Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2008

December 2008

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

The article was promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [1].

---

Edgar Speyer

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk)

I'm renominating this biographical article for featured article status because of the subject's interesting life and status as one of only a few people to be struck-off as members of the Privy Council. The article was previously nominated on 2 December and the comments that it attracted were dealt with as far as possible. One "oppose" was outstanding when the candidacy was ended on 20 December 2008, although it is impossible to provide the additional information requested. Minor changes have been made to the article since nomination was ended. DavidCane (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: I supported this at its previous FAC, and see no reason for withholding now. It is a well-written, comprehensive article about an interesting life. Brianboulton (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support: A very nice article. I have a couple of comments before I can support it though. (They are not all essential to gaining my support, but if you chose not to implement them please explain why here). Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to place the quoted letter form Speyer to Asquith in blockquote format to differentiate it from the surrounding text?
  • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• The nine points raised by the inquiry: Were they the actual findings of the inquiry verbatim or is this a later synthesis by the editors of this page or subsequent historians? If it is a quote then this should be made explicit. If it is a later synthesis then there are a couple of punctuation errors that I didn't want to correct without establishing the lists origin.
  • They're my synthesis of the official report which was published in full in the Times on 7 January 1922 (ref 50). I think, I may have corrected the punctuation now but let me know if there is anything else which needs revision. --DavidCane (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• The legacy section feels a little bit short: I suggest providing a brief mention of the histories of the tube lines and the Proms since Speyer's death (which tube lines were they by the way?). Is the house in Norfolk still a hotel? Does it have any form of government listing as a heritage site? His wife and children - what was their subsequent history after his death? Has there been any scholarship into the inquiry that either agrees with or disagrees with it? Have there been any calls for his name to be posthumously cleared? These are just ideas, but I think the section needs to be improved and expanded before this can be promoted.

• Thanks for the suggestions:

• The Norfolk house is still a hotel and is grade II listed. I have added this with a reference.
• His wife, who has her own article, was a poet and lived until 1956.
• Nothing much is recorded of their children apart from society page reports in the New York Times of their various weddings in the 1930s. They don't appear to have done anything notable or married anyone notable.
• The underground lines were the Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway (now part of the Northern line), the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (now the Bakerloo line) and the Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway (now part of the Piccadilly line). These are listed in ref 5 already but I have added a bit more in the legacy section.
• There appears to have been no scholarly review of his denaturalisation and no real call for a posthumous clearance, however:
  • The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article (ref 1) does end with the following "His services to London's transport, music, and hospitals need not be obscured by the events of 1915; but, though it may be that he was guilty of no more than minor technical offences against the laws of his adopted country, there can be no doubt of his pro-German sympathies." This was included in the 1949 original Dictionary of National Biography article on Speyer of which the ONDB version is an update.
  • The abstract of the Leanne Langley talk (ref 21) ends with "Speyer’s rescue of the Proms preceded the BBC’s by a generation, his own point of departure in a cloud of political controversy in 1915 ensured his contribution would be tarnished – still a blemish on the nation – which deserves redress."

I decided not to include these views in the article as they are really personal opinions and there is no campaign as such to have him cleared.

--DavidCane (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That all sounds fair enough, although I have combined a couple of the floating one line paragraphs in the legacy section to make a more coherent paragraph structure. Hope this is OK.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Many issues were resolved at the last FAC, which I did look over, though I did not !vote because I thought it would pass then. Still leaves that effect on me. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 02:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Image review

• File:London Underground Electric Railways.png - Do you have any more publication information on the source for this image? Note that WP:IUP states: "A good source for an image from a book is to provide all information about the book (Author, Title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information)".
  • The image is from the cover of a free route map published in 1908. The publishers would have been the Underground Electric Railway acting together with the other lines shown on the map (CLR, C&SLR, GN&CR and the MR). A History of London Tube Maps has a colour version giving details and an image of the map itself. The copy that I uploaded was from a photocopy I was given of a similar one. I've changed the image license to {{PD-UK-unknown}} which is more appropriate. --DavidCane (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• File:Qnshall.jpg - Do we know where this was first published? For pre-1923 licenses, this is good information to have so that we can consider transferring the image to Commons. Also, who is the author of this image?
  • I didn't upload this image but, during the previous FAC, I corrected its source info. It is from a previous version of this page which contains a slightly differently cropped version of the image. The caption there indicates that it is drawing of the opening concert for the hall in 1893. I imagine that it would have been first published shortly afterwards by the Queen's Hall's management.--DavidCane (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Please note Jamd and Getty Images, the image is now in the possession of the Hulton Archive. The year of creation is established to be 1893; however, no author or date of publication is listed. The key question here: is the image from a drawing or an engraving? If the former, then it would have been in the public domain in 1943 (according to Crown Copyrights). However, if it was from an engraving, then the issue of publication comes into play. If it is unpublished, then it would enter public domain only in 31 December 2039. If not, its copyright expires 50 years from the date of publishing. We have to ask: is this image found in Robert Elkin's Queen's Hall 1893 – 1941 (1944, which would have made the image PD in 1994)? NQHO states that "most of the facts and photographs for this article are taken" from Elkin's book; that means, there is a chance that the Queen's Hall image did not come from it. If it did not (and if the image was from an engraving), then this image is not PD. Jappalang (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for helping out here! DC, what have you been able to find out about this image in regards to Jappalang's questions? Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks Jappalang for your research. I cannot say where the image came from or when it was first published, but a close-up view of the image appears to indicate that it is a drawing. For example, the shading under the boxes on the left and along the front of the stage seems to have been done as a wash rather than hatching - the more usual method for an engraving. That said, I do not think the image is vital and if it features on Getty Images I am quite happy to remove it from the article, if you think that is the appropriate action to take. I will see if I can find another for the hall.--DavidCane (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
          • If it is a drawing, then there should be no problem with the image as PD in UK (although finding the proper license tag for its use on US servers would be another issue, see the FAC for Operation Brevity above). It would be best if there is a source that can confirm the nature of the image. Can anyone try to locate Elkin's book in his or her library and confirm if the image is in there (and if it is a drawing)? Jappalang (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
            • I haven't been able to find an alternative, so I have removed the image and replaced it with one of the Whitechapel Gallery (File:The Whitechapel Gallery.jpg). This is an attribution share-alike image taken from Flickr, so usability is clear. It has the additional benefit of bringing a bit of colour to the article.--DavidCane (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
              • New image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

All image concerns have been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note on sources, unstruck sourcing questions on previous FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify the above note; the following three sources were questioned in the first FAC by Ealdgyth. After explanations for their use were given, he left them for others to decide on their suitability:

• http://www.tournorfolk.co.uk/index.html - was used as a source in note 18 but has since been replaced by another source.
• http://www.passmoreedwards.org.uk/pages/history/Libraries/Whitechapel%20art%20gallery/history%201.htm - used in note 27 to provide some more general information on the Whitechapel Art Gallery. Speyer's involvement is also detailed in the ONDB article (note 1).
• http://www.cozio.com/Owner.aspx?id=2828 - used in note 33, this is a professional database listing antique stringed instruments and lists instruments owned by Speyer.

--DavidCane (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments Oppose by karanacs. I believe this is overall a very good article, but there are quite a few niggling things and an unreliable source. I am willing to strike my oppose provided the sourcing and the majority of the other small things I found are fixed.

• Suggest that you spell out (and wikilink if appropriate) abbreviations the first time they are used in the body of the article, even if they were used in the lead. For example, UERL.
  • Done, although there are only two abbreviations used in the article: UERL and PC. The first is defined with its abbreviation in the lead and the second is defined in the Philanthropist and patron section. All other abbreviations are in the notes section and are defined on first use. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Did Speyer serve as UERL chairman at the same time that he was chairman of Speyer Brothers?
  • Yes, he was head of both at the same time. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• I don't really see a need for the headings "Life to 1914" and "Life after 1914", as there is nothing in those sections that is not already including in the subsections. I would just move the subsections up.
  • I would rather keep them as it helps make a clear distinction between the period before and after the attacks were made against his name.--DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I think the subheading titles make that pretty clear already. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• The prose in the Financier section bothers me a bit. It seems clunky - I suspect that the prose could be tightened to get rid of unnecessary words and it would read much better.
  • Could you elaborate about which bits you have difficulties with?--DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • That's the hard part - I didn't see any one major thing that needed to be fixed. I just had to read the section a few times to follow what was going on. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• "The works were carried out by Detmar Blow and Fernand Billery in 1910 and 1911" - I am not sure what "the works" is supposed to mean here. I'm not as familiar with British English - perhaps this is something expressed differently than in American English?
  • Done. "The works" are the rebuilding works. To make this unambiguous I have changed this to "rebuilding work". --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• The sentence about Speyer donating money to save the Needham Market bank seems to have nothing to do with the rest of that paragraph (which discusses his homes). That sentence needs to be moved, or a better transition needs to be created.
  • Done. I put it there because Needham Market is in Suffolk which is the next county to Norfolk (where his country house was), but have moved it to follow the King Edward's Hospital Fund donation where it's chronology also fits better. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• was described as "the sole monetary force which kept the Queen's Hall Orchestra afloat". - described by whom? Yes, this is cited, but is the quote from the source or someone the source is quoting?
  • This is from the source, John Bird. The link in the reference takes you to the page in his book on Percy Grainger where this appears. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps this could be attributed directly in the paragraph? "He was described by John Bird..." Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. --DavidCane (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• The second paragraph of Philanthropist and patron seems to meander around; the first half of the paragraph flows well, but then I feel like it jumps a bit from idea to idea. A bit of reorganization of the paragraph might help (and it might need to be two paragraphs).
  • I have separated the bits that are not related to music and joined them to the paragraph about the fund for Scott's expedition and have moved the bit on the violins up to the end of the second paragraph. Does that help? --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • That is much better, but the last two sentences in the music paragraph still seem tacked on rather than a good continuation of the paragraph. 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I've reworded slightly to try and pull them in more.--DavidCane (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Is it really important that he owned Stradavarius and Guarneri violins? That seems like trivia. It is especially inappropriate because the information does not appear to come from a reliable source (from the website..Cozio Publishing disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, or operability or availability of information or material displayed in the Cozio Publishing web site)
  • I think it is important for two reasons: his wife was a concert violinist and he funded the Proms concerts. Whilst she does not appear to have played professionally after their marriage, she did play in concerts at home and elsewhere and would have certainly have used these instruments. Stradivarius and Guarneri violins were prized instruments and, as now, they were often owned by wealthy patrons and loaned to violinist to play. It is therefore likely that he would have leant them for use in Proms concerts, although this is not recorded.
  • regarding the disclaimer: this is a standard legal disclaimer and is there because cozio.com is a business and operates as a place to buy and sell antique violins. For similar reasons, Wikipedia has its own disclaimers. Cozio.com is referenced on a number of wikipedia articles about specific instruments, e.g. Du Pré Stradivarius or Davidov Stradivarius, and is in fifteen of the references in the Stradivarius article where it is is accepted as a "generally reliable source". For the sources of the information on Cozio.com, see its library section which lists 2175 referenced documents. If you do a search on Cozio Publishing, the company behind Cozio.com you will find that they have published in conjunction with Sotherby's a book on Violins.
  • Incidentally, the portrait of his wife painted by John Singer Sargent (see her article) shows here playing a violin - probably the Guarneri.--DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Looking beyond the reliability of the source (which also allows individuals to submit information), what you have written above would make the information about him owning the violins much more relevant in the article. Without that level of detail, however, it just appears to be a random fact. I see that this was removed, so I'll strike. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• There is only one sentence about Speyer being on the Privy Council. Did he actually do anything? Was this an in-name-only type of appointment?
  • Being a member of the Privy Council is not a sinecure. Its members are advisers to the monarch and council meetings are held regularly. Although modern practice means that those that now participate are the members of the government, this was not the case at the beginning of the 20th century when King Edward VII appointed members from a larger range. Which meetings he attended and what advice he gave would be recorded in the National Archives. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• What did he do to impress Kaiser Wilhelm so much?
  • It's probable that he lent the Kaiser or his government some money. About the same time, his brother-in-law and partner in the Frankfurt bank, Edward Beit was "made a von" and took the name of his wife's family's home town (Speyer) as his geographic distinction. The Order of the Crown was the lowest ranking Prussian order and his rank in the order was the middle of six classes, so it was not a particularly high status award. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Further investigations of Anglo-German relationships at the time indicate that he helped found the Anglo-German Union Club in 1907 with Sir Ernest Cassels and Bruno Schröder, so that may also may have had something to do with it - although it does not appear in his ONDB biography but Schröder's.--DavidCane (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• The information about the novels before WWI does not seem all that relevant to me. I would suspect that similar warnings were issued in newspapers, etc. Why pick out these two novels in particular?
  • Like the image of the Kaiser stubbing his toe, these were picked as examples of context. They are the two best known examples of the genre. The link under anti-German sentiment gives more detailed background. Yes, the papers were behind a lot of the sentiment and the Quex's book was serialised in the Daily Mail. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It still doesn't seem to fit. Why focus on the novels (which makes it feel like a manufactured concern that people aren't really experiencing) rather than on the real-life reports that increased the hysteria? If you want to focus on the novels, then we probably need some cited information that discusses their impact. As written, I just thought "so what - there are novels about all kinds of things and how does this impact Speyer?" Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • The linked article on anti-German sentiment gives examples of the impact and provides citations, but, as I haven't read the books cited, I didn't want to add them here. Accusations against Speyer specifically are mentioned in the next paragraph.--DavidCane (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Make sure that each quote has a citation, even if that means the cite is duplicated across subsequent sentences. I saw several issues with this in the Revocation... section.
  • Done. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I am worried about some weight issues. There is a lot dedicated to his resignation and the "Revocation of naturalisation". Is it appropriate to list all of the findings like that? Can't we have a small summary of results? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the recovation findings were very interesting and relevant. In reading the article, I had seen no real clues as to why he would have his citizenship stripped; this section answered that question. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This is as brief a summary as I could make it and still explain the issues. --DavidCane (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Are biographies supposed to be 20% about a tiny portion of a life that is negative? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The course of Speyer's life was substantially and fundamentally altered by the events during and immediately after WWI. If the war hadn't come and he hadn't been subject to unjust anti-German attacks (remember he was born in the US and had been a British citizen for 22 years by that time), he would almost certainly have remained in the centre of British musical society and finance and as Chairman of the UERL and would be remembered for completely different reasons. Therefore, I think, a fifth of the article dedicated to this matter is not unreasonable. --DavidCane (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability is only required to establish the basis of having an article, not what the article is supposed to be about. This is a biography. I would expect a well thought out discussion of his life and not giving to one tiny moment that may have changed his life, but getting married, being run down by a bus, etc, can also change one's life. It seems like it is far too negative to dominate in such a large facet, especially when this guy is notable also for being on the PC. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - sorry, I put a lot of thought into this and I cannot, with a clean conscience, support an article that devotes so much to one aspect of an individual's life in such an undue manner. He was a member of the PC, a very important role, and yet that doesn't even have as much size or even close to as much size as the "Revocation of naturalisation" section. It goes against every single instinct that I have in regards to biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  A note on the above - he was a Privy Counsellor from 1909 to 1914. Nothing is said about this. 5 years at a position and nothing. We get him being kicked out for a section. Privy Counsellors are notable. Baronets are notable. I would expect at least a section at least twice as large as his removal devoted to his time as a Privy Counsellor. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  Whilst it is notable that he was a Privy Counsellor, what he did as one is not necessarily notable. It was an advisory position not legislative - a record of what he did would be just a list of meetings attended. Of these, the truly notable meeting would be the one on 7 May 1910 at which King George V was proclaimed King (see here for the announcement).

  Looking at recent main page featured biography articles, this concentration on the important aspects of a subject's life is not uncommon. For example, the Richard Hawes article concentrates on his 3-years as Confederate Governor of Kentucky. His four-year term as a member of the House of Representatives, when he actually had power to influence legislation, is covered by a single sentence. In the Robert Sterling Yard article, 35 years of his journalistic and publishing career (1880 to 1915) is covered in a single, three-sentence paragraph and the majority of the article covers his time in the National Parks movement.--DavidCane (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but your comments are 100% unacceptable. I will refrain from expressing the moral outrage that I feel in response to what you have stated. 5 years of a person's life and career cannot be ignored. There is a clear POV expressed in this article, and it is an anti-Speyer bias. You have contradicted most of the ethics that go into Wikipedia, and if this article is put in as an FA in its shape, I would be deeply ashamed at this community for allowing such a thing to happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support on this point I think the coverage of these issues is fine. Privy Council does not explain these matters all that well, but in all probability his first meeting and the one proclaiming the new king were the only meetings Speyer ever attended. Being a PC was by this date a formal thing, though relevant for ministers etc, but for the likes of Speyer essentially just an honour. Probably a sentence explaining the very limited nature of the function should be added, since the PC does feature largely in the article. OR is however right that "notability" is the wrong word to use when talking about article content. The rest of the article looks FA quality, but I haven't read it all. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Response to Ottava Rima I'm sorry to have outraged your morals in some way, although I am at a loss to see how simple comparison with the structure of other featured articles can have caused this.
  • I have not ignored the period of his life when he was a Privy Counsellor as you seem to think - much of the sections on finance and philanthropy cover this period. As for his activities in the Privy Council, I could put in the fact that he was present at the new king's proclamation in 1910, but that is really just triva. There really is nothing more to record.
  • My bias is most certainly not anti-Speyer and I don't believe the article can be read that way. If I was anti-Speyer, I would simply have left out everything in the pre-1914 part of the article which clearly show his willingness to contribute time and money to the public's benefit.
    • Personally, having read the decision of the committee that recommended his denaturalisation, I feel he was made a scape-goat. Of all the issues that were examined by the committee, the only one that really indicates foolishness on Speyer's part is his attempt to maintain a correspondence with his brother-in-law (and through him his sister) and to evade the censor in doing so. A number of the matters considered seem trivial in the extreme and there seems to have been no consideration given to his long-term support of the arts, the hospital, the King's fund or his service in putting the London Underground on a more sound financial footing (although, as an investor, he did have a personal interest in the last of these).
    • The section on anti-German bias gives a very clear explanation of why Speyer was under pressure and why he chose to leave Britain and is not anti-Speyer; nor is the section on his philanthropy.
    • In drafting the section on the committee's decision, I have used a far more neutral tone than that in which the decision was phrased and in which it was reported in the Press.
    • Personally, I think it is possible that the decision of the committee was at least partly political, a result of the split in the Liberal party. Speyer was a friend of H.H. Asquith, the former Prime Minister and leader of one branch of the party, whereas the committee was established under the National Government of David Lloyd George, the leader of the other half of the party and Asquith's political rival. There is none of this in the article as it is all my conjecture, personal point of view and would be considered original research.
  • As you will see in my answer above to Jackyd101 on the matter of posthumous rehabilitation, I decided not to include the comments from two of the sources used about the unjustness of his treatment because they are really just their personal views rather than a concerted effort at rehabilitation. --DavidCane (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Cover this area? Really? I reread it. Not only are the times completely unstructured making it almost impossible to read the article as a biography in a standard biographical sense, the weight on two moments dominates the whole page. That is completely unacceptable in terms of weight, comprehensiveness, or the rest. If the position was only honorary, you can state exactly that and explain why. There are very few exact dates listed, there are very few exact moments, and I would honestly hesitate accepting the page as a Good Article Nominee in its current state. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• To reinforce what I state. It took me two seconds to find this from Offer, Avner. "Empire and Social Reform: British Overseas Investment and Domestic Politics, 1908-1914 Empire and Social Reform: British Overseas Investment and Domestic Politics, 1908-1914." The Historical Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Mar., 1983), pp. 119-138.
  • It mentions: "By 1912 he was deeply involved in Brazilian railway schemes" (p. 124). There is no equivalent in the article. It also states that Sir Almeric Fitzroy, clerk of the PC, was upset that Speyer was placed on the PC. This is not in the article. There is nothing about an important individual named Sir George Paish and his involvement with Lloyd George through Speyer. There is also: ""Speyer then delivered the same message in a speech to the Institute of Bankers, which, if it did not actually signal the start of the Edwardian capital export boom, (as Paish later claimed), at least broadly coincided with it." (p. 125)
• This is one tiny article that deals with the missing time period and how the position of PC needs more information. There is a lot more out there. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Well thank you for that. You must have access through an academic membership as jstor.org is not open to individuals nor can it be searched by non-users. Its content is, therefore, effectively invisible to outsiders and my library does not subscribe to it or the Historical Journal referenced. The article does state that Speyer Brothers were involved in the finance of railway projects although, I admit, it does not mention Brazil specifically. If you'd like to forward the text of the article (you can paste it, and anything else from Jstor, here if you'd like) I will very happily incorporate information from it. Paish was a statistical economist who specialised in railways so I can see how he and Speyer would have crossed paths.
  • If you can give me the information, I will add a note on Fitzroy's being upset that Speyer was made a counsellor, but whether his opinion was of any value is debatable. He sound an interesting character as his ONDB entry includes the following: "His routine work, however, was simply to organize meetings of the privy council and to arrange for the formal presentation to the sovereign of legislation brought into force by orders in council. Much concerned with ceremony and protocol, FitzRoy read the official proclamation of the accession of Edward VII in 1901 and that of George V in 1910; in 1917 he also submitted a draft of the declaration by which George V changed the name of the royal family to Windsor. But despite FitzRoy's self-important air and his relish for being at the centre of events, attributes which attracted some mockery, he played no part in the formation of policy." ONDB also describes his indiscreet memoirs upsetting Queen Mary and a minor scandal in which he was convicted and fined for "wilfully interfering with and annoying persons using Hyde Park". Although subsequently cleared, this led to his resignation from the clerkship in 1923.--DavidCane (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The point of the one article was to show that a cursory look through information could find something. You have many biographies listed, surely one or two has information on the time period. I can try to get portions of the article for you tomorrow. However, personal constraints keep me from being able to devote a significant portion of this. If it was the summertime, I would spend a few days at the Loc just digging up enough information to almost double the page. There seemed to be that much out there. He met a lot of important people. He gave quite a few speeches. He wrote some letters and some people wrote some letters about him. He was more memorable than what the article gives him credit for being. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose. The prose needs significant work:

• "Sir Edgar and Lady Leonora were the basis of the characters Sir Hermann and Lady Aline Gurtner in E F Benson's 1919 novel Robin Linnet." The characters of ... were based on ...?
  • The existing sentence seems preferable to me than the alternative formulation. --DavidCane (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

    I see this has been changed. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "... to point to a strip of material evidence that would induce any fairminded main to support the monstrous conclusions of this report." Does the source really say "main"?
  • No, that would be a typo. Fixed. --DavidCane (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• "After their return to America, Lady Leonora began writing poetry and won the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry in 1927." After whose return to America?

• The Speyer family's return.--DavidCane (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Accusations of his disloyalty and treachery appeared in the Press ...". Why is "Press" capitalised? The use of capitalisation needs to be looked at throughout the whole article.
  • This was requested in the Good Article review. Please identify any others. --DavidCane (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I have gone through the article again an believe that capitalisation is fully regularised now. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• "The pre-opening estimates of passenger numbers proved to be greatly over-optimistic ...". When would an estimate ever be post the event?
  • Estimates can be done at any time as part of normal financial planning be it monthly profit, quarterly cash flow or annual turnover estimates. --DavidCane (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

    I see this has been changed to preliminary. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• ... he came to London to capitalise on the emerging opportunities for new deep level underground "tube" railways there." Came to London? Is that where this article was written?
  • Yes. Changed to went. --DavidCane (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

These are just a few examples. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: I really think, if the above oppose is being maintained, that further instances should be provided of the "significant" work that the prose is supposed to need, otherwise the oppose is unactionable. Personally I think the prose is well up to standard, though I suppose it's always possible to quibble. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

They were just examples, as I said, and I am not satisfied that they have yet been properly dealt with. A few more examples:

• "He was chairman of the Classical Concert Society until 1912 and, following financial problems experienced by Robert Newman, chairman of the Queen's Hall Concert board from 1902 to 1914, paying £2,000 per year (£160,000.00 today)[7] to underwrite the Promenade Concerts."

  I see this has been changed for the better.--DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Speyer's friendship was recognised by the dedications to him of Becker's Three Pieces for Cello with Piano Accompaniment and Strauss's Salome." Awkward passive. Why not something like "Becker dedicated Three Pieces ... to Speyer, in recognition of their friendship."

  I see this has been changed.--DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Speyer collected ... room interiors". How can a room interior be collected?

You buy it, get workmen to dismantle the panelling or (harder) plasterwork, & re-erect it elsewhere. This was the great period for this, though many went to the US. The Victoria & Albert or Metropolitan are full of them - perhaps there are some in Manchester too. Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is a well known practice, but to avoid further complaints I changed it, reducing the significance of its meaning. I replaced the more enlightening term in an attempt to satisfy those who are not familiar with the practice. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The Sheppard reference states that many of these were obtained from the continent. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• ""Nonetheless, suspicions against Speyer's German parentage ...". Against?

  I see this has been changed for the better.--DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Significant sections of the article, for instance Philanthropist and patron, are a series of short, disjointed sentences with no discernible flow.

  I have done some work on that bit to try and improve the flow. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In short, I think this article still needs to be thoroughly copyedited. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - a fine article and a moving story told with an absence of flourish and irrelevant detail that renders this article all the more effective. I have gone through the entire article looking for prose and other issues. I find that it meets the FAC criteria. I am not persuaded by the rationale of the opposes. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The writing is mostly OK. I've looked at the lead and first few sections: here are a few suggestions.

• Opening para: "the company opened three underground railway lines, electrified another and took over two more". Was the one he electrified among the three he opened? Unclear categories. (one of which he electrified, and ...?). Or use the wording further down.
  • The one that was electrified was separate from the three new ones. I have clarified this. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• "not compatible"; where a compound negative is available, probably better: "incompatible".
  • Changed. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• "he became a subject of anti-German attacks" --> "the subject" may be better.
  • Done. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• "In 1884, Speyer became a partner in each of his father's companies. He headed the Frankfurt office for three years before taking control of the London office, Speyer Brothers, in 1887." Is it possible lose "for three years"? Seems redundant after the "1884".
  • Yes. Done.--DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• "deep level underground" (hyphen) TONY

(talk) 03:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Done. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• PS Could you take the pennies out of 160 thousand pounds?
  • Done. It was annoying me as well. I have found out how to get rid of these. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• In summary, I think Malleus's general concerns need to be addressed by a fine eye cast through it. Tony (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Also, if they were "companies" they had directors not "partners", to be picky. Or were they partnerships? Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Well spotted. They were partnerships so I have changed "companies" to the more encompassing "businesses". --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I've struck my earlier oppose and am now ready to support based largely on the excellent copyediting job done by Mattisse. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:57, 17 December 2008 [2].

---

Zimbabwe

Nominator(s): Mangwanani ^(talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that the editors have fulfilled the FA criteria, and if not I believe constructive criticism would be most useful in helping us to make the article as best as we can. Mangwanani ^(talk) 12:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - too much slant against Mugabe. Yes, it is most likely deserved. At the same time, though, I don't think this article is dispassionate enough. Also have concerns about stability for several issues happening there right now, e.g. cholera epidemic, widespread condemnation of Mugabe... Sceptre ^(talk) 13:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you define slant and give examples at all? I can't say the Hitler pages are so rosy.... Mangwanani ^(talk) 16:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

For example, "The country is dictated by President Robert Mugabe, who is accused by rights groups of massive violations of human rights". is clearly a POV statement because it moralizes. The article is full of statements like this. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I hope I've repaired that incident a bit. Rephrased it to "The country is ruled by President Robert Mugabe, who has been accused by rights groups of violations of human rights" Mangwanani ^(talk) 17:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Which groups are these? Attribute the claims. Unfortunately, this article is far from FA status. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider giving us tips such as those which we got for GA status to help us improve the article? Mangwanani ^(talk) 17:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a better tack to take would be specific examples? I.E., can you find a list somewhere of how many African and international leaders have called for his resignation? Have Amnesty International or the United Nations ever condemned his human rights abuses? A sentence to the effect of "Over X African leaders have called for Mugabe's resignation, citing corruption, human rights abuses and electoral fraud" is much more NPOV than "Mugabe's a horrible human being and should be toppled." --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose referencing issues.

• A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. A number of your references are just bare urls, and need formatting. The checklink tool shows a number of dead links. As it stands, I can't even begin to evaluate the references until they are in some sort of coherent system. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
• This is the sort of feedback I was hoping for. Thanks. Mangwanani ^(talk) 16:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for feedback, the proper place for that is at WP:Peer Review. Generally, it's expected that articles coming to FAC should be highly polished, and just about ready for FA. I notice this article did have a PR, but it was almost a year ago. The references are in need of serious formatting, there are sections unreferenced that include opinion (examples: "Following the failed insurrections of 1896–97 the Ndebele and Shona groups became subject to Rhodes's administration thus precipitating European settlement en masse which led to land distribution disproportionately favouring Europeans, displacing the Shona, Ndebele, and other indigenous peoples." or "Mugabe began to redistribute land to blacks in 2000 with a compulsory land redistribution. Charges that the programme as a whole is designed to reward loyal Mugabe deputies have persisted in Zimbabwe since the beginning of the process." among others.) I strongly suggest withdrawing and submitting this to another PR. FAC is suffering from a lack of reviewers at the moment, and the nomination might not gather any reviews. At the moment, I must oppose based on the lack of references throughout. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose by karanacs primarily on referencing and organization issues. The article has definitely gotten a good start, but I don't think it is close to meeting the FA criteria at this time. There have been a lot of books written about Zimbabwe, including about the leadup to the current crisis, but they do not appear to have been consulted. This leads to concerns about the comprehensiveness of the article; if we are cherry-picking from online sources and news articles and not consulting comprehensive scholarly works about the topics, then we might miss something important. The sourcing issues I've listed below are not 100% comprehensive, but should hopefully give you a good idea about what sources should and should not be used.

• These are not reliable sources:
  • German wikipedia
  • About.com
  • http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/jun16a_2007.html#Z6
  • http://members.fortunecity.com/madzimbabwe/Buildings/Natural/Balancing%20Rocks/BalancingRocks.html
• These are probably not reliable sources:
  • http://www.worldtrek.org/odyssey/africa/062699/062699monicabula.html
  • http://badley.info/history/ZANU-PF-Zimbabwe.event.html
  • http://www.usp.nus.edu.sg/post/zimbabwe/art/greatzim/gz1.html
  • http://zimbabwe.safari.co.za/spirit-of-zimbabwe.html
  • http://www.netpages.free-online.co.uk/sha/scouthistory.doc
• These sources should be replaced: (avoid citing other encyclopedias)
  • NationsEncyclopedia.com
  • MSN encarta
• There are a lot of primary sources cited, such as the Constitution of Zimbabwe, various government or organization websites, etc. We should avoid primary sources where at all possible
• The external links section is much, much too long.
• There are a lot of uncited statements, including statistics. ALL statistics must be cited. Also, all statements that provide an opinion need to be cited, and so do most that purport to describe someone else's opinion (including "it was generally acknowledged that the MDC had achieved a significant majority of seats")
• Templates should not be in See also; they belong at the bottom of the article
• The national symbols section has too many short subsections; most of this could likely be a single section
• I don't know that Human rights needs to be its own section. That seems a bit inflammatory, and I suspect the information could be interspersed into other parts of the article
• Don't use callout quotes, and don't offset quotes of less than 4 lines (per WP:MOSQUOTE)
• For the military section, I'm unsure why there is a subsection detailing the ZNA but not the other two parts of the ZDF.

