective action", with an and the estimated cost to improve the bridge of was $108,000."
"The NRHP form was prepared by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC), which surveyed county engineers, historical and covered bridge societies, and others for all the covered bridges in the commonwealth." Other what?
Thanks, Ref 12 says "A survey form and inquiry letter were developed and mailed to county bridge engineers, historical societies, members of the Society of Industrial Archeologists, the Theodore Burr Bridge Society and numerous others." Suggestions for better wording welcome, Ruhrfisch><>°°10:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The article uses primarily the NBI and NRHP data, as they are national programs." "uses primarily"-->primarily uses. Is there a source for this statement?
Switched to "primarily uses", thanks. Since the word "National" is in both the program titles, I thought it did not need a ref. If the question is does the whole sentence need a ref, then I have none - there are four published reliable sources for the dimensions, none of which entirely agrees with the others. When I wrote this, I had to decide which length to put in the infobox and lead and what data to include in the discussion, and this is my attempt to explain why I chose the National Bridge Inventory data (and the National Register of Historic Places width). The same sentence is in the two model FAs (will change them to "primarily uses" soon). Ruhrfisch><>°°10:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason for the one external link to be a full citation?
I like to give full credit - this is a great resource on Covered Bridges and I appreciate the authors' work. Also fully cited as the EL in the two model FAs.
Support: I made substantial comments at peer review, most of which were acted on. Those that weren't were adequately answered. The above tweaks have undoubtedly improved it further, and I have no hesitation in supporting an article which is soothingly untopical - and interesting, too. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have reviewed the article with regard to all the FA criteria. It is well-written, engaging and of a professional standard. The are no issues with the images since the Ruhrfisch clearly had a pleasant day producing them himself in the Summer. The sources are reliable and equally importantly, well used. I had a couple of questions and these have been addressed. Thanks once more for a charming, relaxing and entertaining article. Graham ColmTalk16:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Comments[reply]
Should this The Hillsgrove bridge has a load-bearing Burr arch sandwiching multiple vertical king posts, for strength and rigidity, be "The Hillsgrove bridge has load-bearing Burr arches' sandwiching multiple vertical king posts, for strength and rigidity" and is a tense shift needed in the sentence beginning "Pennsylvania...", the latter half of the sentence refers to the present day. Should there be a "the" before "weather"?Graham ColmTalk14:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your copyedits earlier. I have changed the first sentence to The Hillsgrove bridge has load-bearing Burr arches sandwiching multiple vertical king posts on each side, for strength and rigidity. I assume the sentence starting with Pennsylvania is Pennsylvania had the first covered bridge in the United States, and the most such bridges from the 19th century to the present day. (there is also one later, but no it has no verb tense shift). Technically the reference only covers to 2001, so it could be Pennsylvania had the first covered bridge in the United States, and the most such bridges from the 19th century to 2001. The problem is that it makes it sound as if the situation changed in 2001 (but it has not). Suggestions are welcome - perhaps splitting the sentence somehow? I added "the" before weather. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°°16:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All three Sullivan County covered bridges were built in or circa 1850 with Burr arch trusses. "or" is redundant.
The problem is different levels of certainty for the three bridges. Forksville was built for certain in 1850, Hillsgrove is "in 1850" in half the sources and "circa 1850" in the other half, and Sonestown is just "circa 1850". I was trying to get this across, but see where it is confusing. I would be OK with All three Sullivan County covered bridges were built circa 1850 with Burr arch trusses. Is this OK? Ruhrfisch><>°°20:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, the maximum load posted on the bridge itself is only 3.0 short tons (2.7 MT). Link short ton.
Just my personal opinion, but as the description info has little to do with the history, should it be moved to its own section?
Thanks - my thought is that the structure described is the historic structure: back in 1850 Sadler Rogers chose to build a Burr Arch bridge against the side of a mountain, with a gap below the eaves for light and maybe some windows, etc. The two model FAs follow this organization. I will move it if you want though, Ruhrfisch><>°°20:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The scrollboxes are hard to read through: what's the point, and what's going to happen when 1) every FAC gets dozens of them that I have to scroll through and 2) then someone adds a comment or Support or Oppose declaration to the bottom of one that I miss? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support and queries A fine article, three questions
Burr arch truss Capitalisation differs from the linked article. Assuming yours is correct, should that article be moved over the redirect to Burr truss and lower cased?
It was inconsistent in this article - thanks for pointing this out. I am not sure what to do for the other article. I checked the external link and it capitalizes "Burr Arch" in a title but uses "Burr arch" in the text (and does not use "Burr arch truss" although it makes it clear that the Burr arch is a type of truss). Zacher's book and the Evans' book both are similar, although only Zacher's book uses the phrase "Burr arch truss" in the text that I saw. In any case I changed the infobox so it now reads "Burr arch truss bridge". Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°°22:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Functionally Obsolete - should this be capitalised?
Rinkers Covered Bridge - should there be an apostrophe? just checking
Thanks, one of the oddities of modern American English place names is the tendency to drop possessive apostrophes - see Larrys Creek for example. The only reliable source cited that mentions this alternate name (the Evans' book) spells it this way. A Google search also turns up many more "Rinkers" than "Rinker's". Ruhrfisch><>°°22:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out - I will fix it asap for those books where page numbers are readily available (some book sources are known to me only via versions on the internet where pagination is not given). Ruhrfisch><>°°22:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added page numbers to the books by Evans and Zacher, as requested. Refs 9, 13, and 19 are book sources, but are only available on the internet without pagination. If needed I can go to a library that has old copies of refs 9 and 19 and look up pages, but it may take a few days. I do not know of a print source for ref 13 currently. Is this OK, or should I prepare for a library road trip? Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°°01:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more specific; I meant specific page numbers for every time the book is used. The primary reason that I ask this is because otherwise, it will be difficult to trace the reference back to the book to the correct page, if no page is given. GaryKing (talk)02:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I will split up the Evans 2nd edition cites, but is Zacher 2nd ed. (3 pages cited) OK as is? Also do you want me to try and find print copies of the internet only books without pagination (please say no ;-) )? Ruhrfisch><>°°04:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose three pages is okay; page ranges must use en dashes. If the internet-only books have all of the text online, then that's fine as it can be searched. GaryKing (talk)04:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have split the Evans 2nd edition ref into three refs: 1) the page on just this bridge, 2) the three pages on the three Sullivan County bridges, and 3) the pages from the introduction on covered bridges in general. The internet refs are full text and can be searched online. I have spot checked the print versions of the Sullivan County and Lycoming County histories against the electonic versions and they were accurate. Please let me know if this satisfies your objection, Ruhrfisch><>°°02:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's good enough. My primary issue was just giving an entire book as the reference when it is extremely difficult for other people to find the right page in the book. GaryKing (talk)03:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for this, but after reading Wikipedia:MOS#Currencies, I found that the $ sign should not have a link to the US dollar article since "it is generally unnecessary to link the symbols of well-known currencies." Also, it's probably understood that the currency is US dollars since this is a US related article. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe the article meets the FAC criteria. First, the article covers the subject in a comprehensive manner, and the prose is written in a professional and engaging style, as well as being unbiased. All facts in the article that could be contested have been referenced using inline references. The article is also subject to no more vandalism than would be expected of an article related to one of the biggest football clubs in the world.
The article has a lead section of reasonable length, as compared to the overall length of the article, and summarises the article in a concise fashion. The table of contents contains just eight items, and the article is divided into sections of suitable length and related content. Finally, the article contains several appropriate images, all of which have correct licensing information and, in the case of non-free images, Fair Use rationales.
Please leave as many comments as you wish (although I wouldn't mind a few "Support" votes without need for changes to the article), and I will make every effort to respond to your comments as soon as possible. Thanks. – PeeJay07:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.WP:FAC, my emphasis. Graham ColmTalk16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Any reason why Old Trafford should not be a disambiguation page? =Nichalp«Talk»=
I believe that the article was moved to Old Trafford from Old Trafford (football ground) with the reasoning that, when referring to "Old Trafford", the overwhelming majority of people would probably think first of the football ground, followed by the cricket ground, and then the area of Manchester. I saw no reason to disagree with that line of thought, and so the article remained where it is. – PeeJay08:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isnt really a FA comment, but the capacity could be plotted on the graph too, I think the attendence data on its own can be slightly misleading, 30,000 people in a 31,000 stadium, in my opinion is more significant than 40,000 in an 80,000 capacity stadium. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a third-party copy-edit. Some examples of things I spotted:
OT is not "behind" Wembley
Reworded.
Nor is OT "outside of football" (or inside of it for that matter)
Reworded.
"However, further investment of approximately £30,000 would have been required" implies building an 80K capacity cost £0
Reworded.
Lack of referencing in parag opening "Prior to the construction..."
Referenced.
OR alert: sentence starting "At the ground's present capacity of 76,212,"
Removed. Completely missed that one myself *eep*
"a roof was added to the United Road stand for the first time" made me realise no mention's been made of the various stands. Name them when you state they were built, and explain their names.
A description of each stand is included in the "Structure and facilities" section, but I have now added notes in parentheses to the first mention of each stand in order to identify them by their current names.