I suggest at this time that the nomination be withdrawn, the article rewritten with more reliable sources, and then it should be brought to peer review. After that, it will likely be ready for a second FA nomination. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:57, 17 December 2008 [3].

---

Marty Hogan

Nominator(s): Daysleeper47 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe that it represents the best of Wikipedia. I am not involved at all with this article, however I have worked closely with the primary editor, Twelsht, on several FACs. As is the case with all of the Twelsht products I have seen, this article is well-written, very detailed, and well cited. Additionally, it has proven stable, is of sufficient length for someone of this notoriety, and includes graphics. I highly recommend that this article be promoted to FA-class. Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I also want to note that Twelsht is not active on the project anymore (unless working anonymously, which he has done in the past). I will be happy to make minor corrections to the article as necessary, but don't have the time for wholesale changes. I nominated the article on its current merits. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Daysleeper, it is the custom of those patrolling FACs to remove nominations where the nominator is not a major contributor, per the FAC instructions at the top of the page. If you do not have the time or resources to make extensive changes to the article, I recommend that you nominate the article when you have the time and sources used in the article. It is virtually impossible to have an FAC promoted without these. --Moni3 (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I count seven cite tags in the article. There's no way the article can pass FAC unless they are resolved. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Switching to strong oppose because tags haven't been fixed in six days, and I recommend that it be withdrawn. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:57, 17 December 2008 [4].

---

WrestleMania XXIV

Nominator(s): iMatthew

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I'm sure it meets the Featured article criteria. Concerns will be addressed. iMatthew 00:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• I don't like the small text in "Results"; I suggest changing to normal
• In the infobox, there should be no space between the word and the (s) (I'm assuming the (s) to cover bases for singular and plural.) This will require editing the infobox; shouldn't be a problem though.
• Why is U.S. state linked? Common enough term to not need it.
• "and it was" – "and was"
• "brand, that" – "brand that"
• "featured The Undertaker defeating World Heavyweight Champion Edge" — "featured The Undertaker's defeating World Heavyweight Champion Edge"
• "match; CM Punk won the match." – "match, which CM Punk won."
• "Bowl; grossing $5.85" – "Bowl, grossing US$5.85"
• "The Citrus Bowl record-breaking attendance of 74,635, consisting of people from 21 countries, all 50 states, and five Canadian provinces, pumped an estimated $30 million into the local economy." – "The Citrus Bowl's record-breaking attendance of 74,635, consisting of people from 21 countries, all 50 states, and five Canadian provinces, pumped an estimated $30 million into the local economy."
• That "See also: Professional wrestling" in Background strikes me as being too generic to be a See also link.
• Where's the reference for the paragraph that begins with "The event featured nine professional wrestling matches"
• Ref for "Canadian Online Explorer's professional " onwards?

Gary King (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I got everything except the reference for that paragraph. I'm not sure about it. iMatthew 00:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the reader doesn't know anything about the subject, like me, then the paragraph should be referenced. How else can I verify if the information is accurate? Gary King (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I recommend sourcing it with this. It's reliable, seeing how there is an article on Wiki about it.--SRX 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sourced with that link. iMatthew 00:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not commenting on its reliability, but just because it has its own article doesn't mean it's reliable. Gary King (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess let Ealdgyth comment its reliability, but I think its reliable since its operated and published by Discovery Networks. In addition, the ref should go before the sentence that elaborates about the "brand extension." The brand extension sentence should be sourced with the WWE corporate citation released in 2002.--SRX 00:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A few comments from WillC

• I just thought to tell you about a few sources that are dead links now. Plus you have two dab pages linked. Stomp and World Heavyweight Championship. Ref 54 is dead along with 35. If Lockdown passes I'll leave some comments later, right now I'm bussy. Good luck.--WillC 00:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, will do later. iMatthew 00:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Current ref 1 (Wrestlemania 24 Tagline...) is lacking a publisher
  • Fixed.
• http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23877310/ deadlinks as does http://www.wwe.com/shows/ecw/articles/6349672/contractsigning
  • Replaced.
• Current ref 6 (Orlando to Host...) is lacking a publisher
  • Fixed.
• What makes http://www.411mania.com/ a reliable source?
  • Removed.
• zhttp://www.betweentheropes.com/content/view/237/39/ requires log in/registration, also what makes this a reliable source?
  • Removed.
• What makes http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/ a reliable source?
  • Removed.
• Likewise http://www.hoffco-inc.com/wwe/?
  • I'm not sure. At this article (with the same source), did you accidentally pass over it, or find it reliable and maybe forget about it. iMatthew 21:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I think I missed it, I don't see it mentioned in the FACs. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
      • So should I removed the table? I can't find any other sources for it. ayematthew ✡ 20:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't know Matthew, no luck with printed sources at all? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Nope, also - SRX addressed it at the newest FAC for Over the Edge (1999). ayematthew ✡ 02:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Likewise http://prowrestling.about.com/b/2008/03/30/wrestlemania-xxiv-recap-results.htm?
  • Replaced, replaced.
• And also http://www.angelfire.com/wrestling/cawthon777/wm24review.htm?
  • Removed.
• Current ref 58 (Picture of marching band..) what makes this a reliable source?
  • Removed.
• Likewise http://www.prowrestlinghistory.com/supercards/usa/wwf/mania.html#24?
  • Removed, replaced.
• on "How it works" site, yes, given that it's from Discovery networks, it's reliable, but if better sources can be found, they would be preferred. And I wouldn't use it for something highly technical, mainly as it's used here, as an introduction/overview thing.
  • I cannot find anything else.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Done with some replies. iMatthew 21:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Sorry, but a review of the lead only revealed a lot of questionable prose. Here's what I found.

• Put the tagline reference after the quotation mark.
  • I can't figure out how to fix that. Look at the text for the infobox, it's weird.
    • Just forget about this one. Apparently, the template does that automatically. I don't think it can be fixed without editing the template. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Fixed. ayematthew ✡ 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• "Nine professional wrestling matches were programmed for the event". Don't think program is a better choice than scheduled, which I've seen in previous wrestling FACs.
• "that featured The Undertaker's defeating World Heavyweight Champion Edge to win the title."
• Logo in the infobox needs a link that specifically shows the logo as a source. One of our image reviewers can determine what else is needed.
• "From the six scheduled bouts on the undercard, three received more promotion." More promotion than what?
• Remove comma after Career Threatening match?
• US dollar link isn't needed in the lead. As WrestleMania XXIV was held in the US, it is an American topic, and us Americans don't need links for our own currency.
• Spell out Corp. in Enigma Research Corp.
• Non-breaking spaces needed for the three million-dollar+ dollar totals in the lead.
  • Where? iMatthew 00:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • In between $51.5 million, $25 million, $1.8 million, and $23.8 million. Hit the edit page button to see how this is done; the space doesn't go before the first number, but rather before the million. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Fixed. ayematthew ✡ 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• "ended up pumping an estimated $51.5 million instead of the projected $25 million into the local econony..." The original projection is harming the flow of the sentence. Either re-word it or just have it in the body.
• "The Central Florida Sports Commission estimated that the event created numerous jobs and brought around 60,000 visitors to the city for the event." "Numerous" is too vague, can a reasonable estimate be given? Also, "for the event" should be dropped, since it's redundant with the early part of the sentence.

I recommend seeking a copy-edit for the whole article. If the lead has a large number of problems, the body probably needs work too. Let me know when these are done, and I'll review more when I can. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Done with a few comments. iMatthew 00:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Back for round 2, and my oppose still stands, unfortunately. I found all of these in the first two paragraphs of the Background section:

• "All wrestlers belonged either the..." Two-letter word is missing.
• "in which WWE assigned its employees to a different programs." Why is "a" here?
• "Cena became a top contender to the WWE Championship at WrestleMania XXIV." Picky, but I'd replace to with for. Other instances of this exist later.
• "Orton got himself intentionally disqualified after slapping the referee". What else did he have to do? Even wrestling has some rules. :-) I think you're looking for "by slapping the referee".
• "in an Elimination Chamber match, a match...". Close repetition here. This has been one of the nagging complaints about the move out-of-universe, and it's a problem in this instance.
• "surrounded by chain and girders." One chain?
• "who is portrayed as a matchmaker and rules enforcer". Is may be correct now, but for how long will that be the case? I would make it was.
• Two instances of "if ... should win", which should be "if ... won".
• Remove comma after "Regal added a stipulation to the match". As an alternative, a colon could be inserted, along with the removal of the next word."

My advice about seeking copy-editing services still stands as well. The most beneficial thing would be to seek someone outside the wrestling project, who could come with a completely fresh pair of eyes. I know it's not easy to find someone to work on these articles, but the effort would be helpful. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. ayematthew ✡ 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• The first thing I saw when I returned to the Background section was an indented paragraph with a stray period. Doesn't inspire me with confidence.

What? ayematthew ✡ 02:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• ". At No Way Out" begins the fourth paragraph of the section. Notice the period and indentation. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• "On the following episode of Smackdown, Edge predicted that The Undertaker's 15–0 record at WrestleMania would come to an end once he defeated him at WrestleMania." "at WrestleMania" is repeated in the sentence. Needs rewording.
• "in a Steel Cage match, a match where the ring is surrounded by walls of steel." → "in a Steel Cage match, where the ring is surrounded by steel walls."
• "The Undertaker chokeslammed — lifted both Hawkins and Ryder by the throat and slammed them down to the mat — while he executed a Tombstone piledriver (second link in section) on Guerrero." If what is in between the dashes is removed, the sentence makes no sense. Can this be reworded too?
• During the "burial," however". Watch for logical punctuation. Unless part of a quote, punctuation should be outside quotation marks.
• "came to his aid and confronted Big Show. Big Show..." Repetition again.

College finals are looming, meaning that I probably won't return for a few days. Until then, these should be fixed. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. ayematthew ✡ 02:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

College finals no longer looming, but I'm waiting until SRX's comments are resolved. I see no reason to overload the nominator with comments. I might even look at making some improvements if I have time, which is a distinct possibility. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Dabs in the toolbox need attn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.--WillC 05:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Significant contributors - you should have notified the significant contributors of the article about this FAC, since they are the ones who helped edit the article.SRX 22:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from the lead.
• From the six scheduled bouts on the undercard, three received more promotion than the other three. - "other three" → "others".
• Is it possible to cut down on the usage of "bout" in the second paragraph of the lead.
• Tickets for the event went on sale to the public on November 3, 2007. - Is there a better term for "went on sale"?
  • Not that I can think of.
• For the second year in a row, WrestleMania broke the record for the highest-grossing pay-per-view in WWE history, as well as for the Citrus Bowl, grossing US$ 5.85 million in ticket sales. - "For the second year in a row" → "for the second consecutive year". Also, there is no space between the $ and the number.
• The Central Florida Sports Commission estimated that the event created jobs and brought around 60,000 visitors to the city. - "around" → "approximately". Also, "estimate" is a term usually reserved for exact numbers, so "estimated that the event created jobs" reads oddly.
  • Suggestions to fix it?
• WWE and the city of Orlando hosted festivities that spanned a five-day period within the central Florida region. - "city of Orland" → "City of Orland" (notice the change in capitalization).
• More than one million people ordered the event on pay-per-view, grossing $23.8 million in revenue. - "More than" → "over".

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Done with comment. ayematthew ✡ 20:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Nikki

• "Ric Flair in his last match at WrestleMania XXIV, who lost to Shawn Michaels." - this is grammatically incorrect
• "All wrestlers belonged to the SmackDown! brand – a storyline division in which WWE assigned its employees to a different program, the other being Raw" - I thought wrestlers from all three brands participated in WrestleMania.
• It sounds confusing to call Cena the #1 Contender and then Triple H the same thing later on ("Triple H also became the #1 Contender..."). Maybe they would be better referred to as "a top contender for the championship" or something along those lines....something that indicates there can be more than one. Does WWE refer them both specifically as #1 Contenders?
• "At No Way Out, The Big Show (Paul Wight) made a return to the company." - it might be good to add how long he'd been absent, so "At No Way Out, The Big Show (Paul Wight) made a return to the company after a (add time span here) hiatus."
  • How would I source that. That's why it was removed.
    • How about: "At No Way Out, The Big Show (Paul Wight) made a return to the company after taking time off for injuries beginning in December 2006" or "After being absent since December 2006 to heal his injuries, The Big Show (Paul Wight) made a return to the company" or something to that effect. Then you could use [5]. Nikki♥311 21:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. ayematthew ✡ 22:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• "Jeff Hardy was later removed from the match after being legitimately suspended by WWE for violation of the company's wellness policy" - this might make more sense to a non-fan if the fact that it was a drug violation was made clearer
• "During an interview, WWE production manager Brian Petree mentioned that video reinforcement should prevent anyone from being obstructed by the steel structure." - anyone's view?
• In the main event section, I don't think it is made clear enough that Sweet Chin Music is the name of Michael's superkick.
• Some of the move names are in italics (like Pedigree and RKO) and some aren't (like Sweet Chin Music and FU). Make sure it is consistent throughout.

Nikki♥311 03:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Done with comments. ayematthew ✡ 20:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review: Images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• There needs to be a link to singles match in the lead.
• The other match was a Career Threatening match where Shawn Michaels defeated Ric Flair, forcing Flair's retirement from professional wrestling. - this would read better as ..resulting in Flair's retirement from professional wrestling.
• In addition, why are the brands not linked in the lead?
• All wrestlers belonged to either the Raw, SmackDown, or ECW brand – storyline divisions in which WWE assigned its employees to different programs. - if you're going to elaborate what the ECW acronym in the lead, you may as well do in the background intro.
• The event featured nine professional wrestling matches with wrestlers involved in pre-existing scripted feuds, plots and storylines. Wrestlers were portrayed as either villains or fan favorites as they followed a series of tension-building events, which culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches. All wrestlers belonged to either the Raw, SmackDown, or ECW brand – storyline divisions in which WWE assigned its employees to different programs. - recently, The event has been replaced with the event's name, which in this case would be WrestleMania.
• At the Royal Rumble pay-per-view event in January, Cena won the Royal Rumble match, where thirty wrestlers compete in a ring and are eliminated by being thrown over the top rope. are -->were, compete--->competed [past tense]
• That same night, Triple H also became the a top contender to the WWE Championship by defeating five other men in an Elimination Chamber match, which features wrestlers fighting in a ring surrounded by chains and girders. 1)Remove the word the before a top contender. 2)Features --> Featured [past tense]
• If Orton won, however, the main event would remain as Orton versus Triple H in a standard wrestling match. Cena, however, won the match and was added to the bout at WrestleMania. - it should be elaborated here that a standard wrestling match is also a singles match.
• The Undertaker won the match by eliminating Batista (Dave Batista) after lifting him upside down and dropping his head down to the mat, a move called the Tombstone piledriver. - is it relevant to say how he won? Its not relevant to the feud and is just adding more WP:PLOT.
• The following week, Edge, Hawkins, Ryder, and Chavo Guerrero, a group of aligned wrestlers, defeated Ric Flair (Richard Fliehr) and Shawn Michaels (Michael Hickenbottom) in a Steel Cage match, where the ring is surrounded by walls of steel. - in this context, is should be was
• The Undertaker lifted both Hawkins and Ryder by the throat and slammed them down to the mat, while he executed a Tombstone piledriver on Guerrero. - if the Tombstone is removed as I suggested above, it would need to go here, and in addition, the chokeslam explanation should state that is indeed called a chokeslam (that's if it used again in the article)
• The Undertaker emerged from a casket, which was inside the ring, and attacked Edge, Hawkins and Ryder, knocking Hawkins and Ryder outside the ring and chokeslamming Edge through the casket. - see, here the reader is left clueless because they don't know what a chokeslam is.
• The SmackDown prime rivalry has a lot of WP:PLOT, I suggest cutting some of it out, [a lot of week by week IMO]. I will review the rest after these comments are addressed.--SRX 21:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks! ayematthew ✡ 22:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Further Comments

• . At No Way Out, The Big Show (Paul Wight) made a return to the company after taking time off for injuries beginning in December 2006. - I think you can spot the error.
  • I can't find it... ayematthew ✡ 20:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• The match involved wrestlers from all three WWE brands. The winner would earn a contract to challenge for any of the three WWE World Championships (the WWE Championship of Raw, the World Heavyweight Championship of SmackDown, or the ECW Championship of ECW) at any time and any place over a one-year period. - WP:OVERLINK of ECW, anyhow, its pipedlinked to Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW).
• Qualifying matches occurred to determine the participants in the match at WrestleMania, starting on that night's edition of Raw with Jeff Hardy and Mr. Kennedy (Ken Anderson) respectively defeating Snitsky (Gene Snitsky) and Val Venis (Sean Morley) to qualify. - move the respectively to the end of the sentence, it doesn't work well in the middle of the sentence.
• The final design had the lighting and video screens on the tarpaulin rig as well as the sound system. - a pause is needed before as well +comma.
• Without the restriction of a roof, the pyrotechnics for the show shot as high as 2,000 ft as compared to WrestleMania 23's height of 150 ft. - use {{convert}} to convert these to meters.
  • I'm not sure how to do this, but will ask someone. ayematthew ✡ 20:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• After the show, WWE was criticized for a malfunction in the pyrotechnics during The Undertaker's victory celebration. During the celebration, a hot cable for pyrotechnics was sent flying into audience members in the upper seating bowl of the stadium, leaving 45 injured with some hospitalized. The accident was apparently due to a cable which fireworks were traveling across snapping, thus resulting in the fireworks exploding into the top rows of the upper bowl of the stadium.[31][32] WWE's corporate website released a statement afterward stating that they would investigate the incident, though the results of the investigation were never released.[33] - this just stands out because it gives away that The Undertaker won before the event section is even explained. In addition, this is more of aftermath than production. I suggest moving it.
• With the Citrus Bowl's locker rooms on the south side and the entrance set on the north side, a tented 40,000 ft² mini-city outside the north end served as the show's backstage area and included air conditioning, trailers, VIP areas, showers and restrooms. - {{convert}} is need for the square foot.
  • Will ask someone again, I'm not sure about the template. ayematthew ✡ 20:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 20:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Heavy-duty plastic flooring had been put over the field, to protect the turf, provide seating and serve as the steel structures' foundation. - comma needed before and.
• The building of the actual set began in the middle of March. - because in the previous sentence the year 2007 is stated, it should be stated that this March is in 2008, or do you meant 2007?
• Before the show aired live on pay-per-view, Kane (Glen Jacobs) won a 24-man Interpromotional Battle Royal, an elimination style match where the last person remaining is the winner, to win an ECW Championship match against Chavo Guerrero (Salvador Guerrero) later that night. - in this context, the explanation of the match should be in past tense.
• The first match that aired live on pay-per-view was a Belfast Brawl between Finlay and John "Bradshaw" Layfield (JBL), a match where there are no disqualifications and match outcomes can occur anywhere. - this should also be in past tense per the context.
• The match featured several spots, which included JBL hitting Finlay with a trash can lid when the latter was about to perform a suicide dive on him through the ropes on the outside. - spot is jargon.
• Later on, Finlay tossed JBL through the table that he had set up earlier on the turnbuckle. - in this context, the should be a
• Hornswoggle also got involved during the match by hitting JBL's with a kendo stick, while later on JBL threw a trash can at him. - JBL's?
• Attacking Finlay's knee with a kendo stick, JBL then quickly hit a high impact attack with his forearm to score a successful pinfall. - is pinfall linked above? Just wondering.--SRX 02:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I almost missed these. I'll get them tomorrow afternoon. ayematthew ✡ 00:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I need to put it off another day. I spent the night trying to catch a raccoon in my attic, not fun. Sorry, ayematthew ✡ 03:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything is done with some comments. ayematthew ✡ 20:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Followup

• The match featured several parts, which included JBL hitting Finlay with a trash can lid when the latter was about to perform a suicide dive on him through the ropes on the outside. - parts? can another word be used?
• The match featured many dangerous spots. - either explain that spots means the meaning above or avoid using spot per WP:JARGON
• Early in the match, Morrison climbed a turnbuckle and performed a back flip on others outside while holding a ladder against his chest. - link to turnbuckle. In addition, turnbuckles in wrestling are padded.
• When MVP was close to retrieving the contract briefcase, Matt Hardy (returning to action after suffering a legitimate injury) - link to legitimate, the one in pro wrestling
• When MVP was close to retrieving the contract briefcase, Matt Hardy (returning to action after suffering a legitimate injury), entered the ring and climbed the ladder, he grabbed and slammed MVP's head down to the mat over his shoulders off the ladder. - this explanation is worded badly. How about When MVP was close to retrieving the contract briefcase, Matt Hardy (returning to action after suffering a legitimate injury), entered the ring and climbed the ladder, he then slammed MVP's head down over his shoulders onto the mat.
• The next match, which was billed as a "Battle for Brand Supremacy", was between SmackDown's Batista (Dave Batista) and Raw's Umaga (Eddie Fatu). - Batista's real name is Dave Bautista
• Early in the match, both Batista and Umaga exchanged blows and Batista threw Umaga outside with a shoulder block. - Its not literally possible to throw someone outside with a shoulder block, how about knocked Umaga outside.
• Umaga later delivered a high-impact kick to Batista, which caused him to fall back-first outside the ring from the ring-apron. - how about Umaga later kicked Batista in the face, which caused him to fall back-first outside the ring from the ring-apron.
• The fourth match for the event featured Chavo Guerrero defending his ECW Championship against Kane. Kane surprised Chavo by emerging from underneath the ring instead of from the entrance stage. - it should be elaborate that this is during his ring entrance
• Kane instantly pinned Chavo after he lifted Chavo by the throat and slammed him down to the mat (termed as a chokeslam) and won the ECW Championship. ---> Kane instantly pinned Chavo to win the ECW Championship after a chokeslam, in which Kane lifted Chavo by the throat and slammed him down to the mat.
• Ric Flair put his career on the line next against Shawn Michaels. - WP:JARGON "on the line"
• The Flair match has too much WP:PLOT, cut down this match by eliminating some of the play-by-play
• Randy Orton defending his WWE Championship against Triple H and John Cena in a Triple Threat match, or a standard match involving three wrestlers, was next. - Threat should not be capitalized. In addition, link to the match?
  • Link is in background already. ayematthew ✡ 23:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• During the match, when Triple H had held Orton in a sleeper hold, Cena picked up both Orton and Triple H to flip and drop them down to the mat, --->...both Orton and Triple to flip and drop them down for an FU.
• Orton dominated the match for some time. One highlight of the match featured Orton performing a crossbody from the top rope on Cena, while the latter was held on Triple H's shoulders in an electric chair position. the first period should be a semi colon. The electric chair should be a seated position since that is WP:JARGON.
• Also, Orton drove both Cena and Triple H's heads to the mat from the second rope simultaneously. - It is not proper to start a sentence with "also"
• Orton then tried to jump and grab Cena's head to drive it over his shoulders (a move called the RKO by Orton), but he countered and threw Orton onto Triple H. ---> Orton then tried to perform an RKO by jumping and grabbing Cena's head to drive it over his shoulders, but he countered and threw Orton onto Triple H.
• Then, Triple H started targeting Orton's legs and using some submissions on him. - Not proper to start with "then" either.
• The match came to an end when Cena had Triple H on his shoulders for the FU but was countered into a maneuver in which Triple H jumps and slams the opponent's head positioned between his knees to the ground, a move called the Pedigree. - an FU not the FU. Reword to , but was countered into a Pedigree; this move was performed by Triple H slamming Cena's head, positioned in-between his knees, onto the mat. In addition, finishers should be in italics.
• As Triple H was in the pin, Orton come across and punted Triple H in the head and pinned Cena to win the match and retain the WWE Championship. It sounds like Triple H was being pinned, how about As Triple H was pinning Cena, Orton came across and punted Triple H in the head. He then pinned Cena to win the match and retain the WWE Championship.
• Soon, Mayweather applied a sleeper hold on Big Show, but the latter escaped out of it before passing out and stomped on Mayweather's hand. - play-by-play
• Finally, Mayweather removed his right glove and put on a pair of brass knuckles to hit Big Show in the face. As a result, Big Show was knocked out as he could not answer the referee's ten count, and Mayweather was declared the winner. - it would help if the referee's ten count was piped linked to like the rules of pro wrestling.
• The main event of the night had Edge putting his World Heavyweight Championship on the line against The Undertaker. - WP:OVERLINK of Edge.
• The early going in this match was slow-paced with some counters by both men. --> The early going of the match was slow-paced, in which both wrestlers countered each others maneuvers.
• One high point had Undertaker run and leap over the top rope from the ring onto Edge on the outside. - high point?
• Near the end, Edge was able to counter numerous signature moves of The Undertaker's including the chokeslam and the Last Ride, a variation of the powerbomb. - comma before including. Is powerbomb linked and elaborated above?
  • Yes, it is. ayematthew ✡ 23:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Although, The Undertaker was able to land both these moves, Edge was able to kick out of both. - what?
• The last part of the main event prose needs to be seriously reworded. It seems like you just nominated this article without any work, you have potential to rephrase and cut these proses down like you did with The Great American Bash (2005). As a result of these many prose issues, I have to Oppose the passing of this article until some work is done with the prose. Sorry.--SRX 21:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Everything is done. Thanks, ayematthew ✡ 23:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Followup3

• After getting up on his feet with a worried face, Michaels said to Flair "I'm sorry, I love you," before nailing a final superkick and thus pinning Flair to end his 35-year long wrestling career per pre-match stipulations. - 1)Nailing is poor word choice. 2)Thus? I don't think superkicking somebody will "thus" be a pinfall.
• In the Flair match, there is an overuse of "delivered"
• An attempt by Edge to drop Undertaker on his head in an upside down position was reversed into Undertaker's own Tombstone Piledriver. - it needs to be elaborated earlier in the sentence that the explanation is indeed a Tombstone Piledriver
• Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder came to the ring for Edge's aid. Because of their distraction, Edge was able to hit a takedown maneuver on The Undertaker, followed by an unsuccessful pin attempt. 1)Merge. Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder came to the ring for Edge's aid, and because of their distraction, Edge was able to hit a takedown maneuver on The Undertaker, followed by an unsuccessful pin attempt.
• On the following episode of Raw, Ric Flair made his farewell speech, which led to Triple H introducing various people from Flair's past, such as the Four Horsemen, a former group of wrestlers, Ricky Steamboat, and others, each coming out to give an emotional farewell. - it should be elaborated that Flair was in the 4 Horsemen.
• Michaels won with a superkick. - won what?
• With Matt Hardy's return at WrestleMania, his feud with Montel Vontavious Porter over the WWE United States Championship that started in July was revived with a match booked at Backlash which Hardy won. - comma before which
• The rivalries between The Undertaker and Edge and the one between Kane and Chavo Guerrero both continued with successful title defenses at Backlash. comma in between and and Guerrero
• DVD reception?--SRX 02:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:57, 17 December 2008 [6].

---

Boeing 777

Nominator: User:Chergles (talk)

This was nominated for FAC in mid-2007. The article has improved since then. In my opinion, all of the points raised in the 3 objections have been met. The subject of the article, The Boeing 777, is a very notable aircraft though even obscure articles have passed FAC before. This is truly a collaborative effort between several editors and represents great work and effort. Chergles (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see no indication that significant contributors were consulted, per WP:FAC instructions. If they don't think it's ready, the nom should be withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, fixing. The 2 most recent heavy contributors have been notified, me and Fnlayson. Will do the others. Chergles (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Top 4 editors and all editors over 65 edits notified. 3 ok'ed it, 1 has quit and said so on their talk pageChergles (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• It's usual to put magazine and newspaper titles in italics.

Many of the references use the template and the template did not italicize the titles. This is a wikipedia style error, not our error. I'll manually add italics. Chergles (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is from confusion with how the fields work in the {{cite news}} and other cite templates. Work is the field you use for the title of the magazine, publisher would be the company behind the magazine. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 6 (Cebeci..) needs a publisher and last access date at the least.

Fixed, unneeded sentence removed. Chergles (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why is current ref 12 (Sabbagh. p. 180) in italics? Same for current ref 20 (Sabbagh p. 281-284)

Fixed. Chergles (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• The Boening Company or Boenig? Pick one and be consistent in the footnotes.

Fixed. Chergles (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.planespotters.net/
  • http://web.archive.org/web/20060103195219/http://airtransportbiz.free.fr/Aircraft/777X-1.html
  • http://www.airlinecodes.co.uk/home.asp
  • http://www.zap16.com/index.html
  • http://www.airliners.net/
  • http://www.seattle-deliveries.com/index.htm

These sources list plane deliveries. They are like a directory. News sources will never say "plane 00112 is United Airlines, plane 00113 is British Airways, etc." Nobody has ever claimed that these websites are so error prone as to be unreliable. If SandyGeorgia says we cannot use these list websites, then I am willing to remove lots of good information and just have a barebones generic 777 article. Otherwise, let's use these sources. They are not blogs. Chergles (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing that suggests these websites are not reliable. News articles are less reliable because they might say United Airlines has 53 planes but that number is not updated by the article so that we can't compare different articles. If SandyGeorgia determines that these websites have to go, then we'll just re-write the article and take out information. That will leave the article with a good basic description of the 777 but it may not have airline specific information, like number of planes a certain airline has. Chergles (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with zap16.com, but the rest are well-known airline field to be reputable sites. I'm not sure how much "proof" policy requires. Given that these sites are maintained by experts, I'd actually put their reliability much higher than mainstream media who have a bad reputation for getting aviation reporting wrong. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In any event, most all of those have been removed or replaced. Working on the rest... -Fnlayson (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 26 (Boening 787 Program...) is lacking a publisher.

Added Chergles (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 27 (FAA publication...) is lacking a publisher. Also, the title should be the title given in the pdf and the footnote should note that it's a webarchive of the original.

Removed ref as there is a better reference. Chergles (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 28 (Type Acceptance report) is lacking publisher and last access date at the least. Should also note that it's a pdf

Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 29, the publisher should be The Australian.

Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 30 (From the Cockpit...) is lacking a publisher. Also worthy of note is that I did not investigate the site as I got a "Warning, Visiting this site may harm your computer..." message when I tried to click on it. What makes this a relaible source?

Removed reference. Chergles (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 33 (IATA & ICAO...) the publisher is run into the link title, when they should be separated.

Fixed Chergles (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 37 (Leading engine for the 777) is lacking a publisher. also, shouldn't the title be "Trent 800"?

Fixed Chergles (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 38 (ALPA 50th..) is lacking a publsher. Also, the author is known.

Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 39 (JAL...) is just badly formatted. Journal title shoudl be in italics, article title in ""'s

Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 48 (Delta Airlines...) is lacking a publisher

Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Current refs 63 & 64 (Factsheet...) are lacking publishers

Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 65 (Aircraft & Aircraft...) is lacking a publisher and last access date. (The access date shouldn't be in the link title).

Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: a significant contributor to the article removed the FAC tag with the edit summary "Let's try to get the article in better shape before starting FAC". Since the article is already listed at FAC, and the 'significant contributors' issue is fuzzy here (nominator has 63 edits, but the editor who removed the tag is the top contributor at 365), I have reinstated {{fac}} on the article talk page and requested further input here. Maralia (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We are fine. Both of us are not in dispute. I'm just fixing the article now. Chergles (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Proof...16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Fnlayson says alright with the FA. Yipee, we have a common goal! Chergles (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review

• There is some sandwiching of text in the "Production" section, which we should try to avoid (see WP:MOS#Images). Can one of those images be deleted?

• Image:020802 02.jpg - This image has no author. It looks like it is the uploader, but we need to confirm that. Please leave a note with the uploader.

• Image:B777-200LR Paris Air Show 2005 display.jpg - The original source image for this has a problem. Note that the uploader and the author are not the same, so when the uploader released the rights, they were releasing rights that did not belong to them. We need the author/photographer to release the rights. Could you leave a message for the photographer? They can amend the image description page to make their release of the rights explicit, if they actually want to release them.

These issues should be relatively easy to clear up. Awadewit (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Request in progress. One author is French and contributes to French Wikipedia. Have tried to write in French even though I don't speak French. Chergles (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - sorry, but the article needs quite a bit of work. Struck oppose until I get a chance to do a more thorough review. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• The lead needs to be significantly expanded.

The lead is 3 paragraphs. It is possible to add fluff but 3 paragraphs is deemed sufficient according to Wikipedia. Suggestions always welcomed. Chergles (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD suggests that an article of this size should contain a lead of four paragraphs, but even so, they should be decently-sized paragraphs. Remember, the lead is a summary of the entire article, and should provide a general understanding of the entire subject to a reader. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We'll try to comply with your suggestion. However, WP:LEAD actually says "three or four paragraphs". Chergles (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Done! 4 paragraphs in the lead. Content of the 4th paragraph was decided by several editors with drafts considered and improved. The 4th paragraph is truly a collaborative effort! Thanks to S.S. and F. Chergles (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Citation needed tags, as well as other unsourced info. Some examples:

**All software, whether produced internally to Boeing or externally, was to be written in Ada. The bulk of the work was undertaken by Honeywell who developed an Airplane Information Management System (AIMS). This handles the flight and navigation displays, systems monitoring and data acquisition (e.g. flight data acquisition). **The first 777-200 built was used by Boeing's non-destructive testing (NDT) campaign in 1994–1995, and provided valuable data for the -200ER and -300 programs. This A market (see below) aircraft was sold to Cathay Pacific Airways and delivered in December 2000.

• • The 777 may eventually be replaced by a new product family, the Boeing Y3, which would draw upon technologies from the 787.
  • The first customer delivery was to United Airlines in May 1995.

All fixed Chergles (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Quite a few one-sentence paragraphs.

Fixed. Chergles (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• The prose needs an overall copyedit. Examples:
  • a 2,700 nautical miles (5,000 km) transcontinental and an 4,320 nmi (8,000 km) intercontinental. - "A 2,700 nautical miles" is grammatically incorrect. Also, why is "miles" spelled out, when "nmi" is abbreviated?
  • From a head-on view, the end of the section is very evident. - "Very" is unneeded.
  • 180 minutes of successful and reliable operation on one workable engine are required for the ETOPS 180-minute certification. - Avoid starting sentences with numerical characters.

–

Fixed these but going beyond that and making similar changes suggested by the above. Chergles (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• Rolls-Royce should always have a hyphen. It appears as two words in many places in this article. William Avery (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Chergles (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

All of the points raised have been fixed. However, a continuing effort to improve is and will always be worked on. Chergles (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Dabs, pls address the dabs identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Done - the toolbox came up with three dab links. I fixed the two that are actually in the article. The third, List_of_civil_aviation_authorities is actually in one of the standard aviation article navboxes, and is correct as listed. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Y'all might want to get that sorted independently of this FAC (it's protected, and I'm not an admin). List of civil aviation authorities is a redirect to Civil Aviation Authority, which really should be a list and not a dab page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
      • FWIW, I've posted this issue both to the dab page's talk page and to the Aviation Wikiproject. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) After a re-read, I'm of the opinion that the article is ready, so I support promotion to FA status.AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose by karanacs for now. I see citation issues, a few organization and prose issues, and other areas where the text was confusing to me. I think the article is in decent shape, it just needs quite a bit more massage to get to the FAC criteria. Examples listed below.

• I think that the acronym ETOPS needs to be spelled out. We shouldn't require users to click the link to get the background info necessary to understand some of the article. I see that the acronym is referred to throughout the article, so perhaps a brief note on why it is so important is also relevant.
• I'm not sure why this would be a big deal: "the absence of a 40,000 lbf (178 kN) engine." - perhaps just a wee bit more explanation?
• This sentence is very awkward "By the 1980s, the DC-10 and L-1011, which had entered service in the early 1970s, were coming due for replacement within the next decade." - it refers to 1980s, 1970s, and 1990s in a confusing manner
  • This sentence is also ambiguous. Does it mean that McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed were getting ready to have a new product line, or that the companies that had purchased those airplanes needed new airplanes?
• "Airbus developed the A330/A340 models to fulfill that requirement and to compete with Boeing" - which requirement? - and how does this compete with Boeing, since they didn't have a plane of that size anymore?
• "for first generation wide-bodies like the DC-10. " - this seems like an important concept that might ought to start off the background section. The DC-10 was one of the first generation wide-bodied plane, and Boeing was having trouble keeping up
• not entirely sure what this means - " began issuing firm offers to airlines " - I thought they were just proposing a new aircraft; generally "issuing offers" involves purchasing something
• " For the first time, eight major airlines" - need a bit more background here. How many usually had input? Was the combination unusual or just the number? Did other airlines want to be involved? How did they choose these 8?
• Why is United not wikilinked when all the others in the list of eight major arilines are?
• "This became known as the "Working Together" collaborative model employed for the 777 project" - This sentence is not grammatical and who called it that?
• "By March 1990, a basic design for the 777 had been decided upon:" - decided upon by whom? Did the airlines reach some sort of consensus or was Boeing collecting all their information and making their own decision?
• " United Airlines' replacement program for its aging DC-10s became a focus for Boeing's designs" - How so? Does this mean that United had more impact than the other 7 airlines?
• almost all the early pictures are right-aligned. Can some of those be switched (provided they are not left-aligned directly below a level-three heading?)
• I think there may be too many small details. For example, we are told that in Nov 1995 the first GE engine 777 was given to British Airways, and then immediately told the date that the plane first flew and on what route. Why do we care the specific date and route?
• Why did they decide to have three different engine types?
• I'm not sure what this means "dispatch reliability rates for the Boeing 777 had reached 99.96% "
• There is no citation for "The flight was non-revenue with no passengers on board."
• wrong grammar "whom could not agree on risk sharing for the project."
• EASA needs to be explained when the acronym is first used
• what is "fly-by-wire"? Can that be explained very briefly in the article, even if only in a footnote?
• This seems very awkwardly worded: "The 777's lighter design is made possible in part through the use of composites, which comprise 12% by weight of the total aircraft"
• I don't like the lb to tonne conversion. Should that be lb to kg or tons to tonnes?
• There is repetetive information in the development and variants sections. For example, we don't need to be told in two places that the first customer delivery of the 777-200 model was to United in May 1995.
• The info about British Airways being the first to launch a ten abreast economy configuration is misplaced where it is currently inserted.
• I don't like the graph just hanging around in the Sales and deliveries section. That is distracting,a nd it is really too small to do any good. I would suggest getting rid of the graph and keeping only the table, or if you really like the graph, rotate the table so that the list of years is vertical rather than horizontal. Then the graph and table can fit side-by-side.
• I think the Operators section could easily be merged with the Sales and deliveries section. Those make sense together.
• Need a citation for "The typical operating range with 368 passengers in a three-class arrangement is 6,015 nautical miles (11,135 km). "
• Need a citation for "the proposed future A350-900R model aims to have a range up to 9,500 nautical miles (17,600 km)."
• There are some tonne measurements that are not converted
• There are still some problems in the references with newspapers not being italicized
• Please note that the MOS requires that page ranges be separated with an ndash, not a hyphen. (see WP:MOSDASH) To my eyes all the page ranges in the references look wrong
• what makes cai consulting a reliable source?
• Some of the information is cited to Boeing press releases. It would be much, much better to cite this (especially the setting new world record for distance one) to independent sources.
• Same with info cited to the Goodrich Corporation/Rolls Royce. We shouldn't have to be searching out information from other companies' press releases and web sites; if it is not important enough for a third party to cover it maybe it shouldn't be in the article.
• I am concerned that the information you've gathered on the sales figures is Original Research. It appears from the citations that you (or another author) had to do a custom search the Boeing website and compile all of these numbers yourself. These numbers are completely dependent on a search, and we can't even link to the search that was done to provide the exact numbers in the article; the search must be redone each time. I don't think that this is acceptable.
• Make sure that all references to Seattle Post-Intelligencer are consistent; in at least one it is Seattle PI

Karanacs (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. Of the 35 listed, I have responded to the first 20. Here are the changes made (except for photo realign which can be done later):

• ETOPS is spelled out now, and given a followup explanatory sentence at its first mention.
• "The absence of a 40,000 lbf (178 kN) engine." -- not sure where this exact spec came from, so it's changed to "the absence of applicable engines." No usable engines were available for the proposed trijet.
• Paragraph clarified: "By the 1980s, the DC-10 and L-1011 were approaching retirement, prompting manufacturers to develop replacement designs. McDonnell Douglas was working on the MD-11, a stretched and upgraded version of the DC-10, while Airbus was developing the A330 and A340."
• First generation wide-body jets - sentence added to beginning of Background section.
• "Firm offers" - changed for clarity to "On December 8, 1989, Boeing began issuing offers to airlines on its proposed new wide-body aircraft." For the record, the exact quote in the source says, "On December 8, 1989, the Boeing board authorized the Commercial Airplane Group to begin issuing firm offers to airlines on the 767-X."
• Working Together. Add context: "This was a departure from industry practice, where manufacturers typically conducted the design process with little airline input."
• United Airlines wikilinked.
• Working Together - changed to "The eight airlines that contributed to the 777 design process became known within Boeing as the "Working Together" group."
• 777 design decided upon - add "Boeing and the airlines" to answer (who?).
• United DC-10 replacement focus, why? Simply that United was the launch customer. The paragraph has been reordered to show the launch customer as the first sentence, followed by United's requirements. The 'focus' bit is removed for clarity.
• Photos can be realigned...
• Removed BA first route flown, to where.
• Engine choice, why 3? - add reference that this allowed airlines to choose among competing engine suppliers.
• Dispatch reliability - add (takeoff without delay).
• Rm uncited "non revenue flight" statement.
• Who/whom changed.
• European Aviation Safety Agency spelled out.
• Fly-by-wire - added "(electrically, rather than mechanically operated)".
• Composite sentence - change to "The 777's design incorporates the use of composite materials, which comprise nine percent of its original structural weight."

With regards to the Boeing order figures / search, that is an interesting point on finding the data, however in order to get the full numbers and orders I am aware of no other location to get that info except from the source...I am uncertain of how else to proceed in that regard. Thank you for your suggestions. SynergyStar (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

To update -- Fnlayson and I have made further changes to the article, which address 11 of the remaining 15 items; additionally, the photos have now been realigned.

• Repetitive info on the 772 to United delivery removed
• British Airways' 10-abreast info removed, rather trivial.
• Graph in sales and deliveries removed
• Operators section merged with Sales and deliveries
• Citation for operating range added
• Proposed A350-900R range removed--its still speculative and changing
• Newspapers italicized
• Page ranges separated with ndash
• CAI Consulting source removed
• Reduced Boeing press releases, replaced with third party ones where available
• Seattle Post-Intelligencer aligned in references

Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• On the Orders and deliveries year by year table, the Cumulative deliveries and Backlog rows have been removed. The backlog numbers require subtracting cumulative deliveries from the cumulative orders. Current orders and deliveries totals are already presented in the article for each variant and for all variants. So that data in the table is not needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:57, 17 December 2008 [7].

---

Ravenloft (D&D module)

Nominator(s): Drilnoth (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been a Good Article since March 2007, and I think that significant improvements have been made since then that qualifies it for FA status. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review - All of the images in this article are non-free and none of them have sufficient rationales at this point.

• Image:Ravenloft I6.jpg - The fair use rationale for this image states that it "illustrates a relevant point in the text of the article". The rationale should state what that specific point is.

• Image:House of Strahd lr.JPG - The fair use rationale for this image states that it "illustrates a relevant point in the text of the article". The rationale should state what that specific point is.

• Image has been removed. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Ravenloft Silver lr.JPG - The fair use rationale for this image states that it "illustrates a relevant point in the text of the article". The rationale should state what that specific point is.

• Image has been removed. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Expedtion Ravenloft Cover.jpg - "to illustrate the book in question" is not a sufficient fair use rationale - According to Wikipedia's policy, fair use images must be used for something beyond illustration. That is, they have to contribute "significantly" to the reader's understanding of the subject (WP:NFCC #8). This description is also missing the name of the copyright holder and a good description of what the image is.

• I don't actually think we need to see this book cover to understand what the article is saying - there is a new version of this part of the game. Do you have any more information on the art? Is there a reason we need to differentiate this artwork from the previous edition? Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed that the image isn't needed. I think that it is beneficial, however, because the two books are actually quite different (based on what I've read about them; I don't actually own either). The original module is shorter and for a very different edition of the game (1st edition, rather than v3.5). Images for the silver anniversary and House of Strahd mostly illustrated reprints of the original which didn't have many major modifications from the original, as opposed to Expedition which has a lot of modifications, additions, and updates. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed that image from the article and added in a new one, Image:Expedition to Castle Ravenloft map.jpg, in its place. The new image more directly relates to the article. I think that the fair-use rationale I put on it should be sufficient, but you might want to take a look just to be sure. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• This rationale is a bit on the weak side (3-D is pretty self-explanatory). Is there anything else that could be added to strengthen the rationale for having this particular map, for example? Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• There are actually very few D&D maps which are rendered in 3D, and I thought that between that and the point mentioned in the article the rationale would be good enough. There isn't a specific reason why this map was chosen; there was a selection of three different 3D maps in Wizards of the Coast's online map gallery, so I just chose the one that I thought would look best in the article. I had decided that a map might be good enough based on Ragesoss's statement below, but if it isn't it can be removed. Is there anything else that could be done to make this image acceptable? -Drilnoth (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Image:I10 House on Gryphon Hill.jpg - The "purpose of use" in this fair use rationale is blatantly false, as this image is not the primary image associated with the article.

• Again, I don't think we need an image to illustrate what the article is saying - there is a sequel to this game. Do you have any more information on the art? Is there a reason we need to differentiate this artwork from the previous edition? Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't really matter to me whether this image is in the article or not. I think that the main reason it is is because it was merged with the rest of the Ravenloft II: House on Gryphon Hill article (which is also why it had the completely incorrect fair-use statement). -Drilnoth (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest this image be removed, then. Awadewit (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Okay; I'll remove it shortly. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Removed. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Each and every one of these fair use rationales has to make a specific case for each image. See this dispatch on non-free images for help on writing fair use justifications. Many of these covers seem very similar, so I'm not sure how necessary they all are. We usually only include one book cover in articles about pieces of literature. If you want to include more than one, the article is going to have to discuss the cover itself - that is, it will have to contain critical commentary on the cover which must be accompanied by the image in order to be understood. Awadewit (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. In the first sentence, this seems totally out of place: "coded with the alpha numeric designation I6". The article does not make clear why that is even relevant to the article (any more than, say, an ISBN), much less why it's significant enough to be in the first sentence.--ragesoss (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I will go through and update the fair-use rationales. The reason for the number if images is because each image is of a different book; if needed, I could see the removal of Image:House of Strahd lr.JPG and Image:Ravenloft Silver lr.JPG, as they are mostly just revised versions of the main topic book, but the other three all represent very distinctly different books. As I said, I'll work on the fair-use tags and rationales and notify you when I'm done.

I'll also either move the module code or put it in more context. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take care of the alpha numeric code; I added it, so it's on me to fix it. ;) I'll move it out of the lead, for one thing. BOZ (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• (Another) comment. The prose needs a careful copy-edit. One thing that jumps out is the inconsistency with tense. It would be helpful, I think, to mention in the footnote for it being the 2nd best module what the one that beat it was. I agree that the two images you point out as possible candidates for removal should be removed. One image that would be more useful than any of the current ones would be one of the map, since the text specifically mentions it as significant (as opposed to the cover art).--ragesoss (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Took care of the "only one better". Any other specific items need fixing while I'm attentive? :) BOZ (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have removed the two extraneous images and tagged them with {{orfud}}. I am still working on fair-use updates for the other images, and then I'll get to work on the prose. Good idea regarding the map; I'll see what I can do. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I admit that I'm not an expert at Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, so I might be completely wrong about this. The {{Non-free book cover}} template says that "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers to illustrate an article discussing the book in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." If WP:NFCC takes precedence over that template, shouldn't the templates text be modified to make that more clear? I had been under the impression that use for simple illustration was significant fair-use because of the template's text. My apologies for any trouble this may have caused. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• NFCC does take precedence - the template even states this. It says "please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information". It then links you to Wikipedia's guidelines regarding non-free images, which are a bit complex. Awadewit (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, thank you for clarifying that. I think that I have sufficiently updated Image:Ravenloft I6.jpg, and I've replaced the Expedition cover image with a map (Image:Expedition to Castle Ravenloft map.jpg) from the book which I think has a good rationale. I will momentarily take a look at Image:I10 House on Gryphon Hill.jpg and delete, replace, or edit as needed. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think that I've mostly taken care of the tense; I tried to put everything about a module's plot or the design of the books themselves in present-tense, while information about the creation of the modules and world in past-tense. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay; I think I've sufficiently update the fair-use rationale for Image:Ravenloft I6.jpg. I've done what I can to update the others; I think that it would be a real shame to see them go, but if they must, they must. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• http://nwn.bioware.com/players/modprofile_spires.htm deadlinks

• Fixed link. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.d20zines.com/v7/node/3071

• I'd say that it's reliable because it is a review of the book by the executive chairman of a pretty large role-playing game fansite. If it was just "any member" I'd say it wasn't reliable but I think that its use is justified because of who wrote it. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If it was just being used as a review, I wouldn't question it, however, it's being used as more than just a review. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I will look into the reliability of the source further. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've actually just removed all instance of said source that were used to describe the contents of a module without reviewing said contents, so that should be fine for this reference. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on about whether or not this source is reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#d20zines. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.acaeum.com/

• I think that The Acaeum is a pretty trusted source for information on 1st edition game materials. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I will look into the reliability of the source further. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I ran this Google search to find sources regarding why The Acaeum is reliable. It looks like there are quite a few mentions of it in reliable locations (I am aware of Wikipedia's "Google Search" guidelines; many of the sources that come up are unreliable, but there are some good ones in there, too). -Drilnoth (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a question about this source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#d20zines. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• • http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=382972 (note it's a board posting). Also needs a publisher

• Removed. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 7 is just a link, needs a publisher and last access date at the very least.
• Current ref 10 needs a last access date and publisher for the link.
• What makes http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpg-book-reviews/245785-expedition-castle-ravenloft.html?ltr=E a reliable source for "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft was the first of a series of adventures looking back at the early days of the game, updating and expanding early modules into much larger works using the 3rd edition game rules..."

It's a long review of the book. There were a number of links listed as references which didn't actually link to any text in the article, and I was trying to fix that last night. This was one of the last ones I looked at, it was long, I was getting tired, and I jumped at the first thing I saw. :) I'll try to find some way to fix that; the statement can probably be backed up with a more reliable source, and the review could probably be used to source other information in the article. BOZ (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I did remove that ref because it was both on a messageboard and by a relatively unknown person, so if you want to restore it you'll need to look through the article history. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You're thinking of the Wizards' message board post (which I agree with removing); this is an ENWorld book review by a guy who's written dozens of very thorough reviews for them. BOZ (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops; my bad. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I used the ENWorld review as a source for about as much as it could be used. I tried to find a source for the "first part of the Expedition series" as I would like to keep that line, but haven't had any luck so far. Will remove it if it can't be sourced. BOZ (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I added an appropriate reference. It's from a primary source, but it still provides a citation. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• current ref 32 (Lawrence Schick...) should be last name first and needs a page number

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into the online links, but I don't have the book by Schick. -15:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Drilnoth (talk)

All links have been updated or removed as requested, with discussion on reliability of d20zines and The Acaeum above. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Page # added to Schick reference. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• "5-7" in the infobox should have an en dash.
• Because of this fog no one, except a few gypsies who have a potion to cancel the fog's effects, have left Barovia for centuries. - Should "have" be changed to "has"?
• A very memorable villain, Count Strahd von Zarovich has become one of the most infamous villains in Dungeons & Dragons history. - No need for "very".
• While still credited to the Hickmans and based on their original work, Bruce Nesmith designed this module without help from them - "Without help from them" → "without their help".
• While the layout has been redone, much of the original text and artwork is reused, with additional art by James Crabtree, and a new cover by Dana M. Knutson. - The comma after "Crabtree" is unneeded.
• The module is recommended for character levels 6-13, with the main revised version for characters level 11-13, but also the option to play more like the original with the slightly revised level recommendation of 6-8. - Needs en dashes.
• This version contradicts itself as to what level of play it is intended for; the back cover indicates that it is appropriate for character levels 5-7 like the original module, but the introduction text indicates the module is for levels 11-13 as in House of Strahd. - Again.
• The maps for Castle Ravenloft were rendered in 3-D orthogonal effect, like in the original Ravenloft adventure. - "Like" → "similar to".
• Is the Video games section really needed for one sentence?

The article looks good, but an overall copyedit is needed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Disagree with "gypsies has" over "gypsies have". Will consider what to do with the video game sentence; maybe increase, maybe fold in somewhere, maybe kill it. Handled the rest. :) BOZ (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Currently, that sentence reads "no one have", so I still believe "no one has" would be better. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, LOL, I was looking at the other "have" - corrected. :) BOZ (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Better. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - refs need to come at the end of sentences. See sentence 3 under Ravenloft II: House on Gryphon Hill, which I would also split into two by changing each of whom on their own section to Each writer worked on their own section.... MOre later, I need to sleep here.

It would be good if there was more info on it being the first horror-influenced RPG, did it predate Chill? Although CoC had come out sometime before maybe (???)

Watch for unnecessary repetition of words in prose. I'll check in later Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think that the reason for having the citations in the middle of the sentence is because they only support the statement in the first part. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Dabs, pls check the dabs identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't even noticed the toolbox! Has it been there all along? I'll fix the one item mentioned there. BOZ (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Copyediting. In my defense, I'm not as picky as that first edit makes me look :) It's a DASH judgment call. (And btw, I'm not sure how long our current DASH rules are going to last. We'll see.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Oops, so much for copyediting, there's a problem. Every reference (now, at least) [added: in the References section] is either from the Hickmans (who wrote the module) or by TSR (which was purchased by Wizards of the Coast in 1997) or Wizards of the Coast (which owns the rights). You should be able to find third-party references for a popular module, published and re-published many times over 25 years. On the other hand, I was enjoying reading the article until I noticed that, so I hope you'll get to work! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• What do you mean? The following citations are reliable secondary sources, not from the Hickmans, TSR, or Wizards (as of this revision: 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 27, 30, 31, and 34. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I saw a bunch of Harvard references, so I dropped down to the References section, without noticing that you had another style of referencing mixed in. The lead says "Ravenloft is considered by many to be one of the finest Dungeons & Dragons modules ever published, and is often considered a classic among gamers." I've looked at all the sentences that have citations in your list (5, 6, etc, but I'm looking at the current version of the page, if that matters), and none of those sentences supports that conclusion; that conclusion seems to be supported only by the Hickmans, TSR and WotC. Is that conclusion in one of the other sources? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at things regarding that ref. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you look at the current page or the historical version; I just provided the link for anyone in the future looking back at the article so they could see what it had looked like. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like the first part of that sentence is cited from a primary source; the second part of the sentence is cited from this review, which I hadn't put on the above list of sources. The sentence "is often considered a classic among gamers." is supported by that article's first paragraph. The first part of the sentence, as I said, is just from a primary source; if you think it is a poor reference for the line, the statement could be removed. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Winter's reputation is; if he's uninvolved with WotC, and also one of those rare guys who would be considered such an "expert" at RSN that they'd take what he writes even if it's in a blog, then maybe it's okay, but the fact that it's published by the same people who are trying to sell us the new version of the module means you should probably strike that part of the sentence. For the other half ... I'm really not an RSN guy, I'll leave that up to people who do a lot of reference-checking. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take that part out. Additionally, I'll see what can be done about making all of the refs into inline citations to avoid confusion in the future. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that I changed all the refs into inline citations, and I took Dank55's advice and removed the one sentence. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would also consider the White Dwarf review to be an independent reliable source, at the very least. BOZ (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd marked all of the White Dwarf citations in my list. Ah, well. Also, since I just did a lot of moving, combining, etc. with refs, that list is pretty much completely wrong now; for checking what refs I'm referring to, you'll have to look at the oldid. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You may have, I was just pointing out that we have at least one reliable non-primary source. :) BOZ (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment—The article is decently developed and readable, but I have a few issues that I'd like to see be addressed:

• The article does not clarify the goal of the players. Is there a plot summary that could be incorporated? All I can pick up is that the party is stuck in Barovia, Strahd is the key to leaving and he is difficult to slay. So is it a mystery where the party must find the means to kill him before they can leave?
• What does "Strahd is notable for his then-innovative combination of monster and character" mean? I'm not sure is make senses to me, so I don't why a non-gamer would understand it.
  • I attempted to address this.—RJH (talk)
• Per WP:Jargon, the article needs to explain "characters level", "dungeon style adventure", "high-level" and "demiplane" for non-gamers. Also "railroads" might be unclear as it is gamer slang.
  • The "high-level" is in reference to "Jeren Sureblade, a high-level paladin". I think it should either clarify his level or say something like "veteran paladin". (According to this he is 15th level, but i couldn't find a solid ref. Most sites just say he was a paladin without the adjective.)—RJH (talk)
    • Gotcha; I removed the "high-level" part. It really doesn't seem necessary. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• In the article please explain why this matters: "The module was reviewed by Carl Sargent in issue #87 (March 1987) of White Dwarf magazine." Did he have anything pertinent to say?
• Please reference Margaret Carter's discussion of Strahd to provide more detail.
• The statement "stripping the demiplane setting of the Ravenloft campaign from the setting" is unclear, possibly due to ambiguity and the duplicate use of "setting". Please clarify in the article. Fixed.

Sorry but I can not lend support yet.—RJH (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "Jargon" point. I've linked "character levels" and "dungeon style adventure" so that they can be looked up easily, and I added clarification to "railroads". In my brief scan for the words you mentioned, I didn't see "high-level," and the only instance of "demiplane" that I noticed is linked. I'll work on your other suggesstions shortly. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the Margaret Carter citation is done (good work finding that, by the way). I can't really say much about the White Dwarf issue; I don't have it, and I don't think that BOZ does either, although we could check with other editors. I can't really clarify what the PCs goal is; I don't own the module myself. The "Strahd is notable for his then-innovative combination of monster and character" line seems pretty clear to me, but it could be removed if it is too confusing and can't really be repaired. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't own a single issue of White Dwarf, unfortunately; for that we have to depend on those who do, particularly our UK contributors. Same here on owning a copy of the actual module, although it may be possible to locate one if I am dilligent enough (no promises here). BOZ (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Does this help?—RJH (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, but I think that there really isn't enough there to help say what was in the review. It would also be a transcription, and not entirely reliable. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case I'd like to suggest starting a separate "Notes" section and making that a note, along with the other notes appearing among the references. This can be readily accomplished by means of the group= option described here. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually just saw someone mention that they had a lot of White Dwarf back issues, and I've asked him to see if he can expand the information regarding the review. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the "monster-character" description intended to refer to older editions of D&D where only certain races could take class levels? I.e. Strahd has class levels despite being a monster that normally couldn't assume classes. If so, perhaps this could be explained for the reader. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write that line (nor most of the article), but I suspect that's what it means. BOZ (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments: So here's the work that still needs to be done. Please let me know if I missed anything; I'll start actually working on cleaning these things up today or tomorrow.

1. File:Expedition to Castle Ravenloft map.jpg might need a better rationale or removal. Image removed.
2. Check reliability of [8].Comment above by User:Ealdgyth says that "If it was just being used as a review, I wouldn't question it, however, it's being used as more than just a review." At this point, it is being used entirely to cite information that I think counts as being used as a review, but correct me if I'm wrong.
3. Check reliability of [9]. I know that it would be a primary source, but [10] and [11] would lead me to believe it is fairly reliable. The site seems to also have turned up some positive reviews here, although it's a messageboard. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Ref in sentence three of Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill should be at end of sentence.
5. Copyedit.
6. Clarify the goal of the players.Per this comment on my talk page, it seems as if the module does not specifically explain the player's goal. That said, since it can easily be presumed, should it be added in anyway? Or would that be too much OR?
7. Explain "demiplane" for non-gamers.
8. Clariy the "monster-character" line.

-Drilnoth (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Anything else that needs work? -Drilnoth (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:57, 17 December 2008 [12].