"The War Commission" wassat?
Linked.
Cite use of Maine Rd
Cited.
Parag opening "The 1970s" is a single sentence parag. Also, it needs multiple referencing for some big claims, even if they're from same source
Merged into previous paragraph and referenced rise of hooliganism in the 1970s.
Parag opening "The Old Trafford pitch" entirely unsourced
To be honest, it's tough to find sources for the actual structure of Old Trafford. The section about the stadium on the club's official website is utter rubbish (although I have used the Seating Plan page to cite the fact that there are four stands, and the number of tiers in each), and most other sources are blogsites, and therefore unusable.
Won't be able to get back here before Monday at soonest, but really a third party copyedit from someone not already snowed under (ie not me) should pick up most of these irritating detractions from a first-rate article --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the images at the top of the article large and those near the bottom small? Should the standard "thumb" parameter not be applied, with numbers of pixels removed?
Done.
"The area indicated by dotted lines is the section designated for away fans." I can't see this without clicking through to the image. Could you amend the image to shade or colour the away section?
Shaded the area and amended the caption to match.
I don't find the average attendances graph very useful in its current form. Having values for every point on the graph is distracting and makes it a bit busy. Could you make the line slightly thicker? And wouldn't a red line rather than orange be more fitting (although not essential)? In this case it may also be worth expanding the image slightly for clarity, even if it meant overriding the default number of pixels of the "thumb" parameter. I'm assuming that those viewing the graph within the context of the article would merely be interested in the trend (while those interested in the detail would click through), but on my monitor at least, the trend is hard to see without putting my face near the screen due to the value labels cluttering it up. The x-axis also quite busy - could you make the x-axis labels (say) every two years instead of every year? --Jameboy (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the values for each point on the graph, thickened the trend line and changed it to red, but I haven't increased the size of the image yet, as I think it would be best to see how it looks with the modifications at the same size first. – PeeJay16:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those all look fine now, much clearer - good work. The graph seems clear enough now without further re-sizing. I'll have a proper read through when I get a chance before deciding whether to support or not. --Jameboy (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
What makes the following reliable sources? I read the Peer Review, and still have concerns about these.
If I removed this source from the article, would it make that much difference. I mean, do I really need to reference the fact that the Munich clock is in the south-east corner of the stadium? – PeeJay19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting really frustrated with the information that the above two references deal with. It is so difficult to find this information anywhere, so I've been reduced to using sites that might not be 100% reliable for my info. The club's official stats site could help, but it does not specifically list record lowest attendances or average attendances, so I would have to reference each season individually. – PeeJay19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
OK, I've referenced the appropriate seasons, but there's no comparison with other seasons/matches on the pages I've referenced. Nevertheless, this will have to do. – PeeJay16:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Second only to Wembley Stadium, Old Trafford has one of the largest capacities of any English football stadium at just over 76,000, and is the only UEFA 5-star rated facility in England."
You say its the second biggest stadium in England and then say one of the largest stadiums. Secondly I would change "over 76,000" to the exact capacity; there's no reason to be inexact in the lead and expect someone to go searching for its capacity. I would reword this sentence.
Out of interest, what would you suggest that I change the wording of the sentence to? I agree that the exact capacity should be used, but other than that, the wording seems fine.
I would suggest anything that removes one of "second only" and "one of the largest capacities", something along the lines of "With a capacity of 76,212, Old Trafford the second largest football stadium in England behind only Wembley Stadium, and is the only UEFA 5-star rated facility in England." Peanut4 (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, with a slight modification, as "largest" might be construed as referring to the stadium's size, rather than its capacity. – PeeJay20:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that a certain amount of the stadium's capacity is taken up by spectators in executive boxes, which may not have precisely the number of seats that each room is designed for. How about "With space for 76,212 spectators"? – PeeJay21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've made a few changes to eliminate redundancy and to tidy the prose. Please be careful not to over use expressions like this meant that, located in , as well as and also. Well done. Graham ColmTalk16:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
due to mainly POV and other issues. Please note that the word 'famous' is blatantly an issue of WP:POV. It may be great, it may be well known etc, but an encyclopedia is not there to make assumptions and call something 'famous' based on somebody's point of view. Remove this word from the Busby picture caption and this statement - Perhaps the most famous stand at Old Trafford is the West Stand, also known as the Stretford End. Also search for this throughout the article, I have briefly found a few more sentences with words like 'great'. You have to make it sound more formal and neutral.
I also think its worth mentioning quickly that Man U are one of the most succesful football clubs in England. As much as a Chelsea fan as I am (although not an Englishmen!), it's still definitely an obvious figure that Man U are just about the most succesful club in England. So, you could just mention this when you say "Old Trafford is the home of Man U".
It may be obvious to a football fan, but this article has to assume that the reader knows nothing about the subject. Therefore, it seems appropriate to mention a little bit of background about the stadium's tenants. – PeeJay11:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:lead, I don't think this meets the correct structure. Ensure that you explain most of the upcoming info within the first lead section. I see nothing in there about past/future construction and display, the stadium's notable history either. I also think it's worth mentioning a quick notable record or transport surrounding in the lead.
I see no information about the bombings during the World War. This is bought up in the lead and is perceived as a main historic significance behind the stadium's past, but instead it is only mentioned once in the article again. This needs to be expanded upon I think. Clearly doesn't follow content criteria.
There really is not that much to say about the bombing of Old Trafford. The ground was bombed, leaving it unusable for nearly 10 years, so United had to use Maine Road in the meantime. The club then got some compensation from the government and the ground was built back up again. Like I said, there's bugger all to say about it, so I think the amount that I wrote about it in the article is appropriate. – PeeJay11:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had an article opposed and failed over the use of a stadium's picture just like you have used. Even though it had the perfectly correct tag (the same as the Old Trafford main image one) and had relevant author information, my nomination was treated against opposition for the use of possible copyright issues. This is almost exactly the same, the same issues can clearly be drawn from this. I know it doesnt sound fair, but I've had to deal with that on all 3 occasions since my nomination failed when it was perfectly fine. Domiy (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, it's a bit unfair that you would use the fact that your FAC nomination was opposed as a reason to oppose this one. I suggest you reconsider this reason, and probably withdraw it. I have now dealt with your suggestions, and I hope I've now done enough to earn your support. But please, don't let the rejection of Croatia national football team become a reason for you to oppose other people's FAC nominations. – PeeJay11:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Here's an important one, and a well-written one at that. Graham gave this a great copy-edit. Let's give it a good run-through to tighten the prose even further.
History, Construction and early years: "Bradford won 1-0, the goal scored by Jimmy Spiers, watched by 58,000 people." I don't really like the flow of this. It feels like "in a game" could be added after the second comma.
Found two FA Cup links in the section. The second one can be removed.
Rare photo complaint from me: The Stretford end image from 1992 has a note in the description that says "use it free". To make things more confusing, this is a public domain image. Images that are restricted like this go against WP:IUP. Can an image expert be consulted for this?
Wartime bombing: "Such an undertaking would serve to increase the atmosphere within the ground by containing the crowd's noise within the ground and focus it onto the pitch, where the players would feel the full effects of a capacity crowd." I'd remove the second "within the ground" and make a change to "focusing", thereby fixing the tense of the sentence.
Conversion to all-seater: "This forced redevelopment, including the removal of the terraces at the front of the other three stands, reduced the club's capacity to an all-time low of about 44,000." Either change reduced to reducing or add which before reduced. Another tense issue.
Changing it to either "reducing" or "which reduced" would not make sense. The sentence, without the clause, should read "This forced redevelopment reduced the stadium's capacity to an all-time low of about 44,000." (And yes, I realise that I changed the word "club" for "stadium" mid-way through). – PeeJay08:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Structure and facilities: "The store moved to temporary accommodation opposite the East Stand...". Perhaps "The store was temporarily moved opposite the East Stand..."
Repeat links for Munich air disaster and Denis Law in this section.
"with a few metres run-off space on each side." Should this be "of run-off space", or is this another instance of British English, which I can never figure out?
It is possibly an instance of British English, although it could just be me writing it the way it sounded in my head. Could "a few metres' run-off space..." be correct as well? – PeeJay08:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your usage doesn't make sense PJ, the metres don't process the run-off space. I think either would work. Without the "of" my be a bit more "proper" though. Then again, I'm no English professor. Calebrw (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Future: "almost as much as has already spent on the stadium in the last fourteen years." Two things. Fourteen should be changed to 14, to match the number usage in the rest of the article. Also, has this sentence been missing something? :-) A fifty later in the section.
Other uses: Play-off doesn't agree with playoff from the lead. For consistency's sake, one should be adjusted.