---

Mirth & Girth

Nominator(s): User:Lpangelrob

previous FAC (15:26, 26 May 2008)

Second nomination; previous nomination was closed with no consensus to the support or oppose side, and only a minor bit of commentary has been added since. I hope to have a larger set of reviewers to work with for this nomination! —Rob (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review

• Image:Harold Washington at the commissioning of USS Chicago (SSN-721).jpg - I can't find this image in the archive myself. Usually these images have description pages, at which I can verify the licensing, but I can't seem to find this one. Can you help me out? Perhaps by linking directly the image description page? Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I can confirm that the license is a direct copy of what was in the archive. I uploaded it and personally copied the information word for word to commons. Taken by PH1 RICHARD C. GRANT, (photographers mate first class), US Navy. PD-USN. It is DoD image number DN-SN-87-00161 is still on the server. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sure you did copy everything correctly, but other users need to be able to verify that. I, for example, need to verify the license. The image is there, yes, but no description of it. I'm trying to find the page that you copied from initially - each image in that collection has an image description page (which we should really link to, anyway). That is what I spent time trying to find and could not. Awadewit (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Fortunately there is no requirement that images uploaded to commons be available forever on external servers or at their original locations. DoD has reorganized their servers since that image was loaded to commons, and if it is no longer locatable via their image search it's a server problem on their part. Unfortunately DN-SN-87-00161 doesn't come up in their new search. Luckily we have all the information we could possibly need in the image's description, which quite clearly shows that it is PD-USN. At the time I uploaded the image, there was no apparent link for the description page, just a pop up page from a search page that had no usable link to the server's description. Now that the server has been changed, there is no linkable description page that is easily found, so when I upload images I normally just list the DoD image number. It's never been a problem before. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
        • I was under the impression that we had to be able to verify the license externally, but I'm checking with a Commons admin on that. Awadewit (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
          • You can view the image information in the image itself (at the DOD site) by looking at the EXIF data. The image description page is correct. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comments
  • "The faculty adviser to the school's monthly publication, Joel Davies" - It wasn't until I read the source that the inclusion of this quotation made sense. Might want to describe the context a bit better; the monthly publication is a student one, of which Nelson was the illustrator.
    • This should be clear now. —Rob (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "however, this was denied by the DJs during the interview" During the interview with the Tribune?
    • Clarified. —Rob (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "By now, word of the controversy had reached the Chicago City Council." Now = ?
    • Fixed. —Rob (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • When were the resolutions described in the "Initial display" section drafted and passed?
    • Immediately, more or less. I added that. —Rob (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Nelson returned to the painting at about 8:30 am" - the next day?
    • Changed this to be clearer.—Rob (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Aldermen Edward Jones (20th) and William C. Henry (24th) were the first aldermen to arrive at the scene." When was this?
    • Shortly after he returned; this was confusing, though, because it was slightly redundant. Fixed. —Rob (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The shorthand "the institute" is variously presented lowercase and capitalized.
    • I've seen it 'abbreviated' as "Art Institute" in various places, so I've standardized on that. —Rob (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "At some point during the meeting, the police department..." Is this separate from the incident in which the aldermen took the painting to President Jones's office? If not, there is no earlier mention of police presence at the President's office.
    • I rewrote this section to be a bit more clear...
  • In general, it seems as if the timeline of events (especially in the Display and confiscation) needs to be described better and with more precision.
    • ... and this section as well. I'll review it again just to make sure it makes sense. Posner provides the basic framework for this section. —Rob (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Parts of the incident were later broadcast widely on television." This seems to suggest that the press arrived on the scene fairly quickly. What was the press coverage like? Local television or national television? "widely on television" is rather vague.
    • That's as quoted from the source... I'll see if I can rewrite that to be as clear as possible without running afoul of the source. —Rob (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "was also involved in a conspiracy" Conspiracy to do what? BuddingJournalist 20:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Clarified. —Rob (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Newspapers should be in italics, such as Chicago Tribune, etc. If you're using {{cite news}} you put the paper in the work field, and the publisher (if its a lesser known newspaper) in the publisher field.
  • This should be fixed. —Rob (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• A bunch of overlinking going on here. I don't think we need to link to bra, stockings, inch, falsetto, brownshirts, Jewish, philistines, social justice, etc. Also, date links are depreciated per the MOS.
  • Whether or not there is overlinking, I doubt the majority of readers would understand the meaning of brownshirts or philistines. I don't know what they mean without reading the linked article. Why would the average reader know the terms. I doubt that they would. Some of these links are useful for information reasons.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm going to go back and only keep links assuming a 12th grade reading level, or if it's a link expected to be followed for informative purposes (Mayor of Chicago comes to mind). —Rob (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
      • This is done. —Rob (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 6 (Hamilish Levinsohn...) is lacking a page number
  • The reference is intended to refer to the whole book - if that's inappropriate, let me know. —Rob (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • How big is the book and does it ONLY cover information that's referenced? If there is a lot of extraneous information that's not being referenced, it'd be simpler to provide page ranges. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I found 2 pages that are representative. —Rob (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• This is a US article, why are the retrieval dates in the footnotes in European format?
  • This is what accessdate=2008-11-30 does, and I don't have any idea why the format changed - I thought it was written to be specific to the user's preference? —Rob (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe switch to using the accessday accessmonth? Or just manually formatting them behind? It's not a biggie, just kinda jarring. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Evidentally, this is related to the deprecation of date wikilinking. Fun. I'll have to change these all manually now... —Rob (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 37 (Dubin, Steven..) is lacking a page number.
  • Same as above! —Rob (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • See above. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I removed it. A second look at the source and I couldn't find what I was referencing; for that sort of statement, I'd also rather go to newspapers and factual accounts, rather than commentary. —Rob (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comments/concerns I haven't read the whole article, but I checked out the law section (I'm a law student, so when I see law-stuff at FAC I'll check it out). The law part needs to be improved before it's at FA level. Especially since we don't have an article about the case (and I don't think there's enough secondary commentary for it to meet WP:N by itself), the coverage of the case in this article should be top-class. First, I've changed the citations from a newspaper article about the opinion to a link to the opinion itself. (This change should also be made for the district court opinion.) Often newspapers aren't good at summarizing what legal issues are, so it's generally best to look at the case itself to write what the case says. The top-level problem I see: the article doesn't clearly present what the legal issues at hand were. Essentially, the officials were asserting they had qualified immunity because the law wasn't clear that what they did was illegal. I don't have time (finals!!!) to go through the whole section and review it, but I recommend reading the actual decision and going through that section of the article and making sure it reflects what happened in the decision and making it clear to the reader what the legal issues and holding were. This case appears in several art law books that are in google books so I might check that out to see if they say anything interesting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Also, I'm totally confused about the procedural history of the lawsuits. (It appears there's actually more than one, so the title should be changed.) There was a case against the city that was settled later on, but at one point the city was "dismissed from" the lawsuit. So how was the suit against the city reincarnated? (I put "dismissed from" in quotes because it's really bad journalism and doesn't mean much. Was the lawsuit against the city dismissed? Did the judge hold that the joinder of the claims against the city and the claims against the alderman was improper? I would imagine the latter is what happened, and then they brought a separate suit against the city. But that's just a guess.) Anyways there's a lot to clear up here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• On a side note, it is totally ridiculous that procedural history and procedural posture are redlinked... Here is a pretty good explanation from a totally unreliable source[13]. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry I'm a bit late on this... been a busy 10 days. The suit went through district court first. Is it required to have a source for that case as well? (That's where the newspapers come in handy.) —Rob (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:57, 17 December 2008 [14].

---

Joel Selwood

Nominator(s): Boomtish

previous FAC

I'm nominating this article (self-nomination) for featured article because I feel it now fulfills all the FA criteria since it's last attempt. It has since gone through a comprehensive peer review and countless edits to get it up to scratch. As an article, I believe it represents some of Wikipedia's best work, particularly within the sub-field of Australian rules football articles Boomtish (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support: As a regular contributor, I would have to agree this article fulfills all the FA criteria since it's last FA-nomination, and deserves a FA title. - Allied45 (talk) 09:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support: The article is well-researched, well-referenced and fulfils other FA criteria. It should become the standard by which other AFL articles are judged. Rogerthat ^Talk 13:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• The Slattery book needs a publisher
  • Added Boomtish (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Generally, newspapers are italicised.
  • Fixed Boomtish (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• There seems to be a bit of confusion about websites and who the publishers are. The url (such as afl.com.au) is not the publisher, in this case the publisher would be the Australian Football League and Big Pond. There are a number of other sites that have this issue, and need to be fixed.
  • Fixed Boomtish (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/afl/impressive-selwood-tipped-for-cats-opener/2007/03/26/1174761378613.html&cid=1114812242&ei=dE0IRvS3KaayqgOLhbXNAg deadlinks
  • Link removed, but statement is still backed-up with another source Boomtish (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.stridesports.com.au/Joel%20Selwood%20wins%20AFLPA%20Best%20First%20Year%20Player.htm
    • Stride Sports Management is a professional managment company that manages football players, including Joel Selwood Boomtish (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Some extra links to verify: "Talent profile page for Joel Selwood" indicates his association with the agency. "Stride Sports Management Services page" indicates their services as an agency, including management of athletes. This should verify their professionalism and why they should be looked on to provide reliable information about their clients. "Article from the official Australian Football League Players Association site" mentions Selwood's win in the award. Boomtish (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
        • It works, but it'd make more sense to me to use the organization that gave the award to source it, rather than a third party. This is one of those cases where the primary source is perfectly acceptable, as it's a basic "fact" you're referencing, so the organization that gives the award is a valid (and in many cases better) source than a third party source. But that's up to you, I'm satisfied. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.footywire.com/
    • Site's statistical gatherings have been noted as being based on "official AFL statistics" in addition to collaborated works with professional statistical company "ProWess Sports" Boomtish (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
      • To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Okay, I've found an article in the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper that mentions footywire.com as being a place you can "find footy records and news stories". Article is "here". I wouldn't think that an established newspaper such as the SMH would mention the site if it were not reliable. Boomtish (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/players/J/Joel_Selwood.html (Needs the publisher listed also)
    • Source removed and replaced with official Australian Football League historical statistical site Boomtish (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/team_player_rankings?yr=2007&sp=SE&rt=TA&fc=E3&tid=107 (it's also a subscription only site and should mention this if it is deemed reliable)
    • ProStats is owned and run by ProwessSports, which in turn "have a range of statistical marking systems ranging from smaller Back Office units to very complex multi-computer systems used by many of the (actual) AFL clubs". The statistics being used as sources for this article are viewable without subscription Boomtish (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
      • It requires registration, at the least, as I get a "register now" page when I click on your link. It says "Register now using the form below, click on 'Register' when done and follow the instructions to activate subscription till 1 Nov 2009 for only $49.95." which does lead me to believe it's subscription only. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Okay, I've since changed the reference to be the official player profile page for Selwood on the club's website (it contains the relevant statistics). Boomtish (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.rebelsport.com.au/ecom/Rebel/product_detail.aspx?id=15339&cat=948 (also lacking a publisher)
    • Use of official Rebel Sport site to back-up claimed association between the player and the Rebel Sport company. Publisher added. Boomtish (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
      • See above. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Official Asics website "here" has Selwood listed amongst their 'partnerships', backing up the statement in the article. Look under 'History' section, then 'Our partnerships'. I've changed the references in the article to this Asics link instead. Boomtish (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.rebelsport.com.au/ecom/Rebel/product_detail.aspx?id=15343 (also lacking a publisher)
    • Use of official Rebel Sport site to back-up claimed association between the player and the Rebel Sport company. Publisher added. Boomtish (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
      • See above. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
        • See above. Boomtish (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 9 (Murnane, J. ..) is lacking a publisher -
  • Added Boomtish (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 10 (Naitanui already..) is lacking a publisher
  • Added Boomtish (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• The Gullan Book is lacking a publisher
  • Added Boomtish (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 17 (Morton ..) is lacking a publisher
  • Added Boomtish (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• The Townley book needs a publisher
  • Added Boomtish (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals, even with the original is.
  • Editted accordingly Boomtish (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 56 (Hearld Sun ...) is lacking a publisher
  • Added Boomtish (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 61 (AFLPA Mother..) is lacking a publisher
  • Added Boomtish (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - I wish that I didn't have to do this, because it's good to have something original here. However, the fact that there aren't any top-quality models shows. These are almost all from the first couple sections, and lead me to believe that this isn't ready.

• Premiership is used in both upper and lower-case. Since I'm not familiar with how it is used in Australia, I want to know if it's acceptable to use it either way, or if one method is preferred.
  • In general, used both ways in varying circumstances, but for consistencies sake, I've reverted all use within this article to lower-case Boomtish (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• The second paragraph of the lead has two uses of "both" that can be removed to make the writing tighter.
  • Done Boomtish (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• The AFL Rising Star Award and AFL Premiership title are repeated in the lead. Why? And did nothing of interest occur in the 2008 season? It strikes me that there is little about his AFL career in the lead, and nothing on his style of play. Even one sentence would be nice.
  • Regarding the mentioning of both awards twice within the lead, they are for varying achievements. The first mentioning is to highlight the achievement of being the only player in history to have won both within the same year. The second mentioning is part of a brief summary of awards/achievements at the end of his debut season. I believe that the lead, whilst acting as a concise summary of the article, should also only mention significant achievements (see Tim Duncan, for example). 2008 did not really deliver any actual awards that I would personally consider worthy of mention in the lead of this article. Similar feelings regarding mention of style of play, which I think is somewhat already covered (albeit very briefly) in the mentioning that he is a midfielder at 183cm etc. Boomtish (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, but according to WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the whole article. I'm not sure it can make that claim now. It's your decision, though. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Lead has been editted to include 2008 achievements and brief statement about playing style. Boomtish (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Early life: "Although (he was?) raised in a sports-gifted family—mother Maree was a top runner and tennis player, whilst (while) elder twins Adam and Troy were both identified as talented footballers right from their junior days" In addition to my parenthetical comments, I think the "right from" part can be improved.
  • I've editted this accordingly, feel free to have a look. Boomtish (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• "As a 2-year-old..." Numbers less than 10 are usually spelled out.
  • This issue with numbers/ages being spelt out or kept as numbers was debated rather heavily in the previous peer review for this article. It seems everyone has differing views, particularly given the non-existence of global standard for these things. In essence though, it was concluded previously that the current grammar is acceptable in the context of Australian and Australian sporting articles. Boomtish (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• "He excelled as the state hurdling champion..." Can we have something less POV than "excelled"? The semi-colon after this should be a comma.
  • Editted and fixed accordingly Boomtish (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• "bar the 100 metres sprint." Bar? Why not just "except for"?
  • Editted and fixed accordingly Boomtish (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• "By the time he was 8-years-old" Not only can the number be spelled, but it can be just "eight years old", without the hyphens.
  • See previous comments regarding use of hypens/spelling of numbers/ages etc. Boomtish (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• "Selwood played his junior football with the Sandhurst Football Club until, aged 17, he was chosen to play for the Bendigo Pioneers in the elite TAC Cup competition." Move the aged 17 to the end of the sentence because it gets in the way in the middle.
  • Editted accordingly Boomtish (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Overlinking: AFL Rising Star Award and AFL Premiership linked twice in the lead. TAC Cup linked twice in Early life.
  • Removed second-use of links in each paragraph respectively. Boomtish (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• This is jumping ahead, but I wanted to bring it to your attention: "while Geeling coach Mark Thompson (links to someone from the BBC) labelled an 18 year old (hyphens) Selwood the best youngster to had(have) come under his tutelage during his time at the club."
  • Corrected link for Mark Thompson and editted use of 'had' to 'have. Boomtish (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Hyphens or no? Giants2008 (17-14) 00:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Hyphens used. Boomtish (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

After this initial reading, I feel like the article at least needs a thorough copy-edit, and am on the verge of suggesting withdrawal and resubmission. That decision is up to you, but there's no way I can support it in this state. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

After those were fixed, I took another look and found some more points of interest.

• "Selwood garnered an impressive array of accolades and honours as a bottom-aged player" Can a POV check be performed throughout the article, please? From the looks of it, Selwood was an important part of a championship-winning team as a rookie, among other things. Just let his accomplishments speak for themselves.
  • I feel POV was an issue with the article prior to the previous peer review that was carried out. Since then, after some rather heavy editing, I feel POV is not an extensive issue with the current article. If you disagree, please outline specific lines to be addressed, it would greatly help! On the matter you outlined above, that sentence is in reference to his junior career prior to his AFL career (it reads in his Early Life section). Boomtish (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I know it's referring to his junior career, but saying his award tally was "impressive" is asking for POV queries. As I said above, it's better to just state a person's accomplishments. Here's another one that popped out at me: "Selwood's transition to the rigours of AFL football drew rave reviews from throughout the footballing community". Does the source say rave reviews anywhere? If not, I feel that can be toned down. Also, "football" and "footballing" are somewhat repetitive; try "Selwood's transition to the rigours of the AFL...". Giants2008 (17-14) 00:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Editted accordingly. Removed potential POV-issue words. Boomtish (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• 2007: Three AFL Rising Star Award links.
  • Latter two removed. Boomtish (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• What is the MCG? I'd like to see this spelled out, because I'm not the only person who won't know what it means.
  • Done, with added links. Boomtish (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Two Geelong links in the section.
  • Latter link removed. Boomtish (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• 2008: "Selwood continued to establish himself as a key player in the Geelong midfield during the 2008 AFL Season" Why is Season capitalized?
  • Careless editing. From memory, was originally 2008 AFL Premiership Season, which was capitalized after how it reads on the official AFL website (and how the AFL advertises the season). Addressed though. Boomtish (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• McClelland Trophy was linked in the previous section.
  • Latter link removed. Boomtish (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Player profile: "while teammates Joel Corey and Cameron Ling have also acknowledged his maturity and regard as one of the most physical players in the game." Should be "regard him".
  • Done. Boomtish (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Please watch for overlinking in Personal life.
  • Done. Potential overlinks removed. Boomtish (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Consider moving the Personal life section above the statistics and awards list.
  • Done. Boomtish (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be an annoyance for you. My most-edited article is for an athlete who is about two years older than Selwood, so it would be great to have a model for such an article, from a selfish point of view. However, I strongly recommended that these changes be made, and that outside help be brought in. If these are done, and if Ealdgyth's remaining comment is addressed or struck, I will be happy to drop my opposition. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to take on outside opinions and advice that may help improve the quality of this article. It is difficult to model this article on any others, as there aren't any AFL-related FA's currently on Wikipedia. I've had to look at other FA athlete articles to try and see what can and can't be replicated in style and structure. Boomtish (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving to weak opposition until my notes above are looked at. The lead and my POV concerns are the important ones. I'll switch to neutral once these are done. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please check the dab links identified in the toolbox and review the MOS issues I left in edit summaries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Various MOS issues have been addressed. Boomtish (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review - All images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. (Might I add, though, that the images are nearly identical. I think the article needs only 1 or 2 - not 3.) Awadewit (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note, this article has hyphenation issues throughout and needs careful coyediting (example: By the time he was 8-years-old, ... ). Also, if that infobox is a standard and has widespread acceptance, ouch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll go through the hyphenation issues over the next few days. Cheers Boomtish (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Update: I've since addressed some of the hyphenation use throughout the article according to how I interpret the MoS standards on Wikipedia. Boomtish (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Prose concerns. I would recommend a third party copyedit. Some examples:

• "was familiar in playing with"
• "his age deemed him ineligible"
• "concern still surrounded his operated knee"
• "Although his kicking skills statistically carry an average efficiency of 76%, his decision-making ability is often used to counteract his productivity with the football"
• "has said that the widespread nature of the family"

-- Mike Christie (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - sorry. This is an interesting, well-researched article and I enjoyed reading it but there are problems with the writing. I would like to see it achieve FA status but it needs copy-editing. Here are some examples:

• There is a missing quotation attributed to Kevin Sheehan.
• "..in one year holding.." -> "and in one year held"
• Three clumsy occurrences of "saw him".
• "In winning" -> "By winning"
• Some jargon e.g. "seventh pick overall", "and proceeded to kick three goals"
• Redundancy, (and a very poorly written sentence) - "Although his kicking skills statistically carry an average efficiency of 76%, his decision-making ability is often used to counteract his productivity with the football" - there is no need for "statistically" when giving an "average".
• "A life-long supporter of the Cats growing up in Bendigo" - did the Cats grow-up in Bendigo. And the article does not say who the Cats are, it is assumed that the readers already I know, (I didn't). I'm sorry to oppose, I would really like to see this become featured—but it is not ready yet. Graham Colm ^Talk 12:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - sorry, but the prose needs work, and there are some areas where clarification is needed. Here is what I found from the lead and the first paragraph of the main article:
• The first thing I noticed is a sea of blue in the lead. Is it possible to cut down on the wikilinks a bit?
• As a standout junior track and field athlete and footballer from Bendigo, Selwood entered top-level football early, joining the TAC Cup competition as a bottom-aged player. - Early in what?
• Despite a serious knee injury during his final junior football year, Selwood was selected with Geelong's first selection, and the seventh overall, in the 2006 AFL Draft. - "Serious" is vague, and requires a bit of explanation.
• He has since represented Victoria in the AFL Hall of Fame Tribute Match, as the youngest player to feature in the all-star event, and helped Geelong reach successive AFL Grand Finals. - Remove the comma after "match".
• Off the field, he has acted as an ambassador for the Seeing Eye Dogs Australia organisation alongside his brothers, Adam, Troy, and Scott, who each play in the AFL for West Coast, Brisbane, and West Coast, respectively. - "Off the field" is, at least in my opinion, not encyclopedic language.
• Specify in the early life section when he was born.
• He was raised in a family of sportspeople. - Choppy sentence.
• His mother Maree was a top runner and tennis player, while elder twins Adam and Troy were both identified as talented footballers at a young age.'" - Remove "both".
• However as a 2-year old, Joel was forced to wear splints on his leg to help overcome a walking disability. - Is there any more information available on this walking disability?
• Selwood displayed gifts as an athlete from an early age. - I don't understand this. Did he literally give out Gifts?

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 17:23, 15 December 2008 [15].

---

Christmas

Nominator(s): Luke Farrelly-Spain ^(talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that the it has have fulfilled the FA criteria, and if not, I think constructive criticism would be useful in helping us to make the article better. Also, it would help Wikipedia get into the festive spirt. User:Luke Farrelly-Spain ^{(talk) 14:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)}

• Comment - If this passes, I say we put it on the main page 4th of July... —Ceran [ speak ] 14:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, you need an additional sup in your signature. —Ceran [ speak ] 14:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - sorry, needs serious work. First, barely anything on the birth of Jesus? The "Economics of Christmas" needs expansion, and you need to at least create a section on the Controversy of Christmas, rather than a link. In addition, there are many unreffed paragraphs as well as one and two sentence paragraphs. I didn't even look at the prose. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 15:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. I am concerned by the large number of referencs to the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, which is seriously out of date and biased. A number of your references are just numbered links, they need titles formatted, etc. The link checker tool is showing a number of deadlinks. I cannot even begin to think about evaluating the references until they are in a somewhat coherent sytsem. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
• Further, a number of statments are unreferenced (Examples: "This story is meant to be a reconciliation between traditional religious beliefs and modern day globalization, most notably the iconography of Santa Claus imported from the United States." or "In many countries a representation of the Nativity Scene is very popular, and people are encouraged to compete and create most original or realistic ones. Within some families, the pieces used to make the representation are considered a valuable family heirloom." among many others.) Prose is choppy, with lots of short one or two sentence paragraphs.

Changing to oppose based on the prose and referencing issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Needs some serious work. References need throughout the article, and the section on controversies is just a link directing to another article! Skinny87 (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I have to agree with the above opposers but I want to offer the nominator some help in fixing references. I am actually very busy right now but will go through and try to fix the references later in the week. Also, I was wondering if there might be some more info on Christmas as it is celebrated in different parts of the world. Here in the US, I think we celebrate much differently than those in India or Africa and it might make the page more interesting to expose these differences. I am sorry I don't have a ref to offer but you might try searching googlebooks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Maralia (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 16:19, 15 December 2008 [16].

---

The Great Gatsby

Nominator(s): Saberwolf116 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's a very clssic novel, and has cited sources as well as good plot and reception summaries. Literature classic that should be featured. Saberwolf116 (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think this one is quite ready for FAC yet. Needs more on historical background/context, Fitzgerald's style, the novel's themes, and especially its legacy. I've done some clean-up work on this article to start laying a foundation, but think it needs more work at this point. I have many of the sources to make a go, but would need several weeks to work on it. Love to come back in January and do that. --JayHenry (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, well I think that the main idea of novel articles is to include a good summary, recpetion, and style, isn't it? The reason I chose it is because the plot does not specify to greatly, and it has all good sources. I think if we let it be featured, it will also bring in a lot of editors who would love to contribute.Saberwolf116 (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's the main idea, but right now the summary is not actually that great and the reception section is very short. There's no style section at all. Take a look at To Kill a Mockingbird, another Featured Article on a great American novel, and look at how detailed the sections on style and themes are. We'd have to do a lot of work yet--maybe a month or two--before The Great Gatsby article is up to "FA standards" for a novel that's this important. --JayHenry (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - There are 598 hits for "Great Gatsby" in the MLA database - have you consulted this database? This is the most important collection of secondary citations on literature. The fact that so much other research exists suggests that this article is based on a very small subset of the available material. As for the article, the plot summary is too long; the list of characters is unnecessary; there is no "themes" section (themes are the "meat" of any novel); there is no "style" section (this is crucial since Fitzgerald's writing style is so distinctive and is part of what makes this novel so important in literary history). I would suggest looking at some of the recently-promoted novel FAs. This article will require several months of work to get to FA (I would actually speculate something like a year, since it is one of those classic novels on which much has been written). I would suggest withdrawing this nomination and starting to compile a lengthy bibliography from which to expand the article. Awadewit (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note Edit count shows that Saberwolf has not edited the article. Have you consulted the major contributors about nominating this? Getting an article to featured status (i.e. the best of what Wikipedia has to offer) takes an incredible amount of work – research, synthesis, writing, copyediting, etc. Take a look at some of our current featured articles, and you'll see a rather large difference between them and The Great Gatsby. I'd suggest withdrawing this article from nomination. BuddingJournalist 06:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I find this nomination particularly disturbing. It is not sitting well with me.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see what's particularly disturbing about it. Just seems like a young user who is not familiar with the featured article process. BuddingJournalist 07:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Maralia (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 02:21, 15 December 2008 [17].

---

Henryk Górecki

Nominator: Ceoil

Ecstatical contemporary composer. Not much has been written about this man (outside of his 3rd symphony), and I have spent near three years now tracking what has been put down. Ceoil (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Reluctant oppose: I welcome this article, and look forward to being able to support it wholehearedly. For the moment, however, it needs further attention:-

• Much more rigorous referencing. Here are some examples where citations are needed:
  • In the lead, the descriptive terms "ecstatic reverence", "meditative" and "spiritualism" are used. Unless cited, they read as POV. They are not used elsewhere in the article.
  • Early years:
    • "...and the work displayed clear influence from Szymanowski and Bartok".
    • Also, each of the two sentences following that one
  • Minimaliam
    • First sentence of section
    • Second sentence - containing phrases "seen as an affront" and "ceased to be viewed as a composer that mattered"
    • Second para: 3rd and 4th sentences containing "high level of interference" and "almost perpetual warfare"
    • Third para: final sentence
  • Style and composition
    • Second sentence: "He is considered to be a founder..."
    • Third symphony 1st and 2nd movement themes - a 15thC lament and the girl's prison song - need citing, as you have with the third movemet, unless this cite covers all three movements.
  • Critical opinion
    • "The term holy minimaliasm is often used..." By whom?
    • "None of these composers has admitted to common influence"

• A few points arising from the text:-
  • Lead: "four hundred" should be 400
  • Early years: Some confusiion here. "In 1952 he began a teacher training course at the Intermediate School of Music in Rybnik" – finishing a 4-year course in 3. However, in the third para we have: "Gorecki began his formal study of music in 1952 at the pedagogical department of the Music High School in Rybnik". So, where was he in 1952? Or is the answer that the second 1952 is the wrong year?
  • Early works: What was the "Academy" that he graduated from?
  • Style and composition:
    • You seem to be repeating more or less verbatim a point made earlier, in the "Minimalism" section ("His change of style was viewed as an affront..." etc)
    • "Liberato"? Should this be "libretto"?

• Images: I can understand the problem of lack of availability of free images, but the article looks very bleak at the moment with just the one picture, barely tangential, tucked away. Is it not possible to find something of relevance, for example a picture of his village, or of an institution with which he has been connected, that can be placed in the lead?

As stated earlier, I look forward to being able to support this in the future. Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Brian, thank you. Writing this has been a very fustrating experiance; there is just so little out there to build on. All of the points you mention are valid but I can do - can you watch this page and give me a day or 2. And then come back with more things you dont like. I'm chipping away at your points so far, will post a block result when done. (and no I dont mean I'll get an admin to block you if you dont agree - I'll say done in one one big done!) Ceoil (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Newspaper titles should be in italics.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.bruceduffie.com/gorecki.html
  • http://www.musicweb-international.com/index.htm

Both texts are RS, but are reproduced on weak sources that I've used. I'm not sure at this point how to deal with them. Ceoil (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Reluctant oppose. Comments: I think the article is interesting, but it may not be quite comprehensive. What has he done since 1995? The music section is very short. The sheer complexity and difficulty of his early music is hardly conveyed. (I remember seeing part of the score of an early symphony - frightening! - time signature change practically every bar, with complex cross-rhythms!) Didn't one work have a movement omitted for this reason at its first performance? (ref: Jacobsen, I think). Some fair use musical examples, discussed in the article text, are de rigeur, I think - perhaps one of an early work and a page of Symphony No. 3 might work. The early influence of serialists, and the later influence of Messiaen and Bach, could perhaps be teased out and exemplified rather than baldly stated. --RobertG ♬ talk 21:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw per Brian and Robert: basically "music section is very short". To clarify, Gorecki has had only one work since 1995, because of his bad health. This is the image I'd ideally like to include in the lead, and I have 3 music samples...there the down at the end Robert! Anyway thanks guys, good reviews; I'll move them into user space to tick off before I come back. Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:Raul654 19:07, 14 December 2008 [18].

---

Necrid

Nominator(s): Kung Fu Man (talk)

After hammering everything out and with everything said and done as part of a plan to get the Soul (series) character articles to a featured topic, nominating Necrid for Featured Article status! ...Yeah I know it won't be that directly easy. References were checked for reliability and endorsement by other sources, and the images should be up to snuff for the fair use guideline. So ready to fix any issues that come up with the article.Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Criterion 1a (prose). Sorry, but the prose is well below the standard required for a featured article. It is a pity the article wasn't peer-reviewed before this nomination because these prose problems could have have been resolved then.

The following are issues picked up from the lead and the first half of the first section:-

• "Despite hving spoken lins in the game, a voice actor has not been been attributed to Necrid". Needs ephasing along the lines: "Despite Necrid having spoken lines in the game, no voice actor has been attributed".
• "...a human warrior that searched..." Since he was human it should be "who", not "that". And it should be "searched for"
• Punctuation: comma needed after "while there"
• "Now drastically mutated, he wields various various forms of energy as weapons, searching for fragments..." etc. Suggest "Drastically mutated, he wields various forms of energy while searching..." etc
• "...Nicred has received mixed reception" - should be "a mixed reception".
• "Series producer Hiroaki Yotoriama learned Todd McFarlane was not only a fan of the Soul series, but also praised their designs". Needs rephrasing. Perhaps: "Series producer Hiroaki Yotoriama learned that Todd McFarlae was a fan of the Soul series, and had praised its design".
• Second sentence of this paragraph - multiple issues here. "Himself" is redundant; the sentence needs splitting; it is too wordy, and the final clause needs rephrasing. I suggest a reduction to: "McFarland was interested in ceating a new Spawn video game. During subsequent discussions with Namco a deal was agreed, to release a line of toys based on SoulcaliberII"

I could extend the examples. I would recommend that you find a handy prose expert to review the text and highlight further improvements that need to be made. Brianboulton (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed everything you pointed out and a few other bits. One thing though stuck out that I'm unsure about: I haven't seen the term "a mixed reception" used in comparison to just "mixed reception", so are you certain that's a necessity?

"Reception" is not a plural or a mass noun, so yes, the "a" is necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Other than that, I'll be more than happy to take care of any other issues you have with the article and thank you for your time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt responses, but it would honestly be better if you got someone else to read the rest of the text, since the function of FAC is review rather than article-building. I will be happy to look again a little later, when the prose has been checked. Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.gamersmark.com/
  • http://www.soulcaliburuniverse.com/images/sc2/wallpaper/ (and is this a copyright violation also? We do not link to those.)
  • http://web.archive.org/web/20040801054906/http://www.soulcalibur.com/images/smilies/z_necrid.gif
    • Regarding the sources:
      • GamersMark was a source turned up by Google News in relation to the figures, cited for the collaboration statement which can be brought up by other sources if need be.
      • Soul Calibur Universe receives official sanction from Namco's own Soulcalibur website in their links section, as seen here under their links section. In addition Namco's recent "fansite" (no closed) "What's Within Your Soul?" actively promoted the distribution of artwork and wallpaper items distributed from Namco through individual websites, as I had cited on an image of Tira I uploaded.
      • Soulcalibur.com is their official website and in this case an older copy is cited to show they created a gif "smiley" as a promotional piece for their forums (I would cite the smiley template itself, but due to its nature Wayback Machine didn't store it properly).
        • To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Replaced GamersMark with a GameSpot source. I'll dig through Wayback Machine for a wallpaper page to cite for the article in place of Soul Calibur Universe.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Replaced the wallpaper mention with one noting the character's mention on the back of each box for game and interviews conducted with the two developers on the subject of Necrid.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Replaced gif link with screenshot and artwork citations pointing to IGN. That should take care of them all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Magazine titles should be in italics (current ref 19 Minkley...)
  • Will fix.Fixed. Was unsure as the webpage was cited in this case.
• Current ref 17 is a reprint of a published magazine, so you need to format it like a magazine, not a website. The actual publisher of the information was Electronic Games Monthly.
• Same for current ref 34 (GameNOW...) where the publisher is GameNOW
  • I'm on it.Fixed.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll fix those links. I'm currently in Sociology at the college so I'll have to wait till I get out of class for the more refined fixes.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

• I'd like more information in the fair use rationale of Image:Necrid01.png; how is it low resolution (it seems rather large to me). The summary info can be put into the rationale.
• I'm not seeing how Image:Souldcalibur2-necrid-screenshot.jpg and Image:Sc2-necrid.jpg are a) low resolution, and b) covered on WP:NFCC; they contain a lot of duplicate information with the infobox image, and their justification for use is not at all compelling. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• Looking through the article I'm going to oppose for now. I'm concerned about the prose, images as they stand now, and the use of some primary sources for sources, ex. this version's refs 13-15. That said, there's an admirable core to the article and is very good about sparingly describing appearances, but I feel it might benefit from use of more meat. I'm going to search LexisNexis and see if I can find some more sources to add to the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Not quite sure I follow about refs 13-15. Citing primary sources for sections regarding character appearance and background information should be acceptable along the same lines as it is for Master Chief (Halo), no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Also something else I should have asked, are the images fine now or should further work be done on them?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
    • They are all now appropriate resolution, but you still have to demonstrate how they significantly aid reader understanding. The secondary outfit doesn't tell me much that isn't already in the prose, and the weapons can be easily summarized (not to mention the image isn't that clear in depicting said weapons, even at higher resolution). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with Brianboulton that the prose needs to be improved. Here are some examples from the first half of the article:
• Despite Necrid having spoken lines in the game - This is worded poorly.
• Since his introduction Necrid has received a mixed reception. - "His" sounds odd when referring to a fictional character.
• Sources such as GameSpy have criticized his design for clashing with the game's aesthetic, while other publications praised its visual appeal when the character was in motion. - What sources?
• While some reviewers have cited Necrid as one of the best characters introduced to the series, others have cited him as one of the worst. - "Some reviewers" are weasel words.
• McFarlane at the time was interested in creating a new Spawn video game, and during discussions with Namco the subject turned to toys,[2] and a deal was formed to release a line of toys based upon Soulcalibur II. - Not sure I understand what this sentence is trying to say.
• Necrid is depicted as a large, muscular, bald green humanoid. - "Bald green"?
• His eyes glow a bright red - No need for "a".
• reddish orange scaly skin - → "scaly, reddish orange skin"
• Necrid can additionally utilize other forms of energy as weapons, such as ignis fatuus - No need for "additionally".

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose sorry. The prose needs a lot of work; there is redundancy, passive constructions and a generally poor style of writing. I am reluctant to give examples because there is a growing tendency at FAC simply fix the examples given and not ask another editor to copy-edit. Although questions and suggestions are in order, FAC is not the place to get below FA standard articles fixed. Graham Colm ^Talk 10:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:06, 13 December 2008 [19].

---

Real Madrid C.F.

Nominator(s): Hadrianos1990

previous FAC (15:57, 12 October 2008)

I think this is a very good article and should be a featured one. Hadrianos1990 08:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Hate to do this again, but the prose still doesn't meet FA standards. I advise that you obtain the services of a good copy-editor to help polish the text. Here are a few examples of problems.

• "It holds the record as the most successful club in Spanish football and was voted by FIFA as the most successful club of the 20th century...". Two "most successful clubs" in this sentence makes for repetitive text. I'd suggest changing one of them.

Done--Hadrianos1990 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Define FIFA on its first use, not second. Then remove the second link as unneeded.

Done--Hadrianos1990 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Unlike most European football clubs, the club members (socios) have owned and operated Real Madrid since its foundation." Try this: "Unlike most European football clubs, Real Madrid's members (socios) have owned and operated the club since its inception." That moves the two "club"s in the sentence further away from each other.

Done--Hadrianos1990 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• "The club's traditional kit colours are all white." I think this should specifically state, here and in the Colours section, that this is their home colour. The article says later that their away colours are black or purple.

Done--Hadrianos1990 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• "the most notable with FC Barcelona with whom they semiannually contest the El Clasico." Sentence needs improving; two withs in three words doesn't read well.

Done--Hadrianos1990 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• "It semiannually contest the El Clasico with FC Barcelona which is the most notable rivalry of The Whites." Contest should be plural, and since when do readers know that they are called The Whites? Giants2008 (17-14) 15:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Done --Hadrianos1990 16:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• History: "Football was introduced to Madrid by the professors and students of the Institucion Libre de Ensenanza, who included several Oxbridge graduates." Since who is not referring to a person, change it to which.

Done--Hadrianos1990 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• "They founded the club Football Club Sky in 1897..." Remove "the club" and just leave it as "They founded Football Club Sky in 1897".

Done--Hadrianos1990 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

All of these are in the lead and first paragraph of History. Sorry, but I shouldn't be finding this many problems this early in the article. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

My oppose still stands, unfortunately. In addition to the over-reliance on primary sources mentioned below, the prose is still lacking in some areas. Here are more examples.

• Budget: "It was with the advent of Florentino Perez in 2000 that Real Madrid really started harbouring its present-day ambition of becoming the world's topmost money-spinning professional football club." In addition to needing a rewrite, this needs a citation.

Done --Hadrianos1990 17:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• "After the 2004–05 season, Real Madrid have ended Manchester United's eight-year reign as the biggest earners in world football." Remove have because this is three years old, and no longer present tense.

Done --Hadrianos1990 16:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• "However, they reached the top again in March by getting massive image rights of 762 million." Massive is POV; try "However, they reached the top again two months later after completing an image rights deal with (insert rights holder here) worth 762 million."

Done --Hadrianos1990 16:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• "currently ranked" and "still the richest club" need "as of" or similar terms; otherwise, they risk becoming outdated.

Done --Hadrianos1990 16:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• "In September 2007, Real Madrid was considered the most valuable Football brand in Europe by BBDO". Why is Football capitalized?

Done --Hadrianos1990 16:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• History: "His death put an end to the one to whom credit can be given for transforming Real Madrid from the second most successful club in Madrid into the most successful in Spain, andone of the most successful in Europe." Another overlong, winding sentence. "put an end to the one to whom credit can be given" needs chopping, and a source. Who gives him this credit?

Done --I deleted this because I found it unenciclopedic. Hadrianos1990 16:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• "By the early 1980s, Real Madrid had lost its grasp on the La Liga title until a new batch of home-grown stars started to back winning domestic titles." "started to back winning domestic titles"?? Giants2008 (17-14) 15:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Done --Hadrianos1990 16:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review

• Image:Logo Real Madrid.svg - We need a link to the source website.

Done--Hadrianos1990 11:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please link to the specific page from which you downloaded the image. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Done--Hadrianos1990 16:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Image:MadridFC1902.jpg - We need at least the death date of Anton Casilldes to establish "life of the author + 70 years".

Done--Hadrianos1990 11:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Real Madrid UEFA Cup 1986.jpg - The source link wasn't working when I tried it.

Big problem here. On the top right of the picture, it says the photo is copyrighted to Getty Images. It smells, and should be deleted ASAP, unless Getty has approved its use under a free license. Knowing how these photo companies are, I doubt it. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I had doubts about this image, but I was going to check the site first to see if it really was released under a GFDL license. I still can't get to the site, however. Awadewit (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The link works.Hadrianos1990 11:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No assertion of a free license is given at [20], there is just the image as uploaded. Given the Getty watermark, it needs deleting. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is nothing on the site that indicates this image was published under the GFDL license, as claimed on the image description page. I have put this image up for deletion. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Real crestds.png - We need a link to the source website. Also, the "purpose of use" needs to be altered, as this logo is not the current logo and therefore the logo does not confirm that readers have reached the right article or illustrate the team's branding message.

Done--Hadrianos1990 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please add a link to the specific page where you found this image. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Done--Hadrianos1990 16:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Bernabeu en un Madrid-Atleti.JPG - Could you add an English description to this image?

I've fix it.--Andrea 93 (msg) 19:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Ramón Calderón.jpg - Could you add an English description to this image?

I've fix it.--Andrea 93 (msg) 19:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

These should be relatively easy issues to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm concerned about the proportion of references which use Real Madrid's own website as the source. For something like a club record, it is fine as a source, but for anything contentious, a third party source should be used. I'm also think there are elements of what Dweller would call hagiography - for instance, no mention is made of Real Madrid's reputation for gaining favour as a result of Franco's patronage (see for e.g. Time magazine). Phil Ball's Morbo is arguably the best English language book on Spanish football, and covers this well; it seems the relevant part of the book is searchable on Google Books. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I added some information about Franco and Real Madrid. The problem with the references will be solved soon.--Hadrianos1990 12:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Object again per Oldelpaso, too many self-references. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Closing note: Hadrianos, I still see many problems with the prose and sourcing. Rather than trying to get through FAC again, since I speak Spanish, if you will contact me on my talk page after the holidays, I will try to help you sort things out, and put you in contact with other editors, including those who speak Spanish, who may be able to help. It is best to undertake this work before re-nomming at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:06, 13 December 2008 [21].

---

Evolution (Dove)

Nominator(s): GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Another article in the style of noitulovE, Evolution won the Cannes Lions Film Grand Prix the year after the Guinness piece, and went on to win an unprecedented second Grand Prix in another category. There is less discussion on the "behind the scenes" elements to the commercial available than on noitulovE, but I've done what I feel to be a fairly good job at presenting the various aspects of the ad's progress through conception, production, and release. There are bound to be areas that could use a little work, so please let me know where to focus my attention. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3CBIOZNpfc does this uploader have the right to upload it? Same for the other YouTube videos?

• Nothing in that particular video that can't be referenced elsewhere, so switched to text refs. However, with regards to the later YouTube videos, they are the only *online* versions of the commercials in question. Being able to see the differences between the regional versions is the purpose of using the reference in the first place. If you prefer, I can simply reel off the production details, but no-one without access to the reels will be able to confirm that they even exist, let alone that they differ in any way (credits are the same for virtually all of the regional versions of the ad).

The problem is that we shouldn't be linking to copyright violations, either in references or in external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, switched to subscribe-only U.S. version, and the CFRB.pl version for Southeast Asia. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and missed the Ruddy Hell!... link at the bottom. Removed, since the BBC wesite only provides access to the latest season, which has a different introduction sequence. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc2Ity4uV_Y has been removed.

• Switched to Singapore version.

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://ihaveanidea.org/articles/index.php?/archives/381-The-Evolution-of-Evolution.html

• It's an interview with the creative director and art director for the advertisement. Given that it's directly quoting the primary source (the people themselves), I'm not sure reliability is an issue.

The problem is that although its an interview, how do we know that the interview was transcribed/published without bias/errors? Interviews in mainstream media rely on the fact that the publisher has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, so we need to make sure that all sites have that. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how to fix this one. The information in the interview can't be cited to anywhere else. The interviewer is a former copywriter (together with director, half a creative team) at the Doug Agency, the lead editor of the site is a former art director at Ogilvy & Mather, and all other members of staff have similar backgrounds in the industry. They know what they're talking about, but I can't really list the entire staff's credentials within a ref tag. :/ GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Best I can find to show the site's authority is that its annual industry event is reported on by Reuters[22], and that the site itself is partnered with some of the largest agencies and organisations around (Corbis, DDB Worldwide, ADC, etc.) Anything else I can do? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

source [23]

• • http://www.mokslai.lt/referatai/referatas/dove-prekes-zenklas.html

• Switched to the ref that Mokslai itself used for the point (Creativity)

• • http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/2338/slob-evolution-from-blinkprods

• The point it was referencing wasn't that important. Removed.

• Note that the link checker is showing http://www.adweek.com/aw/national/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003602774 as a deadlink, but it's working fine.
• http://ny.beam.tv/beamreels/reel_player.php?x=1&CdRryqFbSH&xip=62d70349 deadlinks

• That link doesn't appear in the article. If you're referring to http://www.beam.tv/beamreels/reel_player.php?CdRryqFbSH, that link works fine.

I pulled the link from the article somewhere. May have been removed in the edits, not sure. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.blinkprods.com/production/digital/newsletter/Nov07.html requires log in

• Switched to Internet Archive version of the page.

• Current ref 37 is lacking a publisher

• Miscapitalised in template, fixed.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ta muchly. Let me know if there are any other issues :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Leaving this last one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• Just FWI, but there's a general consensus (or it seems) to delink dates.
• It won a number of the most prestigious awards in the advertising industry - This needs a reference, as it's not mentioned in the article.

• The awards are mentioned in the reception section. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but that section doesn't say the awards are "prestigious". –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Dropped the three words in the lede. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Evolution has also spawned numerous unofficial copycat versions, including a title sequence to a BBC sketch show and the short parody Slob Evolution, which has gone on to itself be nominated for a Daytime Emmy Award. - Is "copycat" the most encyclopedic word choice?

• Switched copycat for alternate

• The film opens with a "pretty, but ordinary girl" (Stephanie Betts)[2] entering and sitting down in a studio. - Do we really need to know her name? Probably not.

• I was asked in noitulovE's FAC to provide names for the actors involved. Consider the piece a short film - acting credits on any film would be an absolute requirement, so why not include the information if it's available?

• Two harsh lights are switched on and the first bars of The Flashbulb's "Passage D", a drum and bass piece with piano accompaniment, are heard. - What is a "harsh light"?

• A light leaving no shadows on the face, I'll cite it to the making of.

• The final image is transferred to a billboard advertisement for the fictional Fasel (an anagram of the word "False") brand of foundation makeup and the piece fades to the statement, "No wonder our perception of beauty is distorted." - Needs a source.

• The parenthetical comment was recently added by another user, removed.

The above stuff is from the lead and some of the first section. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review

• Image:Dovelution.jpg - We need a link to the company's website, if possible, in the "source" field. Also, we need a specific "purpose of use".

• Image:Evolution - Passage D.ogg - This fair use image requires a specific "purpose of use".

• Image:Slobelution.jpg - We need a link to the company's website, if possible. Also, we need a specific "purpose of use".

• Image:Ruddy Hell! title card.jpg - This fair use image requires a specific "purpose of use".

This dispatch on non-free images has some hints on writing "purpose of use" statements at the bottom. Awadewit (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Added Purpose subsections to each of the images GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The "purpose" statements need to be more specific. I rewrote the first one as a sample, but the best way to understand what makes a good purpose statement is to read the section on purpose-writing in the dispatch I linked to above. Note that "a well-written rationale will be explicit and articulate an actual purpose (not just a function, as is too often the case)". The dispatch does an excellent job of explaining the difference between these and why both are necessary. Awadewit (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• WP:MOS no longer recommends date linking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Status? Is the nominator still responding? No feedback on the issues above, and no article edits since November 29. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologise, but I'm currently unable to dedicate any real time to article editing at the moment. I'll do my best to address the points at a later date and reapply, but feel free to shut the discussion down for now. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:58, 6 December 2008 [24].

---

Scene7

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk)

I created this article and brought it to DYK, where its notability was questioned. Since then, I have expanded the article and have brought it to one Peer Review and through the Good Article process, and I think it's now ready for an FA star. Gary King (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• Scene7's technology allow users to manipulate product images by zooming in and rotating products around, simulating how merchandise is inspected in retail stores. - Remove "around".
• In 1998 the company, with its staff of 40 developers, was sold to Broderbund, itself owned by The Learning Company, a subsidiary of Mattel Inc.. - Only one full stop.
• Engage was the parent company of both Cascade and MidSystems, two companies that were each one of the first companies that tried to automate prepress production with customers in newspapers and large printers. - This could be worded better.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review

• Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Harrods at Night 2005 Christmas.jpg - This image has a CC 3.0 license while the Flickr link takes us to a CC 2.0 license. Moreover, the Flickr version of the CC license does not allow derivative works. This is therefore a non-free image. The image should be deleted from the article and from Wikipedia. Awadewit (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that; I've replaced the image in the article. Gary King (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:HarrodsDay.jpg - The new image has no author - is it the same as the uploader? You'll need to check with them by leaving a message on their talk page. Awadewit (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left them a comment, but they haven't edited in four years. The image says "selfmade" so that sounds like they took it themselves. Gary King (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It does seem so, yes. Awadewit (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Date consistency, most of the citations use ISO date format, a few have month day, year: might as well make them consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

  That's an issue that spans more than just this article. The {{cite news}} template is converting access dates from ISO format to DMY. Gary King (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• A missing step in history: the company was founded in San Rafael, but later moves from its headquarters in Novato to SF. When did it move from San Rafael to Novato (they are about 10 minutes apart, but there's an unexplained jump). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

  Good catch. I've added information on that. Gary King (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I do see this article in the list of GA's, but there's nothing in the milestones on the talk page about going through GAN; do you remember when it passed GAN? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now it's showing up when I hit refresh, Nov 14. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• The article is shorter than most FACs (a little over 1200 words). This is a current "hot" issue that I have no opinion on, so I won't support or oppose. However, I did some copyediting, and I have some questions.
• "allow customers to interact with them": with the companies, the products, the images, or the websites?
• "to run the company's computers and allow Scene7 to pay only for the resources that it uses." The user's company, or the company that owns Scene7? I would think the user's company, because of this from the ref: "Isilon's 'pay as you grow' clustered architecture reportedly enables users to scale capacity". But then it's not clear what's meant when you say Scene7 is "running the company's computers"; running on the user's computer network, perhaps?
• I'd prefer "..." to "[...]" for ellipses.
• - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I clarified the sentence. The other one is for the Scene7 company. I prefer [...] as it's more obvious that it's not part of the original text. Gary King (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Even though WP:MOS seems to me to only just barely allow "[...]" if you're not trying to distinguish it from another "...", and that recommendation follows AP Stylebook, I have no problem supporting [...] if you prefer, since it does make it absolutely clear what's meant. On the other sentence, I still think the average reader might not be clear which computer Style7 is running on. Other than that, I'm happy with the language, and I'll be happy to support this article, if other people who know more about FAC than I do want to support the idea that the article is comprehensive. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright I tried to clarify it a bit further. Hopefully it's better? Gary King (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's good. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Support. I thought about how long I wanted to hang back on the "comprehensiveness" issue, and I decided I'm not comfortable leaving the implication hanging in the air that I can't support yet because the article might be faulty. I really have no opinion on comprehensiveness; it ought to be a community decision. So I've written up a standard disclaimer. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose by karanacs. Company articles are really hard to write well. This one seems to be a mix of overly detailed bits and areas where there is just not a lot of context. I'm also concerned that so much is sourced to primary sources.

• There are a lot of primary sources in the article (about a third of them) - to Adobe and to Pr Newswire/PR Web, which is essentially press releases, right? Even the BusinessWeek overview is all press releases.
• I've never heard of TelecomWorldWire - is it a secondary source or does it regurgitate press releases?
• In the lead, I'd replace ecatalogs with online catalogs - more people are likely to understand what that means.
• "efforts are being made to expand into Europe" - what exactly does this mean? What efforts are they undertaking?
• In the beginning of the company section, I would mention that Scene7 is a subsidiary of Adobe Systems. For those that don't read the lead, this would be a good intro, and will tie it together with the fact that they use so many Adobe products
• Did they use Adobe products before being purchased by Adobe Systems?
• Is it really important to know that they are customers of Isilon Systems? This seems like a bit of excess detail. Could just say, "Rather than maintain their own servers, since August 2008 Scene7 rents storage space, allowing them to pay for only the resources that are used."
• I am confused in the sentence about Individual Software as to which of the companies is developing the home design software - the pronoun is ambiguous
• That deal was signed in 2001 - any progress?
• Are the exact dates of when they signed agreements with various companies really important?
• Much of the information about the competitors is repetitive. It is obviously a selling point that you can zoom in on the merchandise images, but not really necessary to be mentioned so many times.
• Are they the only company that allows zooming in? What differentiates them from other companies that offer the same service (anything)?
• "room decoration projects" - what types of projects? Changing walls, arranging furniture, previewing wall colors or wall paper?
• Do we need to know the names of the senior VP of marketing and the president/COO of GoodHome.com? I see that Mack is referenced later, but he is the only one.
• the GoodHome.com technology was transferred...what exactly does that mean? Did they sell it someone else to make a go of it? Did Broderbund just make a new subsidiary for it? Did they just rename themselves and reposition? It looks like Mack stayed on.
  • That wording was mine; Gary and I have now made changes. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• Any details on their "fail[ure] to establish"? Did they go bankrupt?
• Any info on how the name Scene7 was chosen?
• "During the dot-com bubble, Scene7 spent five years working on a business plan that ultimately failed to take off and lost a significant amount of capital" - is this referring to its time as Goodhome.com? The five-years mark and the fact that they got new financing in 2001 doesn't really mesh well
• Any info on what the failed business plan was? Did it fail to be brought to the market, or did it fail after it got to market?
• Why did they change locations from San Rafeal to Hamilton Landing?
• The history section contains a lot of info on the amount of funding raised, but little on any milestones the company might have reached - numbers of employees, capitalization, etc...
• Acquisition should really be under history. It is part of the history and it makes more sense that way
• " will eventually be replaced with the Adobe Systems brand" - any sense of what is meant by "eventually" months/years/decades?

Karanacs (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I've gotten everything that I could get. A few things, like more information on employees and capitalization, is not available since it has been a private company for most of its life. Gary King (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you address my questions about sourcing? I noticed that at least 1/3 of the sources are primary sources, and I'm not sure whether Telecomworldwire is or not. Karanacs (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of the references don't have any alternatives that I can find. If you want, some can be removed; I've replaced what I can, though. The only remaining primary sources are: reference #1, #4, #5, #11, and #14, so that's about a quarter of the total. Also, these references are used primarily for business deals, etc. rather than the company's history. Gary King (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• The MOS for images says that images should not be placed on directly under the header and on the left side. So, move the picture in the history section. You have gotten everything from the other reviews, and nothing major stands out after reading the article over. Fix the image problem, and I'll support. iMatthew 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  That's only for third-level and lower section headings, not level two. Gary King (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  Support Oh, nevermind then. iMatthew 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:48, 6 December 2008 [25].

---

Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle

Nominator(s): NuclearWarfare, User:Haha169, User:Rau J

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe that this article meets the FA Criteria. That's the only thing that matters, right? Oh, and also because this article specifically is part of a topic (Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes) that I am hoping to get to Featured Status. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the tools bit. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review - All of the images in this article are non-free and none of them have sufficient rationales at this point:

• Image:AangOzai.png - The "purpose of use" provided for this image is insufficient - "It provides a necessary visual aid for the Sozin's Comet article". This is essentially illustration and Wikipedia's fair use guidelines specifically require that non-free images provide more than illustration. Thus, this image needs a much stronger justification for inclusion or it needs to be deleted.
  • New image used; this one is being tagged for deletion. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Sozin's comet.png - The source for this image is listed as Wikipedia's upload page - that is not a source. The copyright holder is not listed. The "purpose of use" is blatantly false - this image is not used in the infobox. Again, this purpose of use must be strengthened or the image must be deleted.
  • I believe it was used in the infobox at some prior point. But now, the actual image is unnecessary, so I'm removing it from the article and tagging it for deletion. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Lion Turtle Sage02d.jpg - The copyright holder is not listed. The purpose of use needs to be strengthed - explain why the image is necessary. Why does the reader need to see this picture? Why are words not enough to describe this character?
  • Updated slightly, though I'll probably have to do some more. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Updated fully. --haha169 (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Book 3 Volume 4 Avatar.jpg - This fair use rationale needs to list the copyright holder.
  • Done + more things. --haha169 (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

For help on non-free images, particularly on writing "purpose of use" statements, see this dispatch on non-free images. Awadewit (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image concerns have been addressed. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - For the moment. The prose isn't so great. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 01:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Work includes:
• The four-part movie premiere averaged 5.6 million viewers,[5] as well as receiving a 195% increase in ratings over the previous year's like-time period. - Verb tense does not agree
  • Fixed. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Is http://hybridfire.net/blog/2008/07/24/avatar-the-last-airbender-smashes-through-tv-ratings-with-sozins-comet/ really a reliable source? It's an internet blog, so I'll let others decide.
  • New sources. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Sozin's Comet was met with positive critical reviews throughout, with reviewer Ed Liu going as far as stating that it made "Avatar" one of the finest animated television series ever made"... - Why is Avatar in quotes?
  • Fixed. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• That night, however, Aang mysteriously disappears into the water. - Does the episode mention which body this was? Perhaps a specific sea?
  • I'm afraid it doesn't mention what sea it was. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

    • What about the area they're in? —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 02:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

      • Nothing of that either. The show is pretty vague when it comes to places. And in this case, the area does not matter, because Aang ends up disappearing anyway. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll probably have more comments later, but I'm busy (with Halo, lol), so I'll be back tomorrow. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 01:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Additional comments
• This cumulates in Aang ultimately defeating the Fire Lord by removing his bending capabilities. - replace is with when, and change rest of sentence
  • Couldn't find that quote. Done --haha169 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In lead. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 20:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• The four-part movie premiere averaged 5.6 million viewers, and received a 195% increase in ratings over the previous year's like-time period.[5] - Like time?
  • Yes, it means "same time". Couldn't find a better word choice and "like-time" is what the ref used. --haha169 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• I've done a minor fix, myself. Others:
• Could you briefly explain who each character is in the lead?
  • That would be for the series article. I don't really think episode article need to do that. --haha169 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Sozin's Comet has received some negative feedback as well, most notably the difficulty in understanding the voice of an important, new character: the Lion Turtle. - Remove comma between important and new, doesn't flow.
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• It's a shame that so many convenient plot twists set us up for a humongous deus ex machina that allows the Fire Lord to be thwarted without dying". - period in front of quote, please.
  • The quote is a part of the sentence, not the sentence itself, so the the period should be outside, unless I'm mistaken. --haha169 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Use an ellipse, if possible. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 20:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Top slot" is used several times throughout the article. Could you replace this, it's kind of boring.
  • Only used twice, but I replaced one of them. --haha169 (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Yours, —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 18:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Comments - From a person who knows less than nothing about anime-type shows, here are some general thoughts. I didn't read the text closely, so please don't consider this a comprehensive list of everything that needs fixing.

• Link Joaquim Dos Santos in the lead and the infobox.
  • Done. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Reference 10 (the dead link) can apparently be replaced by an archived version. I recommend using a specific version from the Internet Archive to replace the link; just getting rid of the dead link tag will be beneficial.
  • Internet archive does not have anything for this; I checked. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Done - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Several websites that I'm not familiar with. What makes News Blaze.com (ref 5), Broadcast Newsroom (ref 6), Hybridfire.net (ref 7), NickSplat.com (ref 10), Distant Horizon (ref 14), Toon Zone (ref 15), and Crave Online (ref 16) reliable sources? I'm sure that at least a few of them are fine, but I figure it's better to ask about them, due to my lack of knowledge on the best sources for the subject.
  • News Blaze: DYK accepted this, and anyway, it says that the source of all those statistics are directly from Nickelodeon. --haha169 (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Broadcast Newsroom: replaced --haha169 (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Hybridfire: Not used anymore
  • Nicksplat: Official Nickelodeon website, I think
  • Distant Horizon: Replaced
  • Toon Zone: We're not using them to get factual evidence, but rather reviews for the receptions section. --haha169 (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Crave Online: Same as above--haha169 (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Anyone, please feel free to do these. I'm just listing them out for now. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Print publishers, like the San Francisco Examiner and The New York Times, need italics. Non-printed publishers, like SciFi and Apple, don't. The italics for the series name in the one reference are fine.
  • Checklinks says otherwise, but I'll do so. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• En dashes are needed for the episode and production numbers in the infobox, and for the episode number in ref 3.
  • Could you or someone else do this one please? I'm unsure how to do it. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{<font color="purple"My work} 03:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • They already are en dashes. --haha169 (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
      • They weren't, but they are now. Check edit box to see how they are done. Brianboulton (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Giants2008 (17-14) 01:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Newspaper titles should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}} you use the work field for the titles

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - below my 20kb dividing line for FA/GA, so I have qualms about the comprehensiveness of this article to the level I feel is required by the FA criteria. I think it's okay enough for GA, but for television episodes, I have a minimum of 20KB for 22-minute episodes, 30KB for 45-minute episodes, and and 40KB for 90-minute episodes. Articles like 200 (Stargate SG-1) and The Principal and the Pauper were criticised within the FA process for being a similar length. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not comprehensive enough. Not even close to FA. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Answering both these opposes at once: I would disagree, but I am willing to withdraw this FAC and rewrite if you deem it necessary. What more do you feel we should add? - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    • More production and reception details: one or two paragraphs about each are pitifully small for an FA. I would suggest withdrawing and adding more. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Just going through WP:FA?: I noticed no rules regarding length, except "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." This article is quite the opposite. It stays on track and does not enter unnecessary detail. Comprehensiveness: "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" also passes, IMHO because this article incorporates everything verifiable that is on the internet. --haha169 (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Look at the second- and third-longest episode FAs, Trapped in the Closet (South Park) and Through the Looking Glass (Lost). One's animation, and the other's as long as Sozin's Comet. They're comprehensive to the point the featured article criteria asks. I am struggling to believe that, for a TV series as popular as this, you can only find two paragraphs of production and reception. Have you tried Nickelodeon-published magazines or Google News? Sceptre ^(talk) 12:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
          • I suppose we could technically find more for reception, though it will be just much of the same. Also, production won't be that much. We would essentially be copying the information from the Season 3 article, because I have no information to indicate that they produced this any differently. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
            • I'd prefer if S3 production details that pertain to this episode are placed in the articles, yes. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
              • I've tried Google News, but I do not have Nickelodeon magazine subscriptions and I do not believe they are online. I honestly have found nothing pertaining to the production of this episode, only the production of the seasons in general. I'm not sure production could be expanded much without repeating the information in the infobox multiple times. --haha169 (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Question from the nominator - Would you say that this source would be OK to use as a review in the reception section? - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• It may still be a bit short, but I was hoping you guys would ignore your minimum size counts and tell us if the current version is comprehensive enough. If not, what else can we fix and add? - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 15:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:48, 6 December 2008 [26].