That's it from me for the whole article. I normally don't make it through a fairly large article in one pass, which by itself tells me that the prose is FA-quality. Please handle the sourcing concerns and get the images reviewed, so I can fully support this, after handling these of course. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All instances of "play-off" have been replaced with "playoff". Furthermore, all of Giants2008's comments that I did not reply to directly above have been resolved. – PeeJay07:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just left a note at commons:Commons talk:Licensing#Image:Stretford end 1992.JPG, and the reply was that the licensing seems fine. To be honest, I don't see what's wrong with it. The uploader has decided to release the image to the public domain, and I think that their comment in the image description is just reinforcing the fact that it can now be used freely. – PeeJay09:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The wider community has accepted englandfootballonline.com as a reliable source, particularly given the list of its myriad sources. I will attempt to find an alternative reference, but I see no reason why the use of that site as a source should detract from this FAC nomination. – PeeJay17:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the sourcing issues addressed here, I don't see explanations of why/how the source meets WP:SPS, I don't see examples such as given at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches, and I don't see a post about the source at WP:RSN. Editors supporting the article have many options for explaiing how the site conforms to WP:SPS, or the question can be taken to WP:RSN, or the sources cited in the hobby site could be used to cite our article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No matter, I've replaced the references in question now. Please feel free to pass the article at any time. Is it still the case that four unopposed supports are enough to pass an article? – PeeJay18:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Graham copy-edited this before, as Dweller had requested. My issues are taken care of, and the various edits since then have helped as well. Top-class article overall. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Comments I'll give it a c-e. Only big issue at first glance is the Lead is too chunky IMHO. Feel free to revert any of my foolishness. --Dweller (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen, Sandy, the c-e may take some time. I'm about to go off-wiki and can't see myself editing much again until Monday; I'd anticipate it'll take me a few days to get through it all, so middle of next week at earliest. Sorry. Happy for FAC to progress without me, so no O/S from me for now. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Brown captained Australia in one Test in March 1946, against New Zealand in a match that was retrospectively accredited.
I know what you mean but a lay reader may struggle.
A right-handed opening batsman, he and Jack Fingleton formed an opening pair in the 1930s that was regarded as one of the finest in Australian Test history.
Present tense ?
Brown had backed up too far and left his crease before the bowler
With steady performances, Brown forced his way into the Test team during the tour, batting at No. 3. With regular openers Bill Ponsford and Bill Woodfull retiring at the end of the tour,
Brown opened in all Tests of 1934 except the first.
The highlight of his tour was an unbeaten 206 in the Second Test at Lord's, which saved Australia from defeat.
I think the "which saved Australia from defeat" should come just after the 206.
Cricket resumed in 1945–46 and Brown captained an Australian team to New Zealand, leading the team in a retrospectively accredited Test match in the absence of Don Bradman.
Split ?
I suggest "Cricket resumed in 1945–46 and Brown—in the absence of Don Bradman—captained an Australian team to New Zealand, leading the team in a retrospectively accredited Test match".--Grahame (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All images are public domain according to Australian law, all have date, author, source tags. One thing, though: Image:BillBrown1.jpg's use in the article is a rather pointless 'Bill Brown' caption. Perhaps move that image to the infobox for a full-body shot instead of the small mugshot? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)13:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that Image:Arthur Morris.jpg adds any value to the article. It also spills over into the following section, in my browser/monitor/personal settings. An image of Vinoo Mankad would be better (if available), since the next section focuses on him. Either way, though, Morris seems unnecessary.
"Brown was unable to perform to his previous standards he was ousted"... grammar.
I agree with User:Dweller that there are a few too many details in the WP:LEAD. For example,I hate to keep picking on Morris, but I don't think the lead needs to state who replaced Brown... and various other details can be trimmed. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR)11:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a match in 1947–48, Brown was the unwitting victim of the first instance of being "Mankaded" by India's Vinoo Mankad - grammar with "being".
He was on the verge of leaving Sydney when an innings of 172 for his Shire team reinvigorated him - him, or his career (goes with whether "Sydney" means the city or the cricket club)?
This placed Brown second behind Bradman in the first-class run-scoring aggregates - clarify that this was for State cricket, not total (ie. int'l) or similar.
Upon arrival, Brown missed selection for the tour opener against Worcestershire, before making a century against Cambridge in his second tour match, batting in the middle order - his second, or the tour's second?
It was Australia's first double-century opening stand in Test cricket.[16] Their partnership remains an Australian Test record for the first wicket against South Africa. - I suggest combining the two short sentences into one, given they're both about records.
The pair led the platform for two further innings victories, as Australia took the series 4–0 - may be worth saying if it was a four or five Test series.
Support the lead is a little large, and there is an ugly formatting gap part-way down caused by an image, but I don't feel these will hamper this FAC. SGGHspeak!08:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
William Alfred Brown OAM (31 July 1912 – 16 March 2008[1]) shouldn't the ref come after the punctuation? Also suggest "William Alfred "Bill" Brown" as it is not mentioned elsewhere in the prose (and Bill is in the infoboxes, captions and quotations).
Brown was a member of Don Bradman's Invincibles, who toured England in 1948 without suffering a defeat. - in 1948 without defeat.
Raised in New South Wales, Brown initially struggled in both work and cricket at the start of the Great Depression, save this for the early years section. By removing the first "NSW" link it allows the cricket team link to take preference. "Brown made his first-class debut for New South Wales in 1932"
In a match in 1947–48, Brown was the unwitting victim of the first instance of being "Mankaded" by India's Vinoo Mankad. - can you be more specific with the date? As the season isn't linked to, anyone trying to find the match might have to do some searching. Month and Year would probably suffice. The Mankad section doesn't really help either. Maybe a ref to the scorecard?
When poor form made his selection for the 1938 tour of England the subject of debate, Brown responded with 1,854 runs on tour, - as he did go on tour (in order to respond to the debate), suggest "After poor form made his selection..."
The outbreak of the Second World War cost Brown his peak years, which he spent in the Royal Australian Air Force - doesn't quite read right. Brown was at his peak at the outbreak of WWII/Brown spent WWII in the RAAF, costing him his peak cricketing years?
Not sure about the emdashes around "in Bradman's absence": "Cricket resumed in 1945–46; in Bradman's absence, Brown captained an Australian team to New Zealand, leading the team in a match that was retrospectively awarded Test status.
Brown missed the entirety of the following season, due to injury - "Brown missed the entirety of the following season because of injury"
Selected for the Invincibles tour, he performed reasonably well in the non-international matches, but, with Morris and Barnes entrenched as openers, he batted out of position, in the middle order during the first two Tests, struggled and was dropped from the Test team, never to return. - far too many commas - can probably be shortened. "Reasonably" - how reasonably? Possibly pipe link [[Batting order (cricket)#Middle order|out of position]]; "with Morris and Barnes entrenched as openers" can be surmised from the previous sentence and can be removed. Possibly "Selected for the Invincibles tour, he performed reasonably well in the non-international matches, but batted out of position during the first two Tests. Brown struggled and was dropped from the Test team, never to return."
...controversial run out by Indian left arm orthodox spinner Vinoo Mankad in the Second Test - can the link to left arm orthodox spinner be shortened or removed? A piped link to [[[[left arm orthodox spin|spinner]] - his actual bowling style has no bearing on the sentence (although being a spinner obviously helped the dismissal) and is getting in the way.
I've changed all of these, or Dweller has compeltely rewiorded them so that it isnt relevant anymore. As for the mdash, it's just a personal preference that I tend to use more than colons. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't 'First Test', 'Second Test', 'Third Test' read 'first, second, third Test etc.? (It's what I've always done, but can't see anything in the WP:CRIC style guide.
In 1929–30, Brown joined the Marrickville Cricket Club in Sydney Grade Cricket, but was unable to hold down a regular place - In 1929–30, Brown played Grade Cricket for Marrickville Cricket Club but was unable to hold down a regular place.
The piped link to XI in sports doesn't anchor properly, suggest you place "First XI" inside the link rather than just the number. [[11 (number)#In sports|First XI]]
"who was displeased with Brown's poor communication with batting partners, while running between the wickets," - change ", while" to "when" to remove one of the commas.
OK, just stands out as all of the others only link to either the city or the ground (Lord's). I have often considered using the form [[Trent Bridge|Nottingham]], but I'm not sure how much support that would have.–MDCollins (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why was Ponsford unavailable for the second Test - was he injured? dropped?
Wisden described him: which Wisden? John, the Almanack? You could leave it out and say "He was named as one of the Wisden Cricketers of the Year for his performances in 1938 and was described as a "cricketer of remarkable powers" who batted with "a charming skill, coolness, thoughtfulness and certainty"
I think that First Test, Second Test, Third Test should read first Test, second, third etc. I have had a look at the WP:CRIC style guide and it isn't mentioned (perhaps it should be) - I usually write it grammatically and it is what I usually see in printed media, but acknowledge there isn't a consistent format. - just have a think about it.
Check that the first instance of important cricket terms are linked/or explained. Things like partnership, innings, carrying his bat, batting average, not out
The image captions should have full stops when a full sentence. There is an abbreviation to NSW which should be written out. One image (the cigarette card) contains material that should be in the prose not the caption.
Think that's enough to be going on with (also up to "Wisden cricketer of the year"). Oh, I have delinked the dates in the infobox template so you don't need to worry about that.
This is an extremely well written article, but I feel it could just do with another copy edit. I'm sure my support will follow really soon. Good work! –MDCollins (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - all comments satisfactorily addressed, a very nice article to read. Just one more thought - the domestic dates in the infobox look a bit messy wrapping onto two lines. I think this came up before. I wonder if instead of implying the season, we use the years of the first/last matches for the club to reduce it to single years. Either that or amend the infobox column width to give room for the two-year links.–MDCollins (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support - I just couldn't wait any longer to comment on this. The previous cricket articles I've looked at have been very good, and I want to see how this compares to them. I'll start at Wisden Cricketer of the Year due to the previous reviews.
"Brown's form started to deteriorate in 1937-38, scoring only 400 runs at 36.36 for the season." I don't think "scoring" is the best transition possible after the comma. Something like "as he scored" would be better, though I'm sure you can improve on that.
Mankad: "So that he could get a head start in the case that he attempted a run." I'm more used to seeing "in case he attempted a run", but I'm not sure if that's how it's said in Australia. I do think it's wordy at the moment.
Off the field: "In 1992, Brown was elected a life member of the Queensland Cricket Association and in 2000, was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for his services to cricket." Picky, but I would move the second comma before and in 2000.
This sentence, Aged three, business failure hit the family, and they moved to Marrickville in inner Sydney, is illogical and sounds like the family was three years old.
Nominating for Featured Article; concerns I have that could be considered by reviewers include the sections on Beliefs as well as Legacy and criticism. Are they clear? Organized well? Etc. And, of course, the usual question: is the quality of writing throughout sufficient? Thanks in advance. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:FullerDaguerreotype.jpg- could we try and find the actual author and more specific date for publication for this one?
I'll keep trying; I haven't found anything yet. It's the only known daguerreotype of Fuller and it's used all over, but I have yet to find substantial information on its provenance. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Information discovered! See image description for the full story. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise all images have author, license, and appropriate source and tags. I guess I'll try and review this article too, it's a shame it wasn't in this shape when I had to do my english lit presentation on Fuller a couple years back... :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)15:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment by jimfbleak, just a drive-by nitpick, no time to review properly at present about 100 yards (91 m) delusions of accuracy, I think. In accordance with MoS, 90 m or even 100m would be better - although if you use 100 m, someone will point out that 100 yd and 100 m aren't the same (:jimfbleak (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC) I've now had a proper read, no major issues, jimfbleak (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a template that makes an automatic measurement conversion; I had nothing to do with it. I can remove it though and re-write the line in a manner that more accurately represents the cited source. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns 1) "Modern scholars have suggested Woman in the Nineteenth Century" You only have one scholar cited. Maybe cite the actual scholar? 2) "Once equal educational rights were afforded women, she believed, women could push for equal political rights as well" This (and some surrounding text) reads more as a term paper or as a novel than as an encyclopedia. Make the language straightforward and to the point. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote is actually referencing the source saying that modern scholars believed that the work was the first of its kind since Wollstonecraft; the source itself does not make the comparison independently, really. Not sure what the problem is with your second point. Could you clarify what is unencyclopedic about it? I've never been accused of "novel"-like writing before... Is it because the sentence is broken up by the "she believed" part? I was trying to add variety to the sentence structures (rather than "She this" and "She that", which I am commonly criticized for during my FA/GA reviews). I'm just taking a guess at your meaning though.; if you explain a bit further can address it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see on the first point. On the second, it was: blank, inserted name says, continue blank. Instead of having it as inserted name says _____. When you put in the stylized dictum acknowledgment after a phrase, it appears to be more "pretty", or "aesthetically pleasing" which is appropriate for novels, essay writings, etc, but not encyclopedias. Does this make sense? Its just a style item. Its not a huge issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense now; thanks for clarifying! I really only did that to break up all the sentences that started with "She something" and then "She something else". I'll see if I can find another way to do it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chances are it will be difficult, thats why I wouldn't even think about opposing on such an issue. I know exactly what position you are in, especially when I have to rely on quotes throughout my articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes dislike the indirect back 'n forth that characterizes content review. I'm just gonna write my own version of the lead in my user space, and them you can look at it, OK? But it may be much later today... Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR)00:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to put something together, Ling! I'm curious if other reviewers have a preference for either the current article version or the proposed revised version. (As an aside, I will be out of town for a couple days starting tomorrow and may not respond swiftly to queries, as they say). --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ling, I didn't add it to the lead, but you came up with some good information so I added it into the main part of the article, under Legacy. Thanks for providing the great info! --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as for the lead: the bit about going to elementary school in this or that place (Groton, Massachusetts; irrelevant data that smacks of boosterism) is boring enough to make me click away from the article; plus the lead is supposed to be a stand-alone article of sorts... and i don't think it actually captures the spirit of her excellence (see the bit about most well-read in my version) or of her contribution to feminism (see the last 2 quotes in my version) in its current state. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR)00:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had no intention to make it seem like I was promoting/boosting an elementary school in Groton. As per the guidelines on leads, the lead should accurately summarize the full article. As the majority of the article is biographical, the lead will be mostly bio as well. I think I see your point, though, and added another bit of info to further emphasize. I'm hesitant to add more about her influence in that third paragraph because, as you might remember, your first comment pointed to the lack of criticism. Adding too much positive stuff seems to add a little POV. I'll keep thinking on this one, however. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about how her influenced waned after her death was my swipe at showing the negative side. To be honest, after reading the article, I came away with the impression that most of her detractors were folks whom she'd quarreled with, rather than objective impersonal thinkers. They still warrant mention, of course... do any of them look objective impersonal to you? I mean... of course they have an opposing POV; I mean "objective" impersonal in the sense of "not springing from personal quarrels". Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR)
Web Section, questions: The web section is placed below references instead of Further Information. However, I went through the first five or six and searched for the author's names; no mention of most of them in the notes. Question: If they are not cited in the text, are they references or Further Information? Follow up: If they are Further Information, are they required to be Reliable sources? I'm not sure, for example, how we can know that http://sitekreator.com/hirose/rep1_en.html isn't simply well-written fiction... Ling.Nut(WP:3IAR)
Image:TokyoExpress.jpg does have a source: "Pacific Ground War," Shinjinbutsuoraisha, Tokyo, Japan, (2003)". The book includes no further publishing info than that, which, I understand is often the norm with Japanese publications.
Yes, Image:Japanese battleship Haruna.jpg does have a watermark, which appears to be on the original print kept by the US Navy's historical division and therefore unavoidable.
Current ref 1 (Zimmerman) and 2 (Vava'u Press) both have bare links in them with not titles. Should have titles telling what page you're redirecting folks to. Same for current ref 37 which has six bare numbered links. Some of these links are showing up as dead in the link checker also.
Current ref 110 (New moon Nov 8) has a bare url in it.
Per the MOS, even when the web page itself is in all capitals, we don't list it in all capitals in the link.
As far as LingNut's question, Zimmerman in the web sources, at least, is used as a source. Any of the questioned sites above, if they aren't used as sources, could be listed in the Further Reading/External Links sections where the standards aren't as high (It's a great spot for diaries and first hand accounts of the battle, for example)
Sandy appears to have fixed the stray, non-standard citation template.
The first two links appear to have been corrected. I fixed the links about the Goettge patrol, deleting the dead ones and giving more information on the live ones [55]
Would it be possible to get an official count on the naval warships involved on both sides. The "strength" section in the infobox gives the impression that it was an all-infantry battle, although a lot of the action (especially in the early portions) occurred between surface and carrier fleets.
The map in the "battle for Henderson Field" section is really really small, and it is extremely difficult to see the actual details of the map. Would it be possible to expand it a little?
The problem with giving the ship counts is that both sides, during the six months that the campaign lasted, deployed most of their entire Pacific naval forces at some point during the campaign. Complicating this, is that some of the naval forces provided only indirect support, such as escorting convoys to the general area but not to Guadalcanal itself, or else provided cover for operations around Guadalcanal from a distance. Submarines, in particular, from both sides operated around the Solomon Islands area but weren't necessarily assigned in direct support of the forces engaged on Guadalcanal. In addition, Australia and New Zealand warships served during this time in support of both the New Guinea and Guadalcanal Campaigns, which were ongoing concurrently. For this reason, a definitive counting of the number of ships, both warship and logistic, involved is extremely difficult and problematic. So, I'm open to ideas about how to capture this in the infobox. The thing about the infobox, though, is it's just supposed to give a quick summary of some important facts from the article. And this particular fact is hard to summarize.
Support - another excellent article on the pacific campaigns of World War II. The few objections I had have both been addressed adequately, so this article is (imho) ready for FA. Cam (Chat) 04:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Support There are still some things I do not like about this article"
"Guadalcanal and the rest of the Solomon Islands were technically under UK/Australian political control during World War II." Actually, Australia only controlled Bougainville and northern islands - the ones that are part of Papua-New Guinea today. What is politically the Solomon Islands today - which you link to - was never under Australian political control, even when parts were under Australian military occupation in 1942 and 1944-45.
"Admiral Chester Nimitz, Allied commander in chief for Pacific forces, created the South Pacific theater, with Vice Admiral Robert L. Ghormley in command on June 19, 1942, to direct the offensive in the Solomons." All wrong. The South Pacific Area was created by Admiral King. He appointed Ghormley, who still in the London, to command it on 13 April 1942. Ghormley arrived in Ackland on 21 May and assumed command on 19 June. And Nimitz did not become CINCPOA (as opposed to CINCPAC) until 8 May 1942.