---

Jackie Robinson

Nominator(s): Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it now meets the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. It recently passed a mildly rigorous GA at Talk:Jackie Robinson/GA1 and I think it now meets the FA criteria. It's well written, thoroughly referenced, and I believe neutral. It's been stable for at least the last two months (probably many more) and has a lead that summarizes the article. I thought quite a bit about the section names and organization, and I think the current format is FA worthy. I used Sandy Koufax (another baseball FA) as a bit of a template, but didn't follow it too closely due to the difference between great pitcher and great player plus civil rights hero. The cite web and cite book templates have been used consistently; there may be some MOS minutiae that I've missed. The big difference between this version and the GA version is I've added info that I think makes it comprehensive while trying not to stray from the topic. Whole books have been written about JR, and even about single years of his life, but I think this article covers him at the right level of detail. The article has almost too many images, but they're all free. I'm open to changing the images in any way. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Have you notified RyanCross? He currently has more contribs to the article than you. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've notified Ryan. However, I've followed this article a bit during its development; Peregrine really is the primary contributor. Don't just count edits to determine the level of contribution. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the notification. And yes, Peregrine is definitely the primary contributer. I only did some copyediting, referencing and expanding in a single section. Peregrine did most of the hard work. – RyanCross (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Oppose - 1c. Quality of sourcing is inadequate for a subject like Jackie Robinson, who has had so much written about him over the years, and is one of the most important figures in the history of American sports. Here are a few random examples, which show problems throughout.

• Reference 46 (TheJournalofSportsHistory.org) is nothing but a bare address, with no means of checking the source. Also no publisher or date of last access.
• Other refs lack publisher and access date, including numbers 27 (Gale - Free Resources - Black History - Biographies - Jackie Robinson), 30 (Jackie Robinson Papers), and 65 (The Sizzler by Rick Huhn). There are others like this, so please audit all of them.
• Printed publishers should be in italics. Non-printed publishers shouldn't.
• Many sources of suspect reliability, such as xtimeline.com (ref 26), LarryLester42.com (ref 35), baddogblues.com (ref 64), and economicexpert.com (ref 79) This is by no means an exhastive list; Ealdgyth, our resident source checker, will have a field day when she returns from her vacation.
• Formatting is faulty in reference 83. (Jackie changed face of sports, where the title is given twice instead of the author's last name.)
• Overall, I sense an over-reliance on Internet sources. Even many of the books used are from Google Books, though they may just be links for easy access. I don't normally complain about Internet sources, but a high level of sourcing is expected for a subject like Robinson. In my view, this fails to meet that standard.

The sourcing doesn't fill me with confidence that the other aspects of the article meet FA standards. Therefore, I want to see these examples, along with the rest of the sourcing problems, resolved before I start reading the article. Hopefully, Ealdgyth will be back soon to give you a full list of issues. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• • I believe I've fixed the references. I did the ones you mentioned and then went through them myself. There are a couple issues left, though. There is one source I've left whose meeting of RS can be reasonably debated. It is larrylester42.com. Although it is a personal web site, it is written by a guy who appears to be one of the leading black baseball historians. According to the about page, he has founded a negro league museum and worked for the Baseball Hall of Fame. His list of novels (see here) about black baseball is also very extensive. The second issue is that I can't find anything that shows how to format format the publisher part for web sites. I looked at the manual of style, a few TFAs, and the cite web template but there doesn't seem to be a consistent way to do it. For instance, should biography.com be Biography, Biography.com, biography.com, Biogrpahy, The Biography Channel, etc. It's also a problem for baseball-almanac.com, should it be Baseball Almanac, Baseball-Almanac.com, etc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In my own editing, I like to use the name that our site gives a company, when possible. Therefore, The Biography Channel would be the winner; I also like how it clarifies that it is a TV network. Meanwhile, I'm not convinced about the reliability of Baseball Almanac. It's been questioned at previous FACs, and hasn't been confirmed to be reliable. Here are a few more notes:

• Reference 88 (Jackie changed face of sports) still has formatting issues.
• Reference 98 (Jackie Robinson School) is a dead link, according to our link checker tool.
• Reference 100 (from the Daily News) shouldn't be in all caps.
• Page ranges need en dashes to replace hyphens.
• Tip for printed publishers: the work parameter in the templates will output the publisher in italics. Citations from sources such as The Sporting News and the Washington Post can be changed by using this option.
• Most importantly, please find sources to resolve the cite tags. That is grounds for a quick-failure, and leaves the impression that this didn't receive the proper preparation.

Meanwhile, I looked in one section and was not happy with what I found in the writing. I'm going to make some fixes; please note them and make similar changes elsewhere where necessary. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Could you add a statistical table for his baeball career?
  • Generally, a statistical table should be at the end of the article. I see this article as no exception.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• "His family were sharecroppers and after their father left them in 1920 they moved to Pasadena, California." is a singular subject with plural verbs, pronouns, and possessives.
  • O.K., but "sharecroppers and" should have a comma between them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• "He played shortstop and catcher on the baseball team, quarterback on the football team, and guard on the basketball team." Jackie or his brother?
• In 1936,
  • I meant for you to add a comma. I added it myself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• Can you link Pomona, athletic director and varsity letter?
• PJC should appear as (PJC) following its full name before being used elsewhere--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe I fixed and added the things you wanted. Did you have more to say about "In 1936"? I readded the statistical table. I had removed it because the GA reviewer felt it wasn't needed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Should "officers training school" be linked to something here?
• Fort Hood, stenographer, second lieutenant, commander, and court-martial should be linked.
• MP is an abbreviation that should be properly introduced like PJC above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Should the statistics be moved to lower in the article? I linked the things you mentioned and added commas. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review: Please make sure that all images have a complete summary in the form of an {{Information}} template.

• The image Image:LAret42.PNG says that it is Jackie Robinson, when it appears the image is the number 42. If that is the style of the number Robinson wore that was retired, please state so in the image summary and cite that to a reliable source.
• The aforementioned image is connected to another at 1947–Breaking the color barrier. This placement is not very aesthetically pleasing, and I suggest you move it to another location in the article.
• You have three images of three-dimensional works of art. First, all of them should reflect the license information in Image:Jackie robinson memorial pasadena.jpeg. My second question is asking if all three are necessary to illustrate that Robinson was a pioneer in baseball. I'm not sure they are. It might help to remove Image:Jackie Robinson Park 2.JPG or Image:Jackie robinson memorial pasadena.jpeg because the image placement sandwiches the text between the pictures, which is a style issue to be avoided. When using fair use images, you need to justify their inclusion as they relate to the article. Image:Jackie3.jpg does not really appear to have a reason to be in the section about Robinson's term in 1948. Can you justify its inclusion in the article?
• The appearance of the images seems hectic. Try putting an upright tag on Image:JRandDavid dc march photo.jpg to diminish its size. I also suggest moving some of the images throughout the article, and minimizing your browser to various sizes to make sure the article still looks good in different sizes. --Moni3 (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I removed Image:LAret42.PNG and its associated template (MLBBioRet). I can't find anything that shows that that particular arrangement of the number 42 inside some circles is the official Jackie Robinson number that was retired. On the other hand, Sandy Koufax, an FA baseball article also uses that type of image and template so their may be some precedent I'm unaware of.
  • I put the remaining images near the sections that discuss the same time periods as the images. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought statue images were free, but since they aren't I removed all of them except Image:Jackie robinson memorial pasadena.jpeg. I could remove that too if people object to it.
  • I replaced Image:JRandDavid dc march photo.jpg with Image:Civil Rights March on Washington, D.C. Former National Baseball League player, Jackie Robinson with his son., 08 28 1963.gif because I couldn't find the national archive ID for the first image, although I'm pretty sure it truly is a free image.
  • I think the overall placement will work in most resolutions. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The images appear to be fine, as of today. If you add more, let me know and I'll check those. --Moni3 (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Notes: this article needs an extensive MoS audit,[27] and has incomplete citations, dead links, and non-reliable sources (example: http://www.fulton.k12.ga.us/teacher/stratton/robinson2.html). I see no peer review, and some of the sources shouldn't have passed GA. Also, pls fix the faulty dab links identified in the dab finder in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • • I'm working on the things you mention. What is the faulty dab link finder? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Never mind, I found the dab finder. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, once again I think I have the references up to snuff. It's almost all newspapers, books, MLB.com, and national magazines. The most controversial, although I think they're reliable, are probably these: larrylester42.com (mentioned above), Gale (Gale (Cengage)), UCLA Today, and JR's official site. I may be missing some, but I think that's close.
  • I went through your edits one at a time, and applied each MOS principle you demonstrated. The MOS is pretty complicated so I'm sure there's still work to be done on that, but I think I've gotten all the dashes and dates formatted correctly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments (about sources mainly). This article has been on my Watchlist for some weeks and I have made a few edits here and there. I live in England, so it is hard for me to judge the reliability of some of the sources. Can someone confirm that The Biography Channel (7 cites), MLB.com (18 cites), Sports.ESPN.go.com (9 cites and installs spyware by the way), and the Public Broadcasting Service (5 cites) are reliable. For references 45, 53,54, and 70 there are no p.s for pages and no page numbers are given for references 34 and 35. I see in the nominators blurb at the top that "whole books have bee written about....", it's a pity that more use has not been made of them. Graham Colm ^Talk 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Refs 35 and (now) 34 link to the page that they get their info from. The Library of Congress ref (35) is just one page. I don't know what page the American Heritage article (34) was on back in '84, but you can read it by clicking now. I added p.s so all the refs should have them now.

It sounds like you want confirmation from someone else, but I believe the sources you mention are considered reliable. The Biography Channel and ESPN are the national cable TV channels devoted to bios and sports. They're both owned by giant media companies like Disney and NBC. MLB.com is the official website of major league baseball. PBS is like the US version of the BBC's TV arm.

Sports.ESPN.go.com is the correct address for ESPN. It's because they're a part of Disney's go.com network. My pop up blocker blocked an add from them, which is what I think you mean by spyware. If they're really installing spyware something will have to be done. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with this, thanks. I will decide on supporting later. It's early days and I would like to see more reviews. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, for sourcing concerns as well.
• I am not a baseball expert in any sense. But I recognize the role sports played in integrating social life in the U.S., and Robinson's part in that was extensive. I read two sections, Military career and 1947–Breaking the color barrier. In Military career you use a juvenile nonfiction book (by Denise Lewis Patrick) as a source in this section, an encyclopedia entry, a description of his papers, and another encyclopedia entry. Your bibliography includes Robinson's autobiography and five other biographies; why are these sources not used? The same sourcing pattern is used in 1947–Breaking the color barrier: most of the references are to web-based articles.
• My point is this: Robinson, I'm sure you know, is huge. Freakin' huge. He deserves to have a hard-hitting FA, but that article needs to go to the main source of all of these various encyclopedia articles and tertiary sources you're using. They refer back to these books that you cited once or in Rampersand's case, nine times or so. You're depending on sources that are mediocre to write an article that should leave them all behind. Go to the books, use them primarily, and when you're able to compare the Wikipedia article on Robinson to Biography.com or PBS' articles and know that yours is better—better written, sourced, and more comprehensive, then it will be FA quality.
• I also find the writing to be ok, but not particularly engaging or brilliant. I think you could infuse more quotes about Robinson's impact from his biographers, baseball historians, etc. Especially in the lead. The lead should have a whopper of a quote about his importance. You can find those quotes in the aforementioned books. --Moni3 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The Military career section uses a children's book, a magazine article, and two articles from the Library of Congress. I could replace the childrens book, but I feel the other three should be acceptable. I can also fix the other problems you mention, except switching everything over to book refs. I was unaware of this requirement to use books. I guess I'll wait a while and see what others say. If books are required I guess I'll have to withdraw this nom, since that would require almost an entire rewrite. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Apart from the information being comprehensive, it's not a requirement as such. It very much depends on the topic. Many topics such as video games and pop culture articles have no books available and are quite short on print references. However, Robinson has had quite a bit of literature written about him. It's not the fact that it's web based vs. print based, but that the books are so much more comprehensive and better. Where is the best information about Robinson? In his biographies. There are excerpts and articles similar to what you are writing that are available, but for an FA the best sources should be your first stop. I know it is frustrating to face this at FAC, but Robinson is a pioneer in sports and social history in the US. He deserves this. --Moni3 (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Could you kind of quantify what proportion of sources need to be from books for you to support. Right now, about 20 books are sourcing about 35-40 statements. I am a bit frustrated I guess, but mostly I want to know if I should stop this FAC now, possibly to be restarted later, or if I should continue. I don't follow FAC, so I don't know if this will be a deal breaker. In your experience are other editors and whoever finally decides (Sandy?) going to say not enough books and fail it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• It's not so much a ratio, I suppose. If you do not have these books at your fingers' reach right now, it might be advisable to withdraw the nomination, get most of them, read through them, change out the citations for the majority of web-based articles you're using now, and scan for more information, quotes, Robinson's own thoughts and feelings, and other information. What you will also be able to find are really interesting stories about Robinson that can be included in the article. You have the potential to provide a free article to the world on Robinson that will relate why he's such an interesting figure, and your article has the potential to leave all these other web-based articles behind in quality. Because the folks who wrote the articles you're using got paid and are moving on to something else. You're taking patient time to meet their quality and exceed it. Something else that can't really be received through many web-based articles is the energy in a good biography. Robinson's life stood for something, and you want to express that in your article; you want to go beyond merely describing his contributions and life story. You want to tell a story that grabs your readers, puts them on the field where he got spiked by other players, jeered at by fans and other teams, and saw his own team rally around him. I will help you copy edit it for this kind of energy if you find the sources. --Moni3 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Peregrine has hit on it when he says "If books are required I guess I'll have to withdraw this nom, since that would require almost an entire rewrite". I would anticipate than an article sourced to Robinson biographies would contain different information than one sourced to television programs, short magazine articles, and children's books. These kinds of pieces are written for specific audiences and are often extremely selective, sensationalistic, and simplified. Reliable iographies tend to be more inclusive and complex. That is why we need to use the most reliable biographies we can find as a starting point for this article. Awadewit (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Per Wikipedia:Lead section, specifically the subsection titled "First sentence content" on that page, I would suggest amending the first sentence of the lead section. While it is good that the first sentence is brief, it does not included the main reason why Jackie is notable, specifically that he was the first African-American Major League Baseball player of the modern era. I would suggest that the sentence should read something like, "Jack Roosevelt "Jackie" Robinson (January 31, 1919 – October 24, 1972) was the first African-American Major League Baseball player of the modern era." Please note that "Major League Baseball" is capitalized in my suggested version of the sentence. Hope this comment helps. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I changed the sentence. Are you saying this article needs some good quotes and stories wherever they may be found, or that these must come from books. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:48, 6 December 2008 [28].

---

Croatia national football team

Nominator(s): Domiy

previous FAC (02:42, 16 October 2008)

The language has been fixed up as I have had time to go through a lengthy peer review process as recommended here previously. Since no other problems were presented in the previous FAC, one could possibly conclude that this article meets all the criteria. So here goes. Domiy (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Source check -

• What makes The World Game (references 4 and 66) a reliable source? This is a blog, and was questioned during the previous FACs.
• Reference 16 (ABOUT FIFA) is in all capital letters, which is not preferred. It should be changed to About FIFA. The abbreviation in caps is fine.
• Is Croatian World Network (reference 19) a news company? Not familiar with it. That doesn't mean it's a bad source; I'd just like to know more about it. Same with Croatian Times (ref 90).
• Reference 25 (WORLD CUP '98; Croatia and its Fortunate Sons) is another all caps, and should be World Cup '98; Croatia and its Fortunate Sons.
• Little tip on reference 53: Sports Illustrated, a magazine, is really not the publisher. Instead, it's CNN Sports Illustrated.
• Caps (FEAR FACTOR) should be removed in ref 62. There are a couple of other caps in later references that can also be removed.
• Is Panstadia (ref 96) a published magazine? Is so, place the publisher in italics.
• What makes Javno a reliable source?
• Reference 106 (Croatia to receive penalty for 'human swastika') is from a newsgroup. A better source is needed here; an Associated Press story should be easily found elsewhere.
• What makes OneWorld South East Europe (ref 117) a reliable source?
• Why is euFootball.uk (ref 124) reliable?
• Why is the Ana Rukavina Foundation reliable? It's not the charity mentioned in the text.
• Does Croatian language need to be linked with each language indicator? It might be better to just have the tag with no link; we're trying to cut down on repetitive links.

This will do until Ealdgyth comes back. Some of these might well be fine, but I just don't know much about Croatia-related sites. It's better to ask and get an answer. Note that I didn't do a strong check of the Croatian-language sources, as I don't know the language. 66.238.221.0 (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That was me. Forgot to log in. :-( Giants2008 (17-14) 03:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes thank you Giants, I agree its better to be given a chance to answer some concerns rather than just people making assumptions. I will address the points in your order:

• The World Game is an official website affiliated with SBS, a primary sports broadcaster in Australia. It is similar to the relationship between SkySports.com and the SkySports channel (in England). I don't see how it is a blog, reference 4 is a team run-through and reference 66 is an official published newstory. However, please note that either way, both these references aren't exactly even needed. They are secondary references which I included merely to offer more of an understanding about the team and the subjected statement. They can easily be removed and will be if it is arguably reached that the sources are unreliable.
• Caps removed.
• Croatiantimes is as ordinary as any other website. It appears that they cover all Croatia-related articles and stories and are run based on other references and affiliations (see this page). They are indeed a news company. Croatian World Network is run by Nenad Bach who is a recognized author in varied continents of the world. Furthermore, the story from that website is a direct translation of a Croatian version found here, as explained at the end of the story. The Croatian source used by the author in that story comes from the official website of the Croatian Football Federation, so it can be deemed reliable. I looked through both stories myself and the translation is pretty much spot on, just to clear that up :).
• Caps removed.
• Thanks! I have updated the publisher information to 'CNN Sports Illustrated'.
• Caps removed.
• Yes Panstadia is a magazine type source. It has been placed in italics. Forgot about that one.
• I provided fair links in the previous FAC that directed towards Javno being a reliable source. They are run by a team of sanctioned editors in Croatia and the news service operates in both Croatian and English. Most people in Croatia relate immediately to Javno as a news service. Not always a primary source of news, but they get the point across. Their Terms of Use and site information clear all that up. See this and this too. They run in association with their own publishers and abide by correct copyright regulations.
• If you have concerns over that news story from the Associated Press as it is from a newsgroup, then this reference is also another secondary one, meaning it is not a primarily needed source of inclusion. Nonetheless, it can be replaced with this mirrored story from the Jerusalem Post, which also credits the story coming from The Associated Press. The problem is that I am unable to find the actual story coming directly from the Associated Press. Hope that's not too much of a problem; this reference can be easily removed (or possibly replaced as well) without major problems. I apologies for including some sources which aren't exactly 100% necessary, but they can never be a problem as they only offer more insight into the subject and provide further research opportunity and choices.
  • Jerusalem Post is fine. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• The reference from OneWorld South East Europe (ref 117) has now been replaced with a direct story from BBC News, found here.
• If you believe that a source is required to prove HRT is Croatia's primary broadcast station and that the current source is unreliable, I am happy to replace this source as I have now done so with two differing sources. I have gone ahead and put in [cat=126&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=1793&tx_ttnews[backPid]=185&cHash=4d25942a86 this story] as a reference. Its not an official news story, but it proves that the station is Croatia's primary broadcaster judging by the informing memo released by the official organizers of the foreign satellite channel. I am also able to put in this reference as well, but I dont think Broadcastbuyer online is really a reliable source either.
• Is it really possible to doubt a charity organisation website as an unreliable source? If the charity organisation says that proceeds will be donated to a charity, then they can't really say this on a false basis as that would have aroused legal issues by now. Once again, if a consensus is reached on this source being unreliable, then I will gladly remove it and the associated media statement.
• I have removed the link to Croatian language in each Croatian reference. Domiy (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review: Most of the images appear to be fine. I suggest you email whatever permission has been granted for Image:Croatian first team.jpg to the Wikipedia Foundation at permissions@wikipedia.org and get an OTRS ticket for this image. If you have access to the email Roberta F (roberta.f@email.t-com.hr) or Nikša Martinac sent you, forward that with a copy of the image to the permissions department. There are two names of copyright holders in two {{information}} templates for the image as well. Please make clear who owns the copyright. Also, in the description, it claims the photo was taken "decades ago", but on the date it gives the exact date. Can you make that date exact in both lines, please?

• Image:Cro-Ger 2-0.jpg needs a date.
• Please include an {{Information}} template for Image:FranjoTudman.JPG. Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Pending an OTRS ticket for Image:Croatian first team.jpg, the images check out fine. You may have to nudge someone to give you a ticket number on that. I would suggest User:Howcheng, since he is the only user I know who has OTRS email access. There are probably a few others, but...without User:Elcobbola, I don't know who they are. --Moni3 (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review revisited: First, I personally apologize for retracting what I posted before. However, I am a novice at checking images at FAC. I know some but not all, and there are some issues about the images in the article that were pointed out to me. For that reason, and because this article should be the strongest in text and visuals possible, I must present a new list of issues to face with the images.

1. Image:Croatian first team.jpg: I have been informed that no email has been sent to permissions@wikipedia.org. I suggest locating the holder of the copyright and obtaining permission with the following statement: I own the copyright to the images found attached in this email. I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify these documents under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. I have received permission for a dozen or so images in various articles using this and some very nice emails I have sent to various people.

   If you don't have access to the copyright holder and you must claim Fair Use as historical documentation, per NFCC #8 the image must impact the article in some way. As in, the image should be so famous that it affected the events in the article the image needs to help the reader's understanding of the material signficantly. If that cannot be proven and you have no idea who the copyright holder is, you may have to consider removing the image from the article.

2. Image:Soccer.Field Transparant.png the licensing for this image is incorrect. It has an author, Nuno Tavares, who seems different from the uploader, User:Squadoosh. You will have to contact User:Squadoosh to ask where they obtained this image, who Nuno Tavares is. If they are in fact the same person, and Squadoosh/Tuvares created it, {{PD-Self}} is the correct licensing, and Squadoosh should change it. If you have no luck contacting either of these people, you should consider creating one just like it and releasing it to public domain yourself.
3. Image:MaksimirStadium.jpg - The source is questionable. After some points became quite obvious after they were shown to me, I now doubt the site owns the copyrights to these images. You can try some of these images Maksimir Stadium at the Commons. And I searched on Flickr for the the same stadium, and there appear to be some images that individuals have uploaded. The best thing to do would be to contact the person who has the image you like (and to cover your bases, contact a few more), ask them if they took the image and own the copyright, and then agree to the release: I own the copyright to the images found attached in this email. I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify these documents under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Mail that into permissions@wikipedia.org with the image attached.
4. Per my initial oversights, I may have to amend these statements to clarify. I apologize for the confusion. I am learning as I go. --Moni3 (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Dabs, the dab finder in the tool box identifies several dab links that need repair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Moni3 and Sandy!. I have fixed up the images and updated their pages, now including all required information (dates etc). The OTRS ticket is pending, there are a few users who edit this article and they are the pro's at the image tags etc. I'll contact them to help with this OTRS ticket inclusion, as I am not too familiar with this process. Alas, it will be done when they come back shortly. Domiy (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose by User:Dweller

I'm opposing, based on the number of problems I uncovered just in the Lead section. If I have this many problems with the first four paragraphs, I can't believe that the article is Featured quality. Sorry.

Grammar and other language issues:

• I'm puzzled by why the article is called "Croatia national..." and the article opens with "Croatian national...". Looks inconsistent.
• Decide whether the team is singular or plural and stick to it. Either is fine, but a mix is not. Here you have both in one sentence: "Although they were authorized as an affiliate of FIFA in this earlier period, Croatia remained a constituent federal republic of Yugoslavia and was therefore unable to participate separately at the competitive level.". (my bold) Other examples: "Croatia has achieved several...", "Croatia is the only team"
• "every edition of the World Cup" not sure if this is good American English, but doesn't work for my English English ear (eye!). Sentence works fine with the words "edition of the" simply removed. But there's tautology following the semicolon. In all, I suggest rewording to: "Since the team became eligible to participate in international competition, they have qualified for every World Cup and have missed only major event: UEFA Euro 2000."
• "they have also played scheduled home fixtures" what does "scheduled" add?
• "They were previously undefeated in competitive matches on home soil" delete "previously"
• "Croatia has achieved several noteworthy victories throughout major tournaments, defeating opposition within the top-five of the FIFA World Rankings." Reword to "Croatia have achieved several noteworthy victories in major tournaments, defeating opposition ranked in the top five of the FIFA World Rankings."
• "accommodate the award" win the award? take the award? not accommodate
• " scrutiny towards" should read "scrutiny of"

Accuracy:

• UEFA is not "the highest authorities of global football"
• England were not top-five opposition at the time and pedantically the wins weren't in a major tournament
• "Their FIFA World Ranking has been among the most volatile throughout history, ranging from third in 1998 to 125th in 1994." First, chronologically, that's the wrong order. Second, that's not volatility - volatile means it goes up and down, yo-yoing. Croatia zoomed up and havent plummetted back down. Did the RS call it "volatile"? I looked at the sources and can't see the word - nor can I see the sourcing of the assertion of being "among the most volatile throughout history" even if the word volatile is replaced.

POV issues:

• "puppet states" comes across as POV - is it a quote from the source (currently no. 3)?

Sorry, because this is a very good article, but it's not FA quality yet. --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Dweller!. I am a little a negative towards your points for opposition. Please be aware that opposing an article is a big issue, so the system shouldn't be abused. I've noticed that you have complained about very small issues, ones which can also be scraped off as incorrect even. Please consider my points and think about your vote, hence as I said above in accordance with Giants2008, its much more accurate and sensible to ask questions, get an answer and THEN make your decision. This process seems to have already been proved as working well based on the fact that you have just opposed on small issues which can easily be resolved or shredded away. I would like to remind everyone that this article has already been through numerous peer reviewers, both officially and unofficially, and all of the major points in the article were fixed up in that process.

• The same thing happens on other pages, not just football national team ones. This just helps with disambiguation issues, as the user won't have to be completely accurate when searching the page. In essence, both 'Croatia' and 'Croatian' are correct. I have gone ahead and made it the same as the article title in any case.
  • Thanks --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• When there is a mix of such, it is because the sentence can and sometimes does rotate from referring to the Croatian team to the actual Croatian republic.
  • Hmm. While that's the case in the first example I gave, it's not in the second and third examples. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• Your next point is a clear POV. I appreciate your help, and I am fixing up all your raised issues, but if you really wanted to contribute some points based on your own language preference then you should have participated in the peer review and made some additional adjustements to the page yourslelf instead of just telling people they are wrong simply because an article does not meet your own personal language preference. If this were the an eligible point, then it would be impossible for any article to satisfy the criteria because no piece of writing could possibly satisfy numerous different English-language style preferences. The sentence you just pointed out is one of many which was covered in the peer review. Semicolons are used often throughout this article, it makes it much easier to connect each sentence and is much more professional.
  • POV? What POV? I'm asking if it works in American English, and then made a suggestion that would eradicate the issue either way. However, a tautology is a problem regardless of American or English English. Incidentally, use of plural for the team is English English, so if you decide the article is in American English, you'll need to make the team singular. Your choice, but the article must be consistent. If the Peer reviewers missed it, I'm terribly sorry for you, but that doesn't give you carte blanche for the article to pass FAC. Furthemore, please don't tell FAC reviewers they should have participated in the Peer Review. It's a pointless comment and can do nothing other than irritate. I have no objections to semicolons, just poor use of English, such as tautologies (and mixed use of regional English). --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• Again, a small point like this is another one based on possible preference. The word 'scheduled' means that it is a planned and organized home match. Of course, the sentence does still work fine without that word, but this is another infinite issue; every article on WP has a few sentences with unnecessary words included. It holds its own advantages without really downgrading the article. Again, if you had problems with such a minor issue, you can easily go ahead and edit the page in a minor matter yourself or participate in the peer review, bringing them up as a means of opposing isn't really fair or acceptable.
  • Isn't every single match played by Croatia "scheduled"? They don't just turn up for training and find that an international side has mysteriously arrived for a game without anyone knowing. yes, it's a small point, but I'm arguing that the Lead (just four parags) is littered with small points which bring the quality down below FA standard. WP:WIAFA demands "prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Redundant words that seem to suggest implications that don't exist bring the article's quality down. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• Another minor issue which has been fixed up.
  • Great --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• This recommendation is incorrect. The article is talking about the team as a whole, not a single personal squad which achieved the results. Therefore, 'has' is much more accurate and appropriate. This is not an article on the current line-up of the squad, it is an article of the entire team itself throughout history.
  • The "has" v "have" aspect is just one of the fixes in the sentences, but as we're discussing it, you misunderstand: it's not a present/past tense issue, but a singular/plural, and part of making consistent the English English plural usage for the team that you've chosen. --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• Minor issue been fixed up.
• Excellent. --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• Either 'of' or 'towards' is perfectly fine. This is another point you have pulled out based on personal preference. Remember the old saying; if it is not broke, then don't fix it.
  • Not a personal preference, but correct usage. You don't scrutinise toward something, you scrutinise it. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• FIFA and UEFA are the highest authorities of Croatia's global footballing participation, as later explained in the Hierarchy section of the article. Additionally, UEFA control all European football, and Europe is factually one of the largest and most football-active continents in the world. Therefore, because UEFA hold a high seat in the control over football, especially in Croatia's case, they are, along with FIFA, the highest authorities of global football.
  • I understand all of the above. Please re-read my comment. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• Qualifying for a major tournament is at many times still mentioned as a major tournament. The major tournament itself is commonly called 'the finals of the tournament' or something similar. Every nation's major tournament campaign includes their qualifying process as well. Additionally, the sentence doesn't really need to contain every team in the top-five. I said Croatia defeated opposition within the top-five of the World Rankings and then gave some examples. I put England as the last example to give the idea that the stipulation doesn't really have to apply to them as well. They certainly have been in the top-five of the rankings before, and prior to their major downfall, they were ranked fairly higher.
  • You incorrectly imply that England were a top five club. This is misleading and must be addressed. And I think you'll find you're in a minority on whether qualifying tournaments are major tournaments, but that's the lesser issue here. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• WP never has to rely on a source to write an entire article. Sources are used as a means of delivering communication and proving they are correct. The article doesn't have to follow the exact words of the source, otherwise it could be put down for copyright. I know what volatile means, and you pretty much repeated my understanding definition of the word. Yes, it means that it goes up and down, just like Croatia's FIFA World Ranking. The sources provided clearly explain that Croatia were ranked 125th in 1994, went up to 3rd in 1998, and since then have had quite a ride. This information is still in the sources provided; it says that they were previously ranked around 12th and experienced a later downfall when they were ranked around 14th onwards, until finally coming back as high as 6th a few months ago, and so on. Additionally, they were ranked 5th not so long ago as well, and now they are back down to 7th. I hope I'm getting my point across about how it is more appropriate to ask questions or think more thoroughly before you act. If this is not volatile to you, then nothing possibly can be. No that word is not in any of the sources, that doesn't mean it cannot be included. WP relies on editors to write their own work in accordance with factual information found in sources.
  • I refer you to WP:NPOV and to WP:PEACOCK and to WP:WIAFA --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• I feel that you don't really know the actual meaning of the word "puppet state". There is an article on WP named Puppet state, I suggest you take a look at it as it itself is well referenced. The meaning of puppet state can also be found here which does coincide with what ref number 3 says - "During World War II, Germany and Italy founded the NDH (Independent State of Croatia)" - this means it was a puppet state as Croatia was still part of Yugoslavia, but temporarily controlled by another unofficial power. The same goes for the Banovina of Croatia. This is in no way POV, but rather factually correct information. Domiy (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • That's your opinion. It's a breach of WP:OR and WP:POV unless you're quoting a reliable source. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the reply. I hope you're not accusing me of "abusing the system" - I'm a pretty experienced FAC contributor, both as reviewer and nominator. You should know that the system is not a vote, nor is it even a !vote. Small issues, if they proliferate in a small space constitute a large issue, which is why I took the trouble to spell out in detail what I found. However, if I have erred on any, I'm always happy to reconsider. However, I would point out that if reviewers at FAC find significant problems, it's because peer review or copyediting has missed them. That happens all the time; it's annoying, but that's life.