"British Admiral Victor Crutchley" To be consistent with the the Americans, this should be "Rear Admiral". Crutchley was not promoted to four-star rank until after the war.
"Without consulting with Vandegrift, Turner, or Ghormley, Fletcher withdrew from the Solomon Islands area with his carrier task forces the evening of August 8" Um, Fletcher was in command after all. Ghormley was on Noumea, Turner on McCauley off Guadalcanal, and Fletcher was on Saratoga. And a lot of radio chatter would have been like ringing Tokyo and telling them his position. (Also: is there an "on" missing?)
"In June, the Allies launched Operation Cartwheel, which initiated a strategy of isolating the major Japanese forward base, at Rabaul, and concentrated on cutting its sea lines of communication. This prepared the way for the island hopping campaigns of General Douglas MacArthur in the South West Pacific" Actually the strategy was still to capture Rabaul. It was changed in August 1943. (And Doug would thank you not to describe his campaigns as "island hopping".)
2. According to Miller, "Guadalcanal", p. 2–3, (listed in the references section), the Joint Chiefs of Staff did create the South Pacific Theater, but that Nimitz was told to pick it's commander, Ghormley. In case that isn't correct, I've left it somewhat ambiguous in the text [59].
Support - I stumbled across this article randomly, and when I finally finished scrolled back to the top to confirm it was already FA. The only thing I noticed that could stand improvement was the maps - it would be nice to have them for all of the major actions, and those that are there are almost universally too small and/or hard to read. Overall, though, a great article, well written, organized, and cited. Blurble (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Prose needs a good massage. And the lead looks as though it's been stripped back to save room; bit jerky and stubby in the flow of the sentences and the ideas. Here are examples in just the lead; the whole article needs a good work-over by someone new to it.
It was actually shorter before but the peer review (here) suggested it should be made longer. I'm not a great fan of long leads but one thing I can see was missing is the discussion of financial difficulties and under achievement against passenger targets. I've added something for that and regrouped the sentences into three paragraphs which deal with the origins, physical aspects and financial. --DavidCane (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Established in 1891, construction of the CCE&HR was delayed for more than a decade whilst funding was sought." You need the year of establishment in the first sentence, applying to the company, I suppose; at the moment, it's the construction that was established in 1891.
"Various routes were planned although a number of these were rejected by Parliament." First, a comma before "although" would be nicer; second, is it a clear contrast? Not as obvious or strong a contrast as "although" conveys. What about "Various routes were planned, a number of them subsequently rejected by Parliament." Unsure; your call.
I've dialled-back "although" to "but" which I think does the job. I haven't used "subsequently" as it's implicit that the rejection was after the planning. --DavidCane (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Tunnels under Hampstead Heath, opposed by many local residents who believed they would damage the heath's ecology, were allowed." Clunky to have the "were allowed" lost at right at the end. "Plans for tunnels under Hampstead Heath were passed, despite opposition by many local residents who believed they would damage the ecology of the heath." And can you find a better word than my "passed"?
Agreed, was a bit awkward, the result again of previous copyediting I think. I've used your suggestion with "authorised" in place of "passed" --DavidCane (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"a pair of tunnels"—add "parallel"?
I've not added parallel. The tunnels on the tube aren't always parallel with their pair, sometimes running at different levels or on different alignments to suit requirements.--DavidCane (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Extensions in 1914 and the mid-1920s took the railway to Edgware and under the River Thames to Kennington, serving a distance of 22.84 kilometres (14.19 mi) and 23 stations." Good, except perhaps "serving 23 stations over a distance of 22.84 kilometres (14.19 mi)" would be better, yes?
Use passive voice only there's some point in doing so; here, I've retained it, but it's clearer in meaning: "In the 1920s, connections were made to another of London's deep-level tube railways,..."—clunky. "In the 1920s, the route was physically connected to another of London's deep-level tube railways,...". Tony(talk)11:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know I've got it in a book somewhere but just can't find it. I've deleted the sentence and the link as it's just an aside really.--DavidCane (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments : I thought at its last FAC that this article was getting close to FA standard. With the various improvements that have been incorporated it is now a very solid piece of work, informative and meticulously researched, I'm close to a support, but there are a few things I'd like sorting out. Most of these are minor, one is more significant.
Minor prose issues
In the lead, is it necessary to say the route was "physically" connected to another? Could it have been connected in any other way?
Ah, that was suggested it the comments above. I think your right, "physically" is implied by the circumstances and context. I've taken it out. --DavidCane (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also in lead, "over optimistic" is normally a hyphenated term.
The two paragraphs just under the "Establishment" heading form a subsection, and should have a title - "Background" or some such (all my articles have Background sections).
In the Hampstead Heath controversy section you have 200 ft and 240 feet in the same para. I know the second figure is in a quote, but I think there should be consistency - could both become "feet"? This would happen automatically if you use the convert template.
In the same section, Heath is capitalised in the first para, not in 3rd and 4th paras. I think it is customary to refer to Hampstead Heath as the Heath - with the capital.
Done. I did think about that when I wrote the section and decided that as it was using heath in a slightly more general term it shouldn't be capitalised but, there is only the one heath and, as you say, it is "the Heath" for its users. It will look consistent with just one style. --DavidCane (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opening (the section called this): the last words of the section should read "1906 stock or Gate stock" as these are the alternative terms.
Issue with the chart: I am referring to the one in the "Opening" section. It looks beautiful, but I am confused by it.
Why is it in the "Opening" section when it seems to cover much later developments?
I see what you mean. It was one of the first things I added to the article when I started rewriting it and I think it has just sat in place as the text moved around it. It really belongs in the extensions section so I've moved it there. I have moved the Tufnell Park station image down to fill the blank space that this leaves to the right of the list of original stations and I have moved the Brent Cross picture to the left.--DavidCane (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The chart is over-complicated by the "legend" link, which takes me to a different chart, in a different colour, and no immediate connection between the two. Isn't it possible to explain the main chart in a simpler way?
The target page for the legend seems to have been developed since I last looked at it and it does seem a bit complicated and inappropriate. Basically, blue lines are for light rail or metro systems and red for main line services (but as we don't have any of the latter its not very helpful). Pale line or dots are closed routes or stations and dashed ones are underground. The legend is a standard component of the transcluded templates that make up the route diagram box but I will see if there is a way to turn it off and and a simplified alternative which can be used covering just the appropriate symbols. --DavidCane (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re. the chart: my guess is that if the legend link is a component of the template, it can't be disabled, though there are some clever people around. As a minimum, would you be able to precede the chart by some brief text which dates the chart (1926 I believe), and explains the differentiation between tunnel and overground? Explaining the different types of station isn't so important - readers can easily deduce which are termini or interconnections. To my mind that amount of text would be enough; the legend link stays but there's no need to use it. Do you think that is possible? Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to disable the legend and have added a date note at the top and a key to the bottom of the table which indicates the meaning of the symbols. --DavidCane (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for a comprehensive, well-written and engaging article. I have to take the train from Euston to Colindale once in a while and now, unbelievably, I'm looking forward to my next trip; such a fascinating article, brilliantly researched, well done. Allow me just one nit-pick, this: Various routes were planned but a number of these were rejected by Parliament from the Lead is so vague. Graham ColmTalk09:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Fear not faint-hearts. Fauna of Scotland may be nominated by the notoriously average Ben MacDui but it has been copy edited by a person of good standing, and peer reviewed by more than one editor of repute. The deficiencies remain those of the nominator, whose knowledge of creepy-crawlies may be deficient and whose meanderings into fringe theories may provoke concern, but who nonetheless humbly submits this Good Article for your consideration. BenMacDui18:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - you may run into problems with the ToC. Putting it in such a manner disrupts may subheadings, which causes problems. Also, the red deer stag image shouldn't be directly above a formatting on the left, as it causes strange alterations and splits the text. Move it to the right and in the below section. You put the "corvus" latin name in parenthesis but not "Tetrao urogallus". "Upogebia deltaura, a mud lobster that is commonly found in Scottish maerl beds" could be shortly by removing "that is". Also, captions shouldn't be in proper sentences. "Adder" image should probably be up and to the right to avoid formatting problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia has kindly fixed the ToC and the red deer image.
Caper latin name fixed.
"that is" removed
According to MOS, sentences in captions are occasionally allowed. The beast is just an example and does not appear in the text - I think it deserves a brief description. I've removed the period, although I am not sure this is correct.
Support - I did not realize I was an editor of repute, but I did peer review this article and felt it was essentially at FAC quality then. It has since been improved and my only suggestion is to change the current link to fox to either Vulpes, or perhaps better to Vulpes vulpes. Well done, Ruhrfisch><>°°00:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when I read "The copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification" I tend to take it at face value, but what do I know? I see it is now up for deletion. There really isn't a decent replacement on Commons. I will look for an alternative asap. Now done. BenMacDui10:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New "eagle in flight" image uploaded - thanks to Ruhrfisch for the suggestion. I have asked a Commons licensing eagle eye to take a peep at it. BenMacDui09:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand the problem as I would assume it was the original uploader, but I am not an image attorney. The image opposite is an alternative if need be.
User:Maedin kindly fixed the rogue one. The remaining one should, I believe be "cSAC".
"populations of waders". Sure, it's obvious that a wader is a wading seabird. But could it perhaps be made more obvious? Ditto for Mustelidae, commonly referred to as the weasel family.
opinion only: the deer in Image:Red-deer-glen-cristie.jpg is just a vaguely deer-shaped blotch in my browser/monitor/personal settings. I put Image:LandseerMonarch1851.JPG in and pressed the preview button, and it came out looking quite purty indeed. Is there some unspoken FAC rule that prevents the use of paintings instead of photos? Did I miss a memo somewhere?
"Scottish Natural Heritage plan" is that a typo, or is that a case where our European friends consider things mass/group nouns where us feckless and shoeless 'Murcans don't?
Things to consider possibly putting in the WP:LEAD:
Any details at all about endangered/threatened/at risk status. See forex
the red/amber/green lists for birds
the fact that red squirrels are endangered is only mentioned in a note;
The text does say "This species faces threats"
"Scotland's marine life could be almost wiped out within 50 years unless tough action is taken to manage the way humans use the seas".... etc.
The lead says "Conservation agencies in the UK are concerned that climate change, especially its potential effects on mountain plateaus and marine life, threaten much of the fauna of Scotland." I'm reluctant to add something to the lead that would grab the reader's attention, but which may state a view that is not shared by most conservation agencies.
at least a phrase or a clause about extinctions and reintroductions.. in fact, go through every major section of the article and see if it gets mentioned in the WP:LEAD, which is supposed to be a summary of the whole article...well, I dunno, you might skip the Cryptozoology section, since it might seem a little touristy to mention Nessie in the lead. But don't take it out of the article. ;-)
It said "several of the country's larger mammals were hunted to extinction in historic times" and I've added "and human activity has also led to various species of wildlife being introduced".
The lead is so broad and general, it borders on being underinformative. I would suggest adding one or two specific details of animals that are unique/notable in Scotland .. you choose the ones that seem best... for example maybe (you pick! don't mechanically follow my suggestions just because I'm an accursed FAC reviewer!):
"The Moray Firth colony of about 100 Bottlenose Dolphins is the most northerly in the world" or whatever.
"Although many species of butterfly are in decline in the UK, recent research suggests that some, such as the Pearl-bordered Fritillary, Marsh Fritillary and Chequered Skipper, which are becoming rare in the rest of the UK, are moving north into Scotland in response to climate change"
Added "the most northerly colony of Bottlenose Dolphins in the world". I think it covers birds and sea creatures pretty well. Other than seals the mammals are generally outstanding by UK standards but not on a European scale. I'm reluctant to add a lot more about conservation status as these categories are subject to ongoing changes that can be hard to keep up with. BenMacDui12:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. There is a better picture of a Red Deer that was in use here, but (as with so many decent wildlife images) it was not taken in Scotland, so I swopped it for the blob a while ago. I now discover , which was taken in Scotland. Unless this is controversial I will use it. BenMacDui08:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I fully support this article for promotion to FA. I have reviewed it with regard to all the FA criteria. I was particularly impressed with the high quality of the prose, and even more impressed with high standard of the sources used and cited; The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, National Trust for Scotland, The Scottish Office, among many more from highly reputable organisations. I am satisfied that all issues with the images used have been resolved and that their use is in full accordance with Wikipedia policies. I look forward to seeing this article on the Main Page. Graham ColmTalk15:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Comments for now. This is an excellent, comprehensive, engaging and well written article. I have a few questions:[reply]
Can this be shortened, Included in the country's ocean inventory are the Darwin Mounds,?
Shortened to "The Darwin Mounds are an important area of deep sea cold water coral reefs discovered in 1988".
I would de-link United Kingdom.
Done
Here, ...more different species- is the "different" needed?
Nope and gone.
Here, In total these marine elements extend to an area of around 350 square kilometres (140 sq mi). - is the "In total" needed?
Nope and gone.
I noticed some discussion about this above but there is just one occurrence of cSAC and it's not defined.
Good point - I've removed the "c" as readers are probably not interested in the process of candidacy and acceptance. (There was earlier reference to this prior to the peer review/acceptance of the other cSACs.) It now reads "The Darwin Mounds, covering about 100 square kilometres (39 sq mi), are being considered as the first offshore SAC."
Here, a variety of factors is vague and useless.
It is certainly vague, and I have removed "'a variety of" but I think the "factors" needs to stay.
A bot has looked at the adler and made a cryptic remark about a human needing to look at the image size, but unless I have completely misunderstood how the Flickr licence works there isn't likely to be a problem with this.
As I don't understand the problem with the Scots Pine I don't know if it is fixed. If the weather was not currently a shade grim I'd take a new picture. In the meantime I'll have another look at Commons.
As the extinction and re-introduction were pre-20th century they missed out but I will add something asap to go with the jaunty image.
Your teacher was perhaps correct (if a shade pedantic). Strangely my 6 centimetres (2.4 in) thick dictionary fails to mention either. As wiktionary does not like the hyphen I will remove them. BenMacDui16:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is an imbalance in coverage of certain topics, dolphins (in the sea rather than mammal section) get poor coverage compared with mustelids, and some topics are covered more comprehensively than others (eels for instance get only a mention), but obviously that's totally inevitable. It merits becoming an FA, but as the topic is far from covered I'd hope this doesn't mean additions to the article cease. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. As ever, the question is what to leave out. A Bearded Seal visited the Isle of Mull lately, as did a Citril Finch to Fair Isle. The removal of rats from Canna and the precarious position of the Canna mouse will get a mention there soon, and maybe the latter here. Arion ater is a repulsive fellow, but may be deserving of attention here too. The forthcoming Marine Bill will doubtless prove interesting. I shall remain vigilant! BenMacDui17:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks and apologies about the weasel wording. I know I edited a change but I must have forgotten to save it. I'll check for any other omissions. BenMacDui07:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is certainly an engaging and well-written article, seems comprehensive to me, and makes a delicious read. It makes me want to visit Scotland. In the interest of full disclosure, I must say that I copyedited this article. On another read-through this evening, I saw that the prose had survived my tinkering and was still delicious. I confess to tinkering a bit more on this latest pass, but it didn't amount to much. The images seem better now than they did before, and it appears from the discussion above that the license questions have been resolved. I looked at the licenses again and saw nothing amiss. (This is not, however, my strong suit.) When I grow up, I want to be a Whiskered Bat if not a Tawny Owl. Finetooth (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks once again for your support and efforts - it made all the difference. Can I suggest that you come up with a firm vision? I'd hate to see you turn into an owl with no feathers or a bat that hoots. BenMacDui07:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns 1) Aesthetically speaking, Image:AlexandraGravesend.jpg seems to be a little off in its current location. 2) Lead is too short for the article's size. 3) The chart with children seems out of place and aesthetically unpleasing. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments 1. Princess (later Queen) Mary is referred to as May twice, without explanation of the nickname. 2. "Remained faithful" has just a touch of paternalistic air that is perhaps not appropriate in the 21st Century. "is not known to have had any extramarital affairs" might be better. 3. There's been some discussion that Alexandra tried to influence her husband over the war with Prussia. Anything in your sources on that? 4. "Despite now being queen, Alexandra's duties changed little, and she kept many of the same retainers." The Queen's duties were virtually identical to those of the Princess of Wales? 5. What about separating her time as Queen Consort from that as Queen Dowager, at least in subsections?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. May changed to Mary throughout. 2. I prefer a short phrase, which has a multiple meaning of loyal, obedient, dutiful and devout, rather than a longer phrase which covers less ground. 3. Attempts to influence foreign policy and anti-German feelings added to the lead and illustrated with other examples. 4. Yes, for consorts. 5. Done. DrKiernan (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"her father's income was about £800 per year" — Assuming the reader knows nothing about royalty, where did Prince Christian receive his income from? Was it from his estates, some form of profession, or the King of Denmark?
Why did Hans Christian Andersen visit the family? Was he a friend, a member of the court, or on some invitation?
"grace and favour property" — I get the gist of what the phrase means, but I think other readers might not. Could it be rendered in layman terms?
"was confirmed in" — Eh... she was confirmed as what?
Marriage and family
"their daughter, Crown Princess Victoria of Prussia", "Albert Edward's sister, the Crown Princess of Prussia," — A case of over-linking and repetitive use of the title? Why not simply use Victoria for the second mention?
Was Randolph Churchill a Lord at that time (the honeymoon send-off)?
What does "issue" refer to in Marriage column of the table of children?
The table of children seems out-of-place (information presented within are not used anywhere else in the article or provide a smooth reading experience at this point). Could it be moved elsewhere, leaving short list of her children in prose form?
Princess of Wales
Does Sultan Abdul-Aziz require a definite article ("the Sultan Abdul-Aziz"), and should his name not be Abdülaziz?