I'll look through your detailed reply and respond asap. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to all your responses. My objection to this nomination stands, as this article does not conform to WP:WIAFA. I'm sorry that the other reviewers didn't do a better job; perhaps they were put off by aggressive / incorrect responses to suggested improvements? --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments - After my partial source review, here are some comments on other aspects of the article. Also left a note above.

• In most articles that I've seen here, footnotes go before the references. I like the idea of having a separate section for footnotes, though.
• Pre-independence: "During this time, Croatian sides were temporarily formed and competed seperately in unofficial matches, primarily due to unstable national borders which were controlled under a De jure government...". I'm pretty sure that De should be de-capitalized.
• Kranjcar and Bilic's revival: "Josip Simunic was mistakenly issued three yellow card warnings by Graham Poll, making him the only player to receive three bookings in a single match." Is he the only player in football history, or just in the World Cup? You might want to clarify this.
• Stadium: Capitalize stadium in the photo caption to match the other uses of Stadium in the section. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks Giants! I have used the story from the Jerusalem Post instead of the previous news group one, and went through and clarified all these other small things. Additionally, I went through the lead section and made sure the team is constantly referred to as 'it' rather than 'they'. Domiy (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The sheer number of errors in the use of the English language surprises me, and must be corrected for this to reach FA. Let me, purely by way of example, go through the first couple of paragraphs: First paragraph: "team supremacy" excuse me, what is that?

• "by 1993" Why not say the year the team became a UEFA and FIFA member?
• "the national team was previously sanctioned" Oh? What penalty did they get?
• "Although the team was authorized" Perhaps "recognized" is meant?
• "monarchy power" excuse me? What does that mean?

Second parapraph:

• "it's first appearance" grammar error.
• "third-place" Why the hyphen? And why is the no doubt noteworthy third place finish mentioned twice in the lede?

Just looking down through the article, I see quite a few similar odd usages and mistakes. I would suggest going through the article carefully. These are small points, admittedly, but a FA is supposed to have outstanding, compelling prose. I think we are still a long way from that with this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt, if you do not know the definition of some words used in an article, it does not mean they are incorrect. Again, no article is supposed to cater for every tiny specific need; this is impossible. FAC prose is supposed to be professional, if you don't understand what a word means, then use a dictionary.

• Team Supremacy - here.
• I could say both years, but I have chosen not to do so in the lead. The first few paragraphs clearly acknowledge that the team was formed in 1990 and was a fully certified member of both confederations by 1993, that leaves only a possible space of three years, so anyone can easily find out that they were obviously acknowledged between these three years. This information is thoroughly mentioned later in the article anyway. While it would be more than appropriate to include this information, it does not in any way mean it is incorrect not to do so.
• They got no 'penalty'. The definition of "sanctioned" is here. While I see how it is possible you got the wrong idea of the word (because it has two different usages and possible meanings), that still doesn't make it incorrect. Sanctioned means that the team was authorized and made 'eligible' or 'official', as opposed to being an unauthorized side.
• Either word is fine, again it doesn't mean that the current usage in any way incorrect.
• Monarchy power - here. It means that the nation was temporarily, officially or unofficially, ruled by a single person or affiliated government. During the time of Yugoslavia, this was the case with two temporary puppet states which were formed under a Croatian name, Independent State of Croatia and Banovina of Croatia. Croatia was still part of Yugoslavia, just temporarily separated under its own government ruling from Ante Pavelic and others. Also, please note that a wikilink is provided to the meaning of "monarchy". You should do some further reading before you ask accusing and opposing questions like this.

And thank you for your other grammar issues. Domiy (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I know what sanctioned means; my comment was a bit tongue in cheek. I know what supremacy and monarchy mean, thank you very much, I did quite well on my college entrance exams back in the Stone Age, the point is, that "team supremacy" and "monarchy power" do not make sense as English phrases. This is merely symptomatic, the article is simply strewn with such usages, and it is NOT the job of a FAC reviewer to do the dirty work for the nominator by pointing out every one, clean it up yourself please if you'd like to see this as a FA. And please remember that English is a subtle language, the many words we have mean that all words with identical meanings do not carry identical connotations, and there are a lot of jarring word usages in the article, a few of which I have pointed out. The prose is not up to FA standards; my oppose stands for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Second comment I should also add that, speaking as someone who has gone through four FAC's as an editor, with each being successful, that you maximize your chance of getting your article through if you work with reviewers in a friendly and collegial way. Everyone has their own wikistyle, I merely offer a suggestion that the nominator consider well his/her tone in dealing with reviewers. Reviewers want to see FAs, but they want to keep standards up, and they want the nominator to accept their comments in good heart. Being a FAC reviewer is a thankless task, and it is something I only dabble in, and I have great respect for those who have made it their wikitask to review most or all articles, especially considering the abuse they take from some editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The recent copyedits are a good start, but more is needed. Substantively, I'm concerned by footnote 24, which only goes to show Croatia's Independence Day and says nothing about the status of the team. I'd like to see some evidence that the team in question sprang into being Croatia's national team when it declared independence. Without official recognition from the nation, or FIFA or UEFA, I don't see why this would be so. Arguably, another organization could have started a team and (through whatever means, including bribery) had its team recognized as official. Additionally, the statement that Croatia could not play matches because FIFA still recognized Yugoslavia as reprsenting Croatian territory needs a citation.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your concern. However, in a democratic matter, I must point out that such is not necessary at all. WP requires citations/references for challenged statements only, that is statements which can easily be declared incorrect in a sensible manner. I assume you don't fully understand the process and regulations of FIFA and football representation at national level. I will tell you from an experienced point of view, these statements are easily correct without direct references. There is no way FIFA would ever allow a national team to play officially in competitive matches if they were not part of an officially recognised republic. This is an easily recognised fact. There are sufficient references which already explain how the team was formed. The same goes for the Yugoslavian statement. There is absolutely no way FIFA would recognise Croatia as a fully certified national team while they were a part of Yugoslavia. Just think about the complication this would cause. They were still the same country, hence a national team has to represent a separate national republic; this would be impossible by common logic. These are already recognised facts. Domiy (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not from this perspective. Since FIFA didn't recognize the side as Croatia's official side until 1992, its status in October 1991 needs establishing. Keep in mind also that Croatia was not internationally recognized at that point. You address this nowhere in your response. And as for your FIFA point, you yourself say in the article that there were temporary "national" sides when Croatia was occupied by the Axis, though still legally part of Yugoslavia. Please keep in mind that the average reader is not going to "fully understand the process and regulations of FIFA and football representation at national level" and is going to want to see that kind of statement supported by references, not just take your word for it. It is a bit of a circle, really, Croatia now regards its independence as October 8, 1991, but few if any countries recognized it at that point, and certainly Yugoslavia regarded it as part of its sovereign territory. That impacts your "common logic" point, if you think about it, arguably a Croat player could have chosen which side, Croat or Yugoslav, to play for. "Just think about the complication this would cause." I think references are needed here. You may also want to separate out the pre-Independence Day activities into its own subsection.

Please read my initial point. I am saying this in the most friendly manner, you are incorrect. And to tell you the truth, the reason I am not putting in references here is because such doesn't exist. Notice how well referenced the article currently is, I went though a great deal of effort finding all the sources. I have had no luck finding a source which directly states what you are asking; this certainly doesn't mean the statement is incorrect. It is indeed correct, so much so that nobody has even bothered to produce an article or statement about it. I have looked extensively in many source possibilities, including magazines and historic documents. Domiy (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The statement that the team which (according to you) came together spontaneously for the love of the game automatically became THE OFFICIAL Croatian national team upon an initially unrecognized declaration of independence is far from obvious. A neutral editor has told you this. There are serious WP:V, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems here. If you can't verify it, even if you know it to be true, take it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Part of the crying shame about this article is that the editors use the passive voice to cover over things that might be very interesting for the reader. I'd really be interested in hearing more about how it came to be that a team, of whatever status, was established in 1990, even while the Yugoslav team was (with Croatian players) enjoying considerable success, and about the efforts to get FIFA and UEFA to recognize the football federation, as well as about the pressures on the players to either stay with the Yugoslav team or jump to the new Croatian side. Did any stay with Yugoslavia through the end of the Euro '92 campaign? Yet in the article, the passive voice is way overused. The team just forms out of the blue, with none of the effort it took to do these things detailed. While I suspect there is some desire to adhere to Croatian political correctness (it is certainly visible in some of the other articles about Croatian/Yugoslavian football), this article could be very compelling if it gave more information about what was needed to carry on a football program in the time of the Balkans War. The same goes for the teams of the WWII era puppet states. How did these teams get organized? What was the purpose in having them play "international" friendlies? What was FIFA doing in recognizing them (not that FIFA had much power in 1941, I don't think England was even a member yet)? Did FIFA subsequently take away their status? Why were there Croatian teams in the 1950s? To say that they existed, without giving some information about why they were there, cheats the reader and raises comprehensiveness concerns.

Again, its good that you have such a concern and good feedback to give, but you are expecting information which doesn't exist. I have 'left out' this information because it isn't existent. There were no "efforts" to get the team recognised by FIFA. It's not a difficult recognition to earn. The FIFA criteria is fairly simple, if you have an officially recognised republic with a sufficient amount of competing players and an organised football federation which is willing to abide by the rules of FIFA, then you pretty much qualify for recognition. All you need to do is apply and wait. There were no efforts prior to Croatia's independence because everybody (including the nation and team themselves) knew it was impossible for them to become a member since they were a part of Yugoslavia. So all they could do was wait until they met the criteria. This is just what they did. They waited until they were declared independent. Your point about player's choice and "pressure" is seemingly biased as well. To be fair, you aren't expected to really know this so I will tell you know, such pressure did not exist. All the Croatian players were very eager to represent Croatia. I'm fairly certain that a few of them even admitted that Croatia would be the only national team they would want to represent; so if the Croatian team didn't exist, they still wouldnt play for Yugoslavia. Please consider the fact that these two countries fought a war and already had a bad history behind them, why would any Croatian player want to represent the country they just fought in a difficult war? There was no pressure at all, they all jumped to the Croatian side almost immediately. The puppet state national teams were organised as a means of desire. A group of Croatian, managers and other organisers wanted to form a separate team. It's not hard to figure out why. Why do footballers play football? It's their passion and life. The same goes for this team. They wanted to play football because they were footballers. The teams were organised because it became difficult for some players to play regularly in the Yugoslavian teams, and mostly because (once again) they just wanted to be recognised separately from the opposing Yugoslavian republic. They played friendly matches at their own will; these matches were mainly self organised. Why? Because the team wanted to play football against an opponent. There is no real significance over why they played friendly matches. And yes, it is later mentioned that the team lost their recognition and were only temporarily a FIFA member. Their status was taken away because the puppet states were broken off and Yugoslavia came into full power again. There is also no significance as to why there was a Croatian team in the 1950s; if there were a significant meaning, it would be mentioned. However this is not the case. The team existed quite simply because it wanted to. The players wanted to play seperately, even if it was in only a few unofficial games. Domiy (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you need to explain that with WP:RS. If it was an expression of defiance against Yugoslavia, it could be very interesting to the reader. And I think you simplify too much, the membership of Croatia and other Balkan states in international organizations in the early 1990s was very contentious. Kinda like this FAC. My comprehensiveness concerns remain. Things just don't happen spontaneously.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is still a host of odd usages (also found in your reply to me, and I urge you to seek a editor to help out who is a native English speaker) as well as MOS goofs like titling the section "Team Image" in all caps. Note that suggestions of ignorance re WP procedures or other areas of knowledge, as are common by the nominators both in this FAC and in the previous FACs, aren't going to advance this article towards FA. Please also keep in mind that Sandy is a champion nitpicker, and she won't pass this article until it meets FA standards, no matter how many times you nominate this article or how many editors you irritate into going away. Right now, it just isn't even close. It is better than it was, but it is not FA standard. I'm not even sure if it is GA standard, and am very tempted to ask for a reassessment if this article doesn't wind up passing here.

You are not automatically correct just because you point out some issues which are related to the WP guidelines. Please also note that this isn't a time to insult other people's work or other articles. This article passed GA because it meets the GA criteria, which is much more lenient than this FA criteria. You should also be more accurate in what you declare. Right now, it is easy to conclude that this article passes most of the FA criteria. It is sufficiently referenced, contains images, sticks to the point while not going into unnecessary detail (something which you wanted seeing as you want the article to include blatantly obvious and unnecessary information) and also has engaging language to some extent. Pointing out a few issues here and there (some of which have been proved wrong anyway) is not a sufficient ground for saying this article is not even close to the FA or GA criteria. Domiy (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You've failed FAC four times. Res ipsa loquitur. As for GA, we may see if you can't salvage this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Also, what does Image:Soccer.Field Transparant.png convey that words cannot?

It is a simple, quick and aesthetically pleasing conveyance of information regarding the Golden Generation of the Croatian squad. Naming every player in the squad at that time, and then going through to expand upon which position they played in and which formation was used is a waste of time and space, and goes into necessary detail. However, with the diagram/image, it is much easier and appropriate. Words cannot explain where each player was positioned on the pitch; it may be possible to concert this into prose, but it would be very long and unnecessary. It would also become pretty much impossible for someone who is not knowledged on football to understand. Hence the use of the image. Domiy (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And why is this needed for a general article on the Croatian team?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• In the final analysis, this article has tremendous potential to tell a compelling story. It isn't doing that yet, it isn't even close, and to be blunt, the attitude of the nominators, and their unwillingness to make changes to satisfy legitimate concerns, is getting in the way and making this article the Harold Stassen of FAC (or maybe that's unfair to Roman Catholic Church).--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this article tells everything there is to tell. You would have had a lot of fun during the FAC and FARC of Scotland national football team; it seems that your points may have had some place there. Scotland is a much more historic and 'story-telling' team than Croatia. As I have already said, there is no story to tell on this article. Everything necessary is included; you are just asking for some additional facts which do not exist. Domiy (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that taking a team from effectively nothing to the World Cup semifinals in eight years is a hell of a story. Scotland has more of a history, but not so dramatic. If you told this one better, you'd have your FA. My oppose stands on prose, comprehensiveness and image (both the ones I brought up and also Dweller's and those unresolved from prior FACs). Please go back and reread my advice about how you should be working with reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If you wish me to reconsider based on actual changes to the article, please let me know either here or on my talk page. I will likely be without internet access unless I find a cafe, until December 9.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think a reconsideration couldn't hurt; will save me time of nominating this again. A lot of changes have been made, however your 'story telling' desire remains an ongoing instability. There are many reasons for and against that approach, so it isn't really applicable just yet. Domiy (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I will be happy to reconsider when you change the article per my objections. You haven't even taken care of the image problems you promised Dweller that you would, let alone my concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:48, 6 December 2008 [29].

---

Acid dissociation constant

Nominator(s): Petergans

previous FAC (23:04, 25 October 2008)

The article has been extensively revised in the light of FAC-type comments and I believe that it now conforms to WP:MOS. There has been much discussion regarding references. The current text follows Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines.

The content of this article is mostly “”common knowledge”, that is, it can be found in a wide variety of text-books on physical, inorganic, organic and analytical chemistry.. Whereas no one text-book covers all the subject matter, the advantage of WP is that it is not tied a specific teaching program and can provide broader coverage. The fact that a number of text-books are cited provides the general basis for verifiability and reduces the need to support every single paragraph with a citation. The items in acid dissociation constant#further reading provide additional verifiability support. Note also that I follow the normal procedure in chemistry, of placing the reference number close to the item being referenced, whenever it would be ambiguous as to what is being referenced if that reference were placed at the end of the sentence or paragraph. Petergans (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I supported the previous nomination already, and now the article is even better, so there's not much else I can say. --Itub (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I spent some time after the last FAC trying to identify MOS issues with the article, and everything I could find has been fixed. I also went through the content from the point of view of a layman with a moderately technical background; everything I found that needed clarification has been improved upon or expanded. The article now meets FAC standards and I am happy to support. Mike Christie (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how to deal with the MoS requirement to avoid special characters in section headings: I left a query at Wikipedia talk:Accessibility#ACCESS check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Although accurate and comprehensive, this technical article would be less of a chore to read if some attention was paid to the prose. Throughout the article complicated phrases are used to express relatively simple thoughts. Here are some examples:

• "For a quantitative understanding" - does this mean "to measure"?
• "...also a prerequisite.." - how about "necessary"?
• "When operating under the assumption that.." - why not "If it is assumed" or even "Assuming that.."
• "..has a limited solubility.." - "does not dissolve well"?
• ".. with the addition of.." - "by adding"?

These are just a few random examples; there many more. There are other problems such as "it has a measurable pKa range" - so what is the unmeasurable range? Here, "all protons have been removed", have they, or are they still there but no longer free? I also noticed that Pauling's rules are linked in the body but not the Lead and I fixed one typo. I feel bad by opposing this FAC because I know the amount of blood sweat and tears that goes into these candidates, but the article does need more work. Graham Colm ^Talk 13:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are getting at, but I fear that we are dealing with differences between the language used in science and in general. The phrase "quantitative understanding" was chosen carefully. It actually means understanding of quantities that cannot be measured experimentally, as opposed to "qualitative understanding" which means knowing, roughly, what is going on. "Prerequite" is used because the pK_a values have to be determined before the other study can begin. "solubility" is a quantitative concept, but "dissolving well" is qualitative, and so on. I put this question to Graham Colm: Surely the use of precise language is important in a featured article, even if the language is somewhat convoluted? The "chore" is rewarded by a deeper understanding of the topic. May I also add that the language has already been given a very thorough going over by Mike Christie, as detailed above. Petergans (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course precise language is needed, but I disagree with you regarding convolution. I am watching this page and I will be interested to see what other reviewers have to say. And, with regard to precision, why is there a mixture of " pK_a values" and "pK values" in the article? Graham Colm ^Talk 19:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm reinstating my oppose because of this edit summary:[30]. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

On the specific point, the subscript may be dropped if it clear from the context that subscript "a" is implied, not the alternative "b". Petergans (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Support and comments. An excellent article, with no obvious errors or omissions (although my chem degree is very ancient). Very clear exposition. Three quibbles

• A knowledge of twice in last sentence of lead
• Factors that determine the relative strengths of acids stray struck through sentence

That was work in progress which is now complete. Petergans (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Final refs not in numerical order

jimfbleak (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Current ref 9 (Project: Ionic..) is lacking a last access date.

donePetergans (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, such as IUPAC.

done Petergans (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 20, the author appears to be http://www.chem.wisc.edu/areas/reich/

How come? I used the citation gadget on my toolbar, which made no mention of author. Petergans (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the "home" page for the information in this ref http://www.chem.wisc.edu/areas/reich/pkatable/. The sidebar at the bottom says "This page by Hans J. Reich" also, which would indicate authorship. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, Reich is the copyright holder for the web-page, but ref. 20 gives the table title "Bordwell pKa Table (Acidity in DMSO) " as Reich has taken the data from Bordwell, who in turn extacted it from the literature. Please suggest how this reference needs to be modified. Petergans (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 22 (Rochester, C. H....) needs a page number/chapter/section

This is a general reference as with those in the applications section.Petergans (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Same for current ref 23 (Olah...), current ref 43 (Dunn...), current ref 43 (Martin...), current ref 44 (brenner...), current ref 45 (Scorpio...), current ref 46 (Beynon...), current ref 47 (Perrin...), current ref 48 (Garfin...), current ref 49 (Hulanicki...), current ref 51 (Avdeef...), current ref 53 (van Leeuwen...), current ref 55 (Stumm...), current ref 56 (Snoeyink...), current ref 57 (Millero...).

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Refs 40 and higher numbers are in the "Applications and Significance" section. I asked Peter about specific page numbers for these in a review I did on the talk page; it seems that for many of these references much or all of the work cited covers the topic discussed. I think that means it's OK not to cite page numbers in those cases. Mike Christie (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh. How big are these works? If they are 200 pages plus, it's going to be hard to satisfy WP:V if folks have to look through 200 pages. I mean, by that logic, I could just cite a biography of William the Conqueror to two footnotes and have done with it (there are two major scholarly biographies at the moment) since "much or all of the work covers the topic discussed"... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:V has nothing to do with how much work someone has to do to verify the citation: if it did, we would ban all non-Internet citations and all citations in languages other than English. On the other hand, for example, there are plenty of verifiable citations that Person X is a criminal, but they should not be used for other reasons (eg, X was acquitted on appeal). Whatever happen to WP:AGF? Physchim62 (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Calm, calm, please. I am not suggesting that you've made up anything, just that generally if the work is large, we try to cite a range of pages, or chapters, for the ease of readers following up on citations. I'm not sure why asking for a smaller range of information than a whole work is assuming bad faith. I even asked what size the works are, because if they are small works, then yes, citing the whole work makes sense. Note that WP:V says "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, after this comment I'll let Peter reply, since he's familiar with these sources and I'm not, but here's an example of what I meant. "Assessing the hazard associated with an acid or base may require a knowledge of pKa values" is cited to "van Leeuwen, C.J.; Hermens, L. M. (1995). Risk Assessment of Chemicals: An Introduction". My understanding is that the entire book deals with assessing hazards, and that the need for a knowledge of pK_a values is not something that is mentioned only on a specific page. The reference serves not only to verify, but also as a general index to the topic. Since the applications and significance section covers topics at a high level, this seems reasonable to me. I also suspect the statements made here are so generally accepted in the field that they would not be regarded as controversial, and so do not need citations; again I'll wait for Peter to comment on that. Mike Christie (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added the page numbers for the risk assessment book. It took all of 30 seconds of Google Books search. I think there may be some culture shock at work here. In my experience, giving page numbers when citing books in chemistry is largely optional in the real world, because all chemistry books worth citing have good indexes and tables of contents. Textbooks and other technical books tend to go through several editions, so the page numbers change even if the facts don't change. As a reader, it is generally more useful to rely on the indexes and forget about the page numbers. --Itub (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ivan (Itub ) has made all the points that I was making when there was an edit conflict. Petergans (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that in chemistry they don't do page numbers, but this isn't a chemistry book, it's wikipedia. I'm fine with using general references when the work is entirely and only on the subject of the information being sourced, but I'm pretty sure that, for example, the 300 pages of Acidity Functions isn't given over entirely and completely to the Acid Dissociation Constant. I am really not asking the editors of the article to do anything that other articles don't have to do either, or that isn't supported by policy. You're welcome to cite chapters or sections, but when the work isn't devoted completely to the information being sourced, the burden is on the editors to make sure it's verifiable. To use an example from my own writing interests, most scholarly history works have good indexes and tables of content, but this doesn't allow me to just cite a book without a page number or range on a wikipedia article. However, since we're arguing in circles here, I'm more than happy to leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, it should be something all reviewers consider. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And the reference to acidity functions isn't a reference, it's a note as to where more information can be obtained. It is arguably redundant to the wikilink to our acidity function article, but it is truly fair to say that the entire book deals with acid dissociation constants, mainly at a level which would be inappropriate for this article. The sentence should even need a reference, it is so blatantly obvious to anyone who knows what an acidity function is: however, those who propose articles for FA must suffer the consequences, as must the articles themselves it seems. Physchim62 (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's not bite Ealdgyth. I am thankful for all her thorough reference checks at FAC, and it's not really her who made up the rules. My opinion is that if it just takes a minute to find something in a book by using the index, the spirit of WP:V is fully satisfied (readers are perfectly able to verify the content of the article, and the policy template at the top of WP:V refers to "use common sense"...), even though the letter of the policy says something about including page numbers. But I don't mind including page numbers when I write; I see it as relatively innocuous compared to some of the many other hoops that need to be jumped at FAC. --Itub (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

One way to resolve this issue would be to move all the general references into Further reading, which is what they are there for. Page numbers would then not needed. To have do that would be, in my opinion, a triumph of style over content, but I'd rather do it than prolong this discussion any further. Petergans (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article, while otherwise well-written and excellently-sourced, is incredibly arcane for most readers. If this were an article about an obscure concept or "deep science" topic, it would be more understandable. That is not the case in this instance, where the article is about a ground-level chemistry topic. The Manual of Style is relevant to this concern, as it addresses both jargon and the accessibility of technical articles. If the current editors are unsure of how to achieve this goal, it may be helpful to recruit an editor or two with some experience in improving the accessibility of scientific topics. This is by no means intended to denigrate the effort expended on the article. I truly appreciate the hard work that has gone into this article, the quality of the sources and the comprehensiveness of the information provided. Vassyana (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

  I spent some time reviewing the article and trying to improve the readability. It may be ground-level chemistry in your eyes, but to me, with no chemistry background, it seems quite a technical topic, so I'm not sure what to say there. On the readability question, could you provide some examples of unnecessarily technical prose? Mike Christie (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

  Is it really more wikt:arcane than "Prince of the Cumbrians and later King of the Scots. The youngest son of Máel Coluim mac Donnchada and Margaret" or "he became a hanger-on at the court of King Henry I and experienced long exposure to Norman and Anglo-French culture"? Both of them are examples from today's featured article, the bit that's currently on the front page, not the article itself, which is full of examples of terms needing explanation for non-specialists. The acid dissociation constant is neither ground level or specialised. It is usually introduced round about the first year of university studies in chemistry, depending on the country, but is sufficiently complicated that the latest official reference from IUPAC was in 2006. I would invite the opposer to strike the opposition as excessively subjective. Physchim62 (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

  I agree that arcaneness lies in the eye of the beholder; for example, I personally find some featured articles about sports hard to understand and full of jargon. I know that "other crap exists" is not a fashionable argument in Wikipedia, but since featured articles are officially considered to be Not Crap, I will venture to try it here. --Itub (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

  David I of Scotland is hardly anywhere near as arcane and incomprehensible to a general reader as acid dissociation constant. The strength of an acid in solution is a basic chemistry topic. As you mention, adc is common in first-year chemistry studies. I'm not looking for a miracle or complete rewrite of the article. I am simply looking for some explanation and presentation that will allow a general educated reader to make sense of the topic. I am not a chemist, but I am familiar with the topic and the article was difficult to parse for me. If I already have some passing familiarity with the topic and I find the article difficult to digest, it certainly does not meet WP:MTAA. Vassyana (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

  It would really help if you could give some specific examples of sentences or paragraphs that you feel could be improved. Mike Christie (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

  The strength of an acid in solution is a basic chemistry topic, but if we covered only the basic level stuff, in a way understandable to the "general reader" we would either end up with a very short article or would have to include a large chunk of a general chemistry textbook as part of the article. The article would also be incomplete and would look more like a textbook than an encyclopedia article. In my opinion, this article already goes out of its way in trying to explain related concepts that are not the main topic of the article, all in the name of accessibility. For more details, see my post in the previous nomination.[31] If you have any specific suggestions on how it can be made more accessible, it would be very helpful. --Itub (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

  It is, unfortunately, inevitable that non-scientists will have difficulty in reading scientific articles. The level of difficulty will vary from one person to another. Even people with a scientific background may have to work hard to understand an unfamiliar topic. I think the test should be: if someone is interested in the topic can that person appreciate it, even if it requires some effort over and above the normal effort of reading. Does the article meet that test Vassyana? Let me just add that there is no jargon in the article, only well-established scientific terminology. Petergans (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• (outdent) (edit conflict) Let me be clear in stating that I am not asking for anything to be removed from the article. On the contrary, it would be a detriment to the comprehensiveness to effectively neuter the coverage. However, as currently written and presented, anything outside of the basic definition of the topic is beyond the capacity of the general reader. I strongly disagree that the article "goes out of its way" in any fashion for the sake of accessibility. As I mention above, I know what the article is about and have some familiarity with it, but I still have some serious difficulty in parsing the article. This leads me to believe the article will be almost entirely incomprehensible for the general reader. It is exceedingly difficult to pick apart specific examples for an endemic problem, as this often leads to "patchwork" solutions that do not address the underlying issue. Some specific suggestions:

• The lede. It is dense and difficult to follow. Avoid equations in the introduction. Replace jargon with simpler language. Explain in the plainest language possible, without oversimplifying into the realm of inaccuracy, what the article is about. A couple of examples of what would leave a general reader baffled before they even get through the lede:

• "In aqueous solutions, acids that release a single proton are partially dissociated to an appreciable extent in the pH range pKa ± 2."
• "Structural effects, such as intra-molecular hydrogen bonding, can also be important. pKa can be experimentally determined by potentiometric (pH) titration, but for values of pKa less than about 2 or more than about 11 spectrophotometric or NMR measurements may be required."