"Biographers are agreed" — I think taking out the "are", turning the passive sentence into an active one, would be a good idea? ('tis a minor issue)
"during a visit to Ireland in 1885, she suffered a rare moment of public hostility" — As an exception to the general welcome she received for her visits, the reasons for the hostility should be briefly stated? Mayhaps, a brief note about rising nationalism (or whatever the cause) could suffice.
Queen Alexandra
"Despite her personal views, Alexandra supported the King when he agreed to the request of the Prime Minister, H. H. Asquith, to help force the bill through Parliament against the wishes of the House of Lords when the reforming party won elections to the House of Commons." — A pretty long sentence with two "whens". Could it be broken up into simpler sentences?
Legacy
"her loyal Comptroller" — Is it accurate to link to Comptroller?
Can the last two standalone sentences be eliminated or integrated into greater parts of the article?
I'm not sure about Andersen, I think he was retained by the King at some point; I could remove that sentence if necessary. Yes, Churchill became a Lord in 1857, when his father became a Duke. DrKiernan (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(reset indention) I have struck those that have been implemented and raise further inquiries on the above as follows:
I believe Hans Christian Andersen's visits are of wonderful value to the article and should be kept, but explanation should be given as to why the esteemed writer was accorded special status to visit the royal family. In Hans Christian Andersen by Sven Hakon Rossel (p. 65), it is written that Andersen's diary tells of invitations from the royal family to spend time with them.
The article grace and favour was used as a link. The article, however, describes the term as used for properties owned by the British Crown. It seems a bit strange to me that Danish royals are living on a British royal property in Denmark... Should the article (grave and favour) or the term (as used in Alexandra of Denmark) be rewritten?
I think there was a slight misunderstanding for Victoria. What I meant was why not replace "Albert Edward's sister, the Crown Princess of Prussia," with "Albert Edward's sister, Victoria," or simply "Victoria,"?
"Despite her personal views, Alexandra supported the King's decision to agree to the Prime Minister's request to help force the bill through Parliament against the wishes of the House of Lords when the reforming party won elections to the House of Commons." is still pretty hefty with the "to"s. Might I suggest "Despite her personal views, Alexandra supported the King's decision to help the Prime Minister force the bill through Parliament against the wishes of the House of Lords when the reforming party won elections to the House of Commons."?
Yes, of course it's of help. Thanks. I've changed "Biographers are agreed". I've changed "Anderson would call" to "Anderson was invited", as he would have to be invited at some point, regardless of his position. I've edited the grace and favour article to open out the article and make it less UK-centric. I don't want to use "Victoria" alone, as this is easily confused with all the other Victorias, but I've removed the repeat of "Albert Edward", which lightens the sentence. The problem with "the King's decision to help" is that it fails to convey that the King did not necessarily want to help, or agree with the policy. Only that he agreed to follow the advice of the Prime Minister and not block the wishes of his Government. I have changed this now to: Despite her personal views, Alexandra supported the King's decision to help force the bill through Parliament at the Prime Minister's request but against the wishes of the House of Lords when the reforming party won elections to the House of Commons.DrKiernan (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "great power" capitalised? It's not in the relevant article, though I note it is in the quotes.
Right now, "his distant cousin" is a piped link, with no mention of who his cousin was - I think that the name should be at least mentioned.
"At the age of sixteen she was chosen as the future wife of Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, the heir of Queen Victoria, and married him eighteen-months later." - First of all, this sentence is very difficult to read. Secondly, why is there a hyphen between "eighteen" and "months".
I'm unsure why the first mention of her name in the "Early life" section is bolded.
"Princely blood" should probably be the more common phrase "royal blood".
"An uneasy peace was agreed" - this doesn't really make sense in its current form. How does one agree a piece? I can't think of a viable rephrasing offhand right now, but I'm sure you could find one.
"...refused to meet Frederick's third wife, Louise Rasmussen, his former mistress" - because of what follows, this currently is rather difficult to read. Suggest "...refused to meet Frederick's third wife and former mistress, Louise Rasmussen..."
Some overlinking throughout.
I like the overall style of this article; it's not as stiff as some articles that pass through here, but there are things you can work on, as the examples given above. I did a little copyediting in the second section as well; nice work overall. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although both are listed as in the public domain, why is Image:Dowager Queen Alexandra.jpg (upper body portrait) in the article when Image:Alexandra of Denmark2.jpg (full body portrait) serves the same purpose in identifying the subject (especially when the caption for the former image is simply "Alexandra")? There is already a Commons portal to take users to other free images at different angles.
All images are listed as in the public domain, either by publishment before 1923 in United States or the Library of Congress's purchase of the rights and stating no known restrictions for the use of the image. However, in the FAC for Voyage of the James Caird, an obstruction was raised in the sense that images stored on the Commons would be deleted if they could not satisfy the public domain requirements in the country of publishing. Hence, Image:Queen Alexandra with Queen Louise and the Duchess of Fife.jpg, Image:Alexandra.jpg, and Image:Alexandra of UK with daughter Victoria.jpg would have to comply with British public domain laws to stay at Commons without dispute. A solution (as done in Voyage of the James Caird) is to upload these images to Wikipedia (which only needs to comply with US public domain laws).
Acknowledging that we would prefer to have a close-up picture to identify the subject, could we not replace Image:Alexandra of Denmark2.jpg in the infobox with Image:Dowager Queen Alexandra.jpg? I think having one picture that best identifies the subject would be better than several in the article.
Indeed. The argument raised in the FAC I pointed out was that the opposer refused to support an article in which the images might be deleted. As the images are stored on the Commons, they would be deleted if no proof can be given on their copyright status in their country of publishing. Hence, the alternative solution to simply move them to Wikipedia itself. Let us work on this. Are the pictures Crown copyrighted? If so, they are definitely public domain after 50 years since publishing, and we can simply indicate them in the description on the image page. If not (the photographer simply licensed the photo to the Crown), then we would have to prove the photographer has died more than 70 years ago. I have asked Elcobbola to help us take a look and determine if we can ignore this (or would have to shift them to Wikipedia). Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've given that a go.
On the second point, and using the 1988 law which may or may not apply retrospectively but we'll use it anyway as the most rigid law, if Image:Alexandra of UK with daughter Victoria.jpg is taken by Alexandra, then copyright is expired as it is more than 70 years since her death. If the copyright of the Downey pictures rests with the company, then copyright is expired since it is more than 70 years since the creation of the images. If the copyright rests with the photographer, who was probably W. E. Downey (who took most of the royal photographs for W. and D. Downey), then he died in 1908, again more than 70 years ago. If they are Crown Copyright, then again the copyright has expired because it's more than 50 years ago. I'm confident that these images would be found to be public domain in the American courts. DrKiernan (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The images are PD in the US and UK (i.e. don't need to be moved). As the US is concerned, works published outside the U.S. by foreign nationals are PD if published before 1.1.1923. In the UK, for photographs with known authors taken before 30 June 1957, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author (William Downey died in 1915). (Although note that, for Image:Queen Alexandra with Queen Louise and the Duchess of Fife.jpg, the source indeed contains the date 1893, but does not identify it as a publication date. How do we know this is the date of publication and not creation? It's PD either way, but the image summary shouldn't misrepresent that date). ЭLСОВВОLДtalk15:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I'm curious about the reason given for this nomination: "because I'm interested in feedback". Surely, that is what the peer review process is for? An article should come to FAC when the nominator feels that it can be defended against FA criteria, rather than as a means of conducting a general seminar on the article. I raise this point because of recent concerns on the FAC talkpage about overload on the FAC page, shortage of reviewers, and the increasing trend towards building FAs during lengthy FAC review processes, which can sometimes turn tetchy, hostile, and lead to "reviewer burnout". This is not a comment on this article's quality, which on a quick readthrough seems excellent. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question In the lede, you use "Queen Mother" as a proper noun. I thought that Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was the only individual given the title formally. Shouldn't it be lower case, since it is descriptive? Second, the major example of Alexandra's attempts to sway others politically is in the Queen section, but it really deals with what she did while Princess of Wales. Shouldn't it be moved? And do we have anything on her attempts (if any) to sway her husband and mother in law during the Prussia/Denmark conflict?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She's "Alexandra the Queen Mother" in the State Prayers, and is referred to in newspapers and parliamentary debates of the time as "The Queen Mother". On the second point, I originally put the example in the Princess section,[69] but I don't think it fits so I moved it.[70] I prefer to place it with similar material rather than break up the flow of the article. On the final point, I've added: To the great irritation of Queen Victoria and the Crown Princess of Prussia, Alexandra and Albert Edward supported the Danish side in the war.DrKiernan (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. AshnardTalkContribs18:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. AshnardTalkContribs18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per lack of amusing nomination statement. Image comments:
Image:Mario_Power_Tennis_box.jpgcould 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?
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. AshnardTalkContribs20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
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. AshnardTalkContribs08:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
”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.
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 waswere also popular..." Plural should go with plural here.
Logical punctuation again with the Nintendo World Report quote in the last paragraph.
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. AshnardTalkContribs19:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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. — Realist213:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Realist213:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Realist213:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Realist214:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 - Talk16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Realist214:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 - Talk13:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Realist215:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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? — Realist202:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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"
"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?
"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.
"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. — Realist213:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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
"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? — Realist200:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Autodate links are out of fashion . . . are they really required here (there are so many)?
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.
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... —Giggy11:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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? — Realist215:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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...
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. — Realist216:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. —Giggy01:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
""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. — Realist213:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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. — Realist201:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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). — Realist215:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. — Realist215:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Realist216:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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."
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)[reply]
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. — Realist214:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).Ceoilsláinte22:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Realist222:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Ceoilsláinte00:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? — Realist215:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Realist216:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Ceoilsláinte20:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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. Ceoilsláinte00:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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."
"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".
"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.
"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.
"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?
"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.
"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.
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.
"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.
"Additional supporting cast members have been added throughout the run of the show." With the word "added" in the sentence, "additional" is unnecessary.
"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'."
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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".
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.
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.
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.
"...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?
"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)[reply]
"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.
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₪Sunday19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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₪Sunday21:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'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₪Sunday01:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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.
"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.
"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.
Image:TheKuiperBelt 100AU SDO.svg - ditto as above (although you might want to move all the technical explanations to below the important licensing stuff?)
Supportjimfbleak (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC) CommentThe 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)[reply]
:*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)[reply]
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. Serendipodous10:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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₪Sunday22:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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. Serendipodous07:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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. Serendipodous07:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Serendipodous21:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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? ЭLСОВВОLДtalk03:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --MASEM19:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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?
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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.
"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."
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".
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
This is left over from the peer review: Is "insider" correct in reference 4? I'm unclear on that.
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)[reply]
Support I have made a few edits to correct a few typos and a tiny bit of redundancy. [79]. 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 ColmTalk18:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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) --MASEM13:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 - Talk14:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). --MASEM15:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That has no affect on the article output. It makes editing easier if they're the same but that's not an FA requirement. —Giggy00:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --MASEM14:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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? (Guyinblack25talk16:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
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. --MASEM17:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did some more digging. Federated media calls them the "most up-to-date source for Nintendo news".[81] Never heard of Federated Media before but they seem legit/reliable enough.[82] GoNintendo has been cited on a CNET Asia blog posting.[83] Joystiq has cited them before too.[84] 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. (Guyinblack25talk18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
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. (Guyinblack25talk18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Neutral—I'm finding redundancies and misplaced formality/archaic words in the gameplay section. Everything below that will probably need more work. — Deckiller06:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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? --MASEM14:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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). --MASEM16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. --MASEM18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 - Talk23:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 - Talk13:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - Talk01:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 - Talk13:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 - Talk13:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - Talk13:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 - Talk13:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - Talk01:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 - Talk02:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 - Talk01:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 :-) BuddingJournalist09:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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." ?)
"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.
"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.
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)[reply]
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.
"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"
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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.....[reply]
mandarinsTon 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)[reply]
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"?
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."?
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?
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?
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)[reply]
I feel "in addition to a royal seal" is better phrased as "and a royal seal".
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.
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?
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?
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)[reply]
How did Long provide his followers with a detailed strategy from his prison cell?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) }}[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
A wikilink to Resident (title) would be helpful the first time the title Resident is used
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.
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)[reply]
Why was Long in Phan Thiet at the time of his arrest, on the far side of Saigon from his base at Chau Doc?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? ЭLСОВВОLДtalk18:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. ;) ЭLСОВВОLДtalk12:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The support of the Hoysala rulers for the Kannada language was strong --> Active voice: The Hoysala rulers patronised Kannada...
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)
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.
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. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
"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)
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)
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [[90]].Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe its ready: after reaching GA status, using Wikipedia:WikiProject College footballPeer 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)[reply]
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: [reply]
"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.
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)[reply]
"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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
"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)[reply]
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]
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: [reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - Talk14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - Talk16:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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]
*'''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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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".
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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
" 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)[reply]
"Sports Illustrated online" should it be capitalised as in "Sports Illustrated Online"? Or maybe even "the Sports Illustrated website"
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)[reply]
"Mitch Mustain, who was 8–0 as a starter" what does 8–0 mean?
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.
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)[reply]
What are the colours used to represent in the Schedule table?
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --LordSunday15:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 - Talk13:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not any more, but it was :-) [94] 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)[reply]
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:
Yet another spelling, Buin-Zahra, offered at this page,[95] 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.
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";[96][97][98][99] 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)[reply]
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. —Giggy11:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
"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 OneWhite cat21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 OneWhite cat12:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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 OneWhite cat14:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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 OneWhite cat14:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 OneWhite cat14:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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₪Sunday14:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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 OneWhite cat14:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 OneWhite cat14:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Over 20 aftershocks were recorded,[1] with magnitudes up to 5.1 on the moment magnitude scale.[2] At least three caused further casualties and damage.[3] Most of these had their epicenter within 25 km of the main shock.[4]
I would avoid short snappy sentences and keep this in two sentences to make it flow better. The Bald OneWhite cat14:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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 OneWhite cat15:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 OneWhite cat15:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 paragraphThe Bald OneWhite cat15:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 OneWhite cat15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 on16:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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 on16:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 on23:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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?
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)[reply]
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 [102] and journalists [103] 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.
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.
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.
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? - hahnchen21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. - hahnchen11:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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 - Talk00:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vooks.net removed. Famitsu expanded and JP gamecharts removed. « ₣M₣ » 22:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
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.
"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. —Giggy11:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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. (Guyinblack25talk20:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
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. (Guyinblack25talk02:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
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)
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)[reply]
Comments23 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)?
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. - hahnchen11:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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... - hahnchen01:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. (Guyinblack25talk23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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)[reply]
A note on sources: For Lady Ealdgyth's edification, the following sources inquired about at the past peer review are explained below:
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”.}}
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. ЭLСОВВОLДtalk02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ridiculous opposeSupport - 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)[reply]
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)
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 Ronchester05:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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.
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)[reply]
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"?
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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) }}[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - Talk13:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comments Support from nitpicker Graham ColmTalk 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 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)[reply]
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 ColmTalk15:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 Ronchester04:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Considering the article already has a lot of high quality images (well done), are the external links at the bottom really necessary? —Giggy09:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
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"?
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)[reply]
"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? — CharlotteWebb16:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...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? — CharlotteWebb16:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. — CharlotteWebb16:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"$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? — CharlotteWebb16:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"...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. — CharlotteWebb16:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. — CharlotteWebb20:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. — CharlotteWebb20:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - Talk13:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
"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.
"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.
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. PlasticupT/C04:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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..."? —Giggy10:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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.
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. PlasticupT/C13:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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?
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! :) –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone18:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. GaryKing (talk)20:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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. - auburnpilottalk14:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"Blane Williams, himself a black man" could probably be worded in a more "politically correct" manner.
"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".
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?
"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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. - auburnpilottalk22:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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.
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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.'.
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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Tone17:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.) --Tone20:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 asleepzzzzzz00:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Tone20:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Tone21:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 asleepzzzzzz23:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk13:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please spell out abbreviations in the references, such as BOCOG, UCI, etc.
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 - Talk13:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 asleepzzzzzz23:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 asleepzzzzzz04:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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.
Nice remarks. I think I've addressed them all, please check [115]. I have deliberately left asthma linked, I find it relevant. Hey, my writing style is improving slowly, reading all these comments :-) --Tone20:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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 asleepzzzzzz00:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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. BuddingJournalist09:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The speed and the length are in imperial units in the box. That suffies, IMO. And what do you mean with non-breaking spaces? --Tone10:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)? SeveroTC14:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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..."
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:
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)[reply]
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 asleepzzzzzz16:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 asleepzzzzzz01:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
SupportComments 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"
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. SeveroTC13:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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)[reply]
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?
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.
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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...)
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... ЭLСОВВОLДtalk13:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeper 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support, but please include a description of the eggs and the chicks as requested by RaveDave below. And thanks for another interesting article. Graham ColmTalk21:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Comments on today's version:
[reply]
I don't like Perhaps the best... - it sounds vague.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think you meant here? [117]. Also this link contradicts them being 'fierce' [118] - 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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
Yes, it's the Great Crested Grebe in Europe, with its more southern and western range that really suffered - Jim
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
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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. NSR77TC18:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comments on imagesOppose 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)[reply]
The song is discussed at length and the section used displays the overall theme of the record, as explained in the sound-box excerpt. NSR77TC16:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. NSR77TC01:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
*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?
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. —Giggy03:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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)[reply]
Images/Nonfree content
Image:Deja Vu.jpg- thorough fair use rationale, 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".
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
""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: [reply]
"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: [reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ColmTalk16:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Unlink common terms like "American"
"was already completed" – why the "already"? It seems out of place to me.
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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
^Cite error: The named reference BBC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ abCite error: The named reference geophysical was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Done templates please remove them? See the WP:FAC instructions, they slow down the page and cause template limits problems in archives. I would remove them myself, but there are too many. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
, which was taken in Scotland. Unless this is controversial I will use it. Ben MacDui 08:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-3D-balls.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[112]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Baisden-and-Sharpton.jpg&diff=14045291&oldid=13907101){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