• Presentation. The introduction should not be so technical and jargon-heavy that a lay reader will not bother to get through the lede. The general reader should be able to walk away with a solid understanding of what the topic is basically about and how it basically works, while chemistry savvy readers should still be able to walk away with a technical understanding. These are not mutually incompatible goals. The article could generally progress from a layman's explanation to technical details.
• Some basic examples of what needs to be made clear:

• Be clear and explicit that "hydrogen ion" means a proton.
• Be clear and explicit that dissociation, in context, simply means the donation of a proton.
• Be clear and explicit that the adc indicates how readily an acid will donate a proton.

• Some examples of clear language are already extant, but (for a general reader) they are essentially buried in the article. For example, the following is found only after the arcane lede and three mildly technical definitions:

• "The acid donates a proton to the base. The conjugate base is what is left after the acid has lost a proton and the conjugate acid is created when the base gains a proton."

The article is informative, comprehensive and interesting. In contrast, it is equally inaccessible for most readers. The topic is not so specialized or arcane that an accessibile presentation is an unduly burdensome request. Vassyana (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• If I had the slightest suspicion that these criteria were applied consistently to featured article candidates, then I might have some motivation to address them. However, I think this is a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, of FA reviewers pushing an article to be worse in their attempts to make it jump through arbitrary hoops. Physchim62 (talk) 10:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please assume that I am acting in good faith. A request for accessibility does not seem unreasonable or an undue burden for a relatively basic chemistry topic. The Manual of Style addresses the accessibility of technical topics. As it relates to both MoS requirements and comprehensible prose, the objection is clearly relevant to FA criteria 1a and 2. Vassyana (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Vassyana, I understand your concerns, but you are making the assumption that simpler language is always possible. If that were true it would have been done already. You are confusing jargon, which is a kind of slang, with scientific terminology which allows for precise expression of concepts. Let me deconstruct the sentence "In aqueous solutions, acids that release a single proton are partially dissociated to an appreciable extent in the pH range pKa ± 2" to illustrate what I mean. aqueous - in water; solution - to distinguish from solid or gas; acid - a particular kind of chemical compound; single - to distinguish from acids in general; proton - the particle that is released; partially - to distinguish from complete; dissociated - as in the topic title; appreciable - giving rise to an observable effect; pH range - a quantitative statement showing how the title subject can be applied. The lead-in is necessarily terse as it is a summary. BTW you have not answered my question, above, so I will repeat it. If someone is initially interested in the topic can that person appreciate it, even if it requires some effort over and above the normal effort of reading? Please try to give an objective answer, not just one based on your personal experience. Petergans (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• I am asserting that some complementary simpler language is possible for entry-level topics, not that it is always possible for academic topics. I have stricken the reference to jargon, as it is inaccurate as you correctly point out. However, the absence of jargon does not preclude problems with general accessibility. There is no reason that a general audience treatment cannot accompany the more precise and exacting treatment. I did not raise an issue with the terseness of the lede. I expressed concern that it was dense and difficult to follow. To put it another way, the lede is complex and bewildering for a general reader. No, I do not believe the article would generally be appreciated by someone with an initial interest in the topic. For the most part, it will only be useful and interesting to readers with a solid grounding in chemistry and/or familiar with the specific topic. Vassyana (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• (outdent) I can't help chipping in here. I'm sure that Vassyana is acting in good faith, but I think he is misguided. To make the article "accessible" it would have to be dumbed down to a level at which it is essentially meaningless in terms of the article title. I don't think that it's an FA criterion that the reader doesn't have to put in some effort on the more intellectually demanding areas. The Problem of Apollonius isn't an easy read either (first sentence starts In Euclidean plane geometry, Apollonius' problem is to construct circles that are tangent...) - perhaps that article should be sent to FA review? jimfbleak (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I might have started this discussion. I never meant to suggest that scientific terms should not be used or imply that the article should be turned into baby food. It was the use of expressions like "when operating under the assumption that" and other wordy phrases that rattled my cage. I have withdrawn my opposition, but I wish the nominator would make some effort to address these criticisms—I cannot see any changes to the article that have been made in an attempt to reach a consensus on this. Graham Colm ^Talk 15:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) I'm not asking that the article as a whole be "dumbed down". I state multiple times above that I am not looking for material to be removed. I am asking for additional material that allows a general reader to comprehend the topic. Vassyana (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is that the MoS is inconsistent, and Vassyana is only using those parts which appeal. The article as it stands in 69k of wikitext. A relatively high proportion (compared to other FACs) of that is in tabular material, equations and references. WP:SIZE comments that "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose." The article is at 5000 readable words, without counting tables and equations, by a quick run through a well-known word processor. Let us accept that, with equations, technical language and tabular material, the article is 'content-dense'. So, should the authors:

1. expand the article, thereby risking FACR 4 and WP:SIZE (personally, I find it ironic that this should even be suggested, given that Vassyana apparently finds the article difficult to read already); or
2. move material to other articles, thereby risking FACR 1(b); or
3. remove material, thereby risking FACR 1(a–d), and in particular FACR 1(a) which states that the prose should be of a "professional standard"?

• I'm honestly (but only intellectually) interested in comments. Physchim62 (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The "readable prose size" of the article is only 27Kb; I don't think there's any risk of the article becoming too long. I don't see any suggestions to trim it by moving or cutting material, so I think we're OK there. I'm not sure what Vassyana meant by "additional material", but given his earlier comments it may be that he is still looking for some rephrasing.

I copyedited the article myself, and by the time I was done I felt the article was clearly written. However, every copyeditor has blind spots, and I think it's entirely possible that another pass by a copyeditor familiar with technical writing would help. Graham's example of wordy prose ("when operating under the assumption that") could probably be improved. The point at issue doesn't seem to be whether the material is accurate or complete, just whether it could be rephrased in a way that would be more readable to a non-technical audience. Chemistry reference works are likely to elide explanations that are helpful to general readers; but conversely, few general readers will find their way to this article, and some understanding of the background facts of basic chemistry can be assumed. We're not going to explain what an atom is, for example; and I'd say that the fact that a hydrogen ion is a proton is something that doesn't need to be made explicit here. But another look at the prose with an eye to readability is a good idea. I will ask someone to take a look, but they may not have the time or inclination to help, so it would also be good if the chemists reading this could try to look at the prose with a fresh eye. There may well be places, such as the phrase Graham mentioned, where improvements can be made. Mike Christie (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the lead, to try to introduce the subject as clearly as possible to people with no background in chemistry. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tim!, at last we have another editor who sees the bigger picture. The Lead is much improved—the whole article needs similar attention (IMHO).Graham Colm ^Talk 21:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing that TimVickers reverted his edits per objections here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for the moment. If that's an "improvement" in the eye's of FAC reviewers, then I can only implore the nominator to withdraw the candidacy. While acting in the best of faith, Tim has substituted precise and incorrect terms for precise and correct ones, so nixing the scientific value of the lead. Physchim62 (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which piece did I get wrong? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Was that the problem? But you said "terms" so there must be something else. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That was the worst, with serious errors on both lines edited, but this is also very confusing from the point of view of complex formation. Physchim62 (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've placed the science on the article talk page, as this page is already getting long. It seems that my objection to the second edit wasn't Tim's fault at all: my apologies. It's amazing how you miss things when you've read an article too many times… Physchim62 (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Physchim62, the scientific content has been seriously degraded and some edits are unacceptable. May I make two pleas:

1. Don't edit the text unless you are thoroughly conversant with the subject matter and understand the technical terms.
2. Do your edits first in a sandbox. Its going to take me ages to work through the dozens of multiple edits from the last few days.

One of the things that concerned us when preparing the article for FAC was length. If, as now appears to be the case, length is not an issue, I can certainly expand some parts and give more explanation. Petergans (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, since I seem to have accidentally introduced other errors that I didn't catch, I've reverted my changes. I'm sorry to have caused any problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the exact comment now, but one previous criticism was that the older version of the article used a sort of 'semi-summary' style. Another way of improving the readability would be move some of the discussion of, for example, non-aqueous solvents to their respective articles, linked with a {{main}} tag but retaining enough information here to illustrate the importance of the specific (linked) topic. IMHO! Physchim62 (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Final revisions

• Thank you, Tim, for withdrawing your edits. The current text has been very finely honed over a long period of time. Clarity cannot be improved by merely tinkering with it. I have therefore gone through the entire text again, trying to improve clarity. The major changes are
  • modified lead-in
  • introduced the image for the thermodynamic standard sign
  • removed the paragraph "When operating under the assumption ..." This was added by user:eaglefalconn and I have left it in up till out of respect for that editor. In its place I've added a brief description of how to make a buffer solution, in the section monoprotic acids.
  • clarified the bit about strong acids
• If any further changes might seem desirable then please be specific about them; I can't amend generalities. Petergans (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I would strongly suggest putting the sentence of the lead

  For an acid-base equilibrium between a generic acid (HA) and its conjugate base (A⁻), HA ⇌ A⁻ + H⁺. K_a is defined, subject to certain conditions, as

$K_{a}=\mathrm {\frac {[A^{-}][H^{+}]}{[HA]}}$

where [HA], [A⁻] and [H⁺] are equilibrium concentrations of the reactants.

in words.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: After reading part of the article, it's completely inaccessible. I'm a master's student in physics, (I started in chemistry), and I can barely make sense the lead even after multiple reads! The lead contains weird sentences, some with vague statements such as "under certain conditions" (which?), or some overly technical/precise such as "the larger the value the more the acid is dissociated, at a given concentration, into its conjugate base and the hydrogen ion." etc... Needs to be re-written so readers don't spent half an hour trying to figure out what exactly is the article talking about. More examples below

• Introduces technical concepts with little to no explanation for laypeople

Monoprotic acid/polyprotic (in the lead), what are they?

• Gibbs free energy is thrown as if we all know what it represents
• Same goes for enthalphy
• Exothermic and endothermic could probably be changed into (releases energy) and (absorbs energy) or something similar
• "Acidic behaviour can also be characterised in non-aqueous solutions." such as...?
• "Pauling's rules" wikiling that would probably be a good idea.
• Etc...

Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: The lead is far too technical. Describe the formula (Ratio of Products and Educts). Don't assume the reader to know what is log_10. etc... There are so many examples which have been described above. Vb (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply to last two The artice conforms to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Nowhere in those criteria does it say that the article has to understandable by everyone. Rather, the first sentence is "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation". This is a professional presentation of the subject matter. For an elementary introduction look to a school chemistry book. Petergans (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The criteria states it must be "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"...the comments above demonstrate a not well-written article.--Jorfer (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What JEF said. "Professional" does not mean "understandable by only trained professionals". There are things in science that are too complicated to be really understood by layfolks because they are so arcane and abstract, just pick any subject in condensed matter physics. What the acid dissociation constant is is something that can be understood even by high school students. While there's a lot more than what high school covers that can be said about it, it never becomes so complicated that scientists that are not chemists can't get the hang of it. This is not about sacrificing scientific accuracy for a lie-to-children type of thing, it's simply about writing for a non-specialist audience.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

These comments apply only to the lead-in. The lead-in is a summary, not the place to introduce details. Once the reader starts on the body of the article, the language become much simpler and explanations are given. Rutherford is quoted as having said that any scientific topic should be capable of being explained to a barmaid. I agree. If I had an attentive barmaid and a day or two to do it, I could explain it to her. After that, she would probably be able to understand the lead-in, but I would probably be banned from the bar!

In reply to Jorfer, both jimfbleak and Vassyana have said (above) that the article is well-written. Mike Christie has said that it is clearly written. Petergans (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. IMO, the lead is the place to summarize things in a way people can understand them, and I do not consider articles with such a technical lead relative to the subjects inherent complexity to be Wikipedia's finest.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Simply repeating your point is not getting us anywhere. Believe me, if I knew of any way to present this complex material in a simpler way it would have been done long ago. Tim Vickers made an honest attempt at broadening the appeal. While this was welcomed by some, like Graham Colm because it appeared to do the job, in fact it was completely unacceptable from the scientific point of view. What is needed is constructive criticism. So far I have only seen suggestions which amount to dumbing down and these are not professionally acceptable. Petergans (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - As a Chemistry Education major, I feel this article is not Featured Article status. I have not gone through the entire revised article, but the parts that I have I find access and comprehensiveness issues. The ones I am about to mention are easily fixed but point to a lack of quality:

• K_b is explained as "Historically the equilibrium constant K_b for a base was defined as the association constant for protonation of the base, B, to form the conjugate acid, HB⁺." An explanation of this in simpler terms should have followed. The K_b is the inverse of the K_a. It is the opposite of the K_a, which has the formation of the conjugate base on top, as the K_b has the formation of the conjugate acid on top.
• How can you mention K_w without mentioning that at SATP its value is 1.0×10⁻¹⁴. This is the value that the entire pH scale is based off of.
• I had to change "In common parlance the acid is said to be fully dissociated." to "It is thus referred to as fully dissociated (even though it is technically not)" which was then changed to "Hydrochloric acid is said to be "fully dissociated" in aqueous solution because the amount of undissociated acid is imperceptible." The third statement is not even true. Of course the undissassociated acid is perceptible, that is why it has an estimated pK_a of -9.3 and not -infinity. Negligible would have been the appropriate word to use there.--Jorfer (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? It makes more sense to state that K_b is the inverse of K_a? It may be mathematically true, but is neither informative nor always chemically intuitive. K_b is the association constant of a base with a proton. It does not require that you care about the conjugate acid. Its just an equilibrium constant like the acid dissociation constant. And for this reason, there is no article on base dissociation constant, because its a redundancy (hence the term historically).

The pH scale is not in any way dependent on the value of K_w. Nor is the definition of pH. The only thing dependent on K_w is whether we consider something acidic or basic in aqueous media, which as the current article addresses is not the only possible solvent and that pK_as will change across solvents. I will agree that not mentioning its value was an oversight, but its not as big a deal as you make it out to be.

I don't understand your quibble with how I originally phrased the point about HCl dissociation levels. The first variation of that sentence says everything that the second and third one says in fewer words. Also, that estimated pK_a does not come from experiment, it comes from estimation from determining the change in Gibbs Free Energy for the reaction. So no, imperceptible may still be correct. EagleFalconn (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

All three of Jorfer's bullet points are wrong; this is the perfect example of the dangers of oversimplification. 1) Kb is not the inverse of Ka. In water, it is Kw/Ka. It is not even the equilibrium constant for the reverse reaction, and it could only be called an "inverse" in a very loose sense. 2) There is no such thing as a pH "scale". A common misconception, usually introduced in middle or high school, is that pH can only go from 0 to 14, which look suspiciously related to Kw. But in fact, pH is not fundamentally restricted to this range, even in water. However, I agree that mentioning the value of Kw wouldn't hurt. 3) As far as I know, the association of HCl in dilute aqueous solution is in fact imperceptible (i.e., cannot be detected experimentally using current methods). The pKa can be estimated from extrapolations from other solvents, or thermodynamic or theoretical data. But as far as I know it can't be measured directly in aqueous solution. --Itub (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, since the article discusses everything in terms of K_a, it is simpler to explain K_b as the opposite of K_a (acid association is the opposite of acid disassociation). For Itub, since K_w is accepted to be a constant at a given temperature and pressure, Kw/Ka = Constant x 1/K_a, thus K_b is inversely proportional to K_a, since it is the value of the opposite process.

Regardless of the actual legitimacy of the pH scale as presented in middle and high school, the pH value of 7 is considered neutral in it because of the SATP value of K_w.

My quibble about the HCl acid sentence is that it originally used the term parlance, the word vernacular easily would have improved access to the article without taking away any content as has been argued about making the article make more sense. Whatever the case, further explanation was important in improving access to the article. The problem with imperceptible was negligible gives a better idea than imperceptible even though imperceptible does not mean unable to be perceived which I originally thought before looking it up. Since the pKa is said to be taken from thermodynamics, it is perceptible (temperature can be felt so it is perceivable), so even though imperceptible can accommodate a barely perceptible phenomenon, negligible would be more exact.

The point of this is that this is just evidence of an article not ready for featured article status rather than the sole problems needing to be fixed to be featured article worthy.--Jorfer (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

But K_b is not the opposate of K_a! See my and Itub's earlier comments to this point.

pH of 7 is considered neutral for water ONLY.

Parlance - Noun, Manner or mode of speech. Vernacular - Adjective, using a language or dialect native to a region or country rather than a literary, cultured, or foreign language (both from Merriam Webster). A subtle difference, but regardless of which term you prefer it doesn't significantly change the meaning of the article enough to merit voting it down. As you mention, you previously incorrectly used the word imperceptible. You should probably look up thermodynamics since you're misuing that word too. Please stop critisizing content of articles for which you are not well versed. EagleFalconn (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• If you don't want to call it the opposite that is fine, but it should at least be explained as the inverse. The fact is that it can be thought of as opposite because if K_a represents the forward reaction, K_b represents the reverse reaction. The inverse relationship between K_a and K_b needs to be noted.
• OK, it only applies to water, so I may be exaggerating the values importance, but water is the most common solvent. We agree that it should be mentioned though, so no more as far as that.
• Vernacular - Noun or Adjective (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vernacular)...In the case of the former: "the native speech or language of a place"
• Fair enough, Thermodynamics does not involve just enthalpy but entropy as well. Whatever the case, whether indirectly or directly, if a value can be estimated for it, then it must be able to be evaluated empirically which, whether directly or indirectly, will involve a perceptible process.

--Jorfer (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thermodynamics is a significantly broader field than just entropy and enthalpy. In fact, enthalpy is not even a fundamental concept within thermo, it is a derived one. Just because a value can be estimated does not mean it can be measured. See statistical thermodynamics and Partition function (statistical mechanics). Short story: There are events for which there are incredibly small probabilities of occuring, but by probability they must take place on some level. However, we are not capable of measuring these events and are in some cases will always be incapable of measuring them due to quantum mechanical limitations. EagleFalconn (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support and Strong Comments. This article is exceptionally well written, with the possible exception of the lead (see below). It leaves out no detail, and is presented in such a way that any reader with a high school understanding of chemistry and an introduction to basic equilibria would be able to follow. Regarding the lead: While the lead is somewhat opaque, I think this is a resolvable issue. See my proposed lead here. It maintains the vast majority of the details of the lead, which follows a logical structure of qualitatively defining the ADC, quantitatively defining it and then defining some of its basic aspects, followed by its broader applications.

  The proposed lead is fine apart from one point. The temperature dependence of K_a is mentioned a couple of sentences later. I have added a sentence to explain that K_a values are dependent on the ionic strength of the medium in which they are determined. I have substituted it, with that modification, into the article. Petergans (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

For those who are worried about "undefined terms" in the lead: This is not a basic chemical article. It does require an introduction to chemistry. But what you are requiring in terms of detail and introduction in the lead would require an article to be created, "Introduction to the Acid dissociation constant article." It is logically inconsistant and a slipperly slope for Petergans to not be able to assume that (and I'm pulling examples out of the FAC Nom comments) readers will not know what a logarithm is, the structure of the atom (Hydrogen ion = proton), dissociation = splitting of a chemical compound into two or more parts (all previous suggested by Vassyana), definitions of exothermic and endothermic, that non-aqueous is defined and discussed later in the article (and the lead does actually link to a later part of the article), monoprotic versus polyprotic acids....should we start including these in the lead of every chemistry article? EagleFalconn (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Unreadable for non specialists. Especially the lead is incomprehensible to non-chemists. Commenting on the issues above a summary or lead should be the hook for the article. Is the lead is more complex for the interested non-expert reader than the body text of the article, the lead fails big time. In my opinion, simplification is sometimes acceptable for the lead; where the body text of the article has some depth that maybe too technical, these should not feature in the lead. Missing out on some sections in the body text means missing out on details, losing it in the lead will result in a reader never starting the body text at all. Arnoutf (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

After the recent revisions, the opening paragraph is much better. The whole introduction is however now very long. Some further copyediting maybe needed. I have striken my oppose since I think you are on the right track (and should not be blocked by my oppose if you continue on this track). I will not be able to attend to the discussion due to horrendous real life deadlines for the next few weeks. Arnoutf (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Arnoutf - Out of curiosity, what is your background/familiarity with chemistry? I will grudgingly continue to conceed that the lead may need revising to be non-expert accessible, but theres only so much of a general chemistry textbook that it makes sense to include in the lead. Unless you know what types of acids there are, some basic equilibrium chemistry etc the acid dissociation constant is a worthless article to read anyway. Thats why there are wikilinks in the lead so that you can go to those articles, understand them, and then come back and understand this article.

Also, I strongly disagree about the body being "too technical." To be less technical would result in using qualitative ideas where only quantitative ones are appropriate, or handwaving concepts or artificially invoking them where this is not necessary. There is NOTHING in the lead that I consider to be overtly technical except the mathematical definition of K_a. There is terminology used, but as I said before, if you do not understand the terms used in the lead you are NOT capable of understanding the article anyway. Which, again, is why wikilinks exist. EagleFalconn (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a while ago but it is pre-university high school (graduation mark A), and several material science courses during my MSc/Engineering degree. After that I went on for a PhD in science and society (ie social sciences). So no, not a chemist.

Also note that the body text is much more easily to understand than the bodytext (which is not bad, but could use some prose instead of the formulas). So sorry for any confusion there. Arnoutf (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment

OK, for another example of why this article is not featured article status worthy: "The case of phosphoric acid illustrates this point. In fact salts of either H₂PO₄⁻ or HPO₄²⁻ may be crystallised from solution by adjustment of pH to either 4 or 10." This illustrates how the article both lacks comprehensiveness and quality writing (not to mention spelling...crystallized is misspelled). It lacks comprehensiveness because it begins to use the example but does not specify which pH each one is crystallized under. Someone with a scientific background like me would know that they are respective since a higher pH means a lower concentration of Hydrogen ion which means that more HPO₄²⁻ will have to be disassociated (which will crystallize at a certain concentration) to reach equilibrium. Thus the pH of 4 corresponds to H₂PO₄⁻ and 10 corresponds to HPO₄²⁻.--Jorfer (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Both crystallized and crystallised are acceptable spellings of the word. The second is the form more common in England. It is impossible to specify exactly what pH under which each is crystallized because it would depend on what salt you had. The pH will change depending on whether you use sodium, potassium, molybdenum etc etc. Someone with a scientific background, (maybe) like you, should probably have figured out thats why it wasn't explicitly stated. Furthermore, someone with a background in English, like me, would read that sentence and notice that what it is saying is that you can crystallize those anions at a pH of either 4 or 10. Ergo, what you are critisizing is already addressed in the article. EagleFalconn (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

So the question is why are we even mentioning two specific pHs? Also, let's be civil, there is no reason to be condescending.--Jorfer (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The two pH's are mentioned because they provide a reasonable range at which most common salts of those anions would be expected. See the relative abundance chart next to the comment. EagleFalconn (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, so why don't we state that: the salt of H₂PO₄⁻ is more likely to occur at a pH of 4 and a salt of HPO₄²⁻ is more likely to occur at a pH of 10. Why are we trying to be cryptic? I understand how the math works behind this, but the person that would need to read this page most likely doesn't. The picture is meaningful only for someone who understands the math behind it. Let us show that 10^-2.15 over 10^-4 gives the ratio of Phosphoric Acid's conjugate base (and successive conjugate bases) to Phosphoric Acid at a pH of 4. The only way to make this article more understandable to a broader audience is to explain, explain, explain.--Jorfer (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think reading may be aided by providing a definition for certain words and phrases which are not wikilinked in their first instance. For example:

• • "equilibrium constant" in the Definition section is never defined and is not wikilinked, defining it would make the article a bit more accessible.
  • "Aqueous solution" is also never defined, providing a simple definition in the first instance of this phrase would be a big help.

Wrad (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Have wikilinked equilibrium constant in definitions, though it was wikilinked in the lead (point is still well taken). Defined aqueous in both the lead. EagleFalconn (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't know any chemistry and I couldn't understand a bit of the first two sentences. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dweller

I saw the comments about the FAC at WT:FAC. I think I'm well placed to comment, as a scientific ignoramus, who often nominates at FAC articles about cricket, a subject entirely alien to most (ie American) Wikipedians, bringing bagsful of problems regarding jargon and "impenetrability".

I'll say what I see.

More anon. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why the elements of the equation are defined in a different order to which they would naturally be read? (Ie left hand side, then top line, left to right, followed by the bottom line)

Added sentence "Like all equilibrium constants, it is the ratio of the product of the concentration of the products to the product of the concentration of the reactants." Does this clarify why the mathematical definition is as it is? EagleFalconn (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• A wikilink to acid might be a good idea, preferably in the very first sentence. Wording might need adjusting for this.

Done. EagleFalconn (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not your fault, but equilibrium constant seems a pretty poor article. It could at least do with an intelligible definition at the top of the Lead. If one of your editors could fix this, that'd be useful, as people like me will depend on it as a fairly important explanatory link, that currently doesn't explain. Just a suggestion.

This is on mine and (I believe) Petergans' hitlist after this article. EagleFalconn (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Very confusing that "conjugate base" links to conjugate acid. Given that you're saying, as I understand it, that this article is about a relationship between an acid and a base, the wikilinks here imply it's between an acid and, erm, an acid.

Short answer is that the conjugate base of an acid is the acid minus 1 hydrogen ion. Conjugate acid would be a base plus one proton. They're related concepts, which the current article on conjugate acids doesn't explain. When I/Petergans decide to take on equilibrium constant, this article will need a brush up as well. EagleFalconn (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• On my first look at the article, my eye glided right over the "Ka" in the first line, as it is ensconced in the middle of a bunch of words, which, even better, are bolded. That little bunch of italicised meaningless letters went right over my head, or, more to the point, they didn't go into my head anyway... and I was a bit flummoxed when hit with the term a sentence later. I suggest you delete it from the opening line, and introduce the concept of the term having an expression of this sort when you introduce the equation, ie, "The usual definition of an Acid dissociation constant (rendered Ka in equations) is..."

I've removed K_a from the first sentence and included the explanation right before the math part. EagleFalconn (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, on reflection, I don't believe that the equation should be in the Lead at all.

This one I can't bend on. The equation needs to be in the lead because the ADC is a quantitative concept, and any lead that is going to purport to summarize the topic is going to need the equation. EagleFalconn (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't the Lead at least say straight away that the strength of an acid is indicated by the magnitude of the ADC; that is the larger the ADC the stronger the acid? And, that for strong acids knowledge of it is of little value, but for weak acids, i.e. those found in biological systems, it is important? This would provide the lay reader with some understanding. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not. The term "strong acid" has three distint meanings - an acid which is completely dissociated in solution, a solution containing an acid at high concentration and an acid which is very corrosive. The amendments (next post) try to address this but it is not very satisfactory. Better not to talk about the strength of an acid. Graham has accused me of behaviour " bordering on arrogance". No, sir, you seriously underestimate the difficulty of providing simpler explanations without degrading or dumbing down the content. This example illustrates just how treacherous the use of plain English can be in a context like this one. Petergans (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to incorporate your suggestions into the lead without breaking the flow of the prose. Let me know what you think. EagleFalconn (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

--Dweller (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• General comment I have to say, I'm really caught by this article. I find it almost 100% unintelligible, even by following the wikilinks. This is partly not the fault of the editors, as the wikilinks lead to many very poor articles themselves. However, and this is a crucial point, if I was reading one of those other articles, I would not be able to come here and understand what this topic was talking about. How can I approve that an article espouses our highest standards of writing, if I can't understand it? Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a text book. Encyclopedias are supposed to be good at making their topics comprehensible, at least in terms of framing the topic, for any reader prepared to dig a little and cross-reference the technical terms. I am prepared to that, but still can make no headway. I have come across another FA that is a good parallel - 0.999... includes material maybe 75% of which I didn't understand, but it succeeded in explaining what the issue was and why it was important in an accessible manner, before then delving into the technicalities. However, and it's a big however, this clearly meets the WIAFA criterion for "professional" writing (boy, does it meet that), so I feel it's difficult to oppose. The best I could do was to drop a line to User:Raul654 and request his input. And in the meantime, I'll scratch my head a little more and see if I can get myself off the fence. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Dweller. Be careful not to confuse professional writing as in "writing for a professional audience" with professional writing, as in "writing at the level of a professional author/writer". As far as I understand Wikipedia asks for the latter. Arnoutf (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

And by what right can FAC reviewers judge that an article is "writing at the level of a professional author/writer" in general, let alone in any particular field? What about writers who are usually paid for their work and who write for WP for free: there are at least two who have contributed to this article. Physchim62 (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the other issue (professional audience) is much harder to judge. If the style, ease of uderstanding and argument, flow of prose and structure of the article is good it is professionally written. That is judgable for FAC reviewers. If you want to judge whether it is for a professional audience my guess would be that "I don't understand it, so it must be for a professional audience" is the only cue reviewers have on topics where they are no experts on. Arnoutf (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. This is a good article, and I imagine that some college students taking basic chemistry will learn from it. However, in my opinion, it is not up to FA level yet. Since I'm aware that no two experts will agree on how to present basic topics such as this one, the authors should not feel obliged to follow my suggestions for the article. On the other hand, I must speak as I find, and I do not find this article representative of Wikipedia's best work.

• Objections per criterion 1a: I find that the level is unnecessarily high, particularly in the lead. This article is not BRST quantization or some other necessarily difficult topic. Rather, it describes the equilibrium between the gain and loss of a proton in a molecule, which is perhaps the simplest chemical reaction and a topic covered in 7th-grade chemistry classes (at least it was in mine). In my assessment, the lead does a poor job of conveying the essence of the ideas, unless the reader is already familiar with them. A motivated novice reader might be able to understand the lead by following the wikilinks, but only if the leads of those articles are better written than this one. To me, the thermodynamic explanations are particularly poorly written and poorly placed within the article; I would be sincerely surprised if non-scientists would be able to learn from them. I believe the article would be improved significantly for most readers if the authors made more effort to rationalize the concept of pKa, its dependence on chemical groups and its variations with environmental conditions.

Although I appreciate that the article cannot and should not recapitulate chemistry textbooks, and that the material should not be dumbed down or made incorrect, I suggest that the authors be more accommodating and give focused help to non-scientists reading the article. My advice would be to describe the protonation and deprotonation reactions separately, and the qualitative factors favoring each. You might explain that equilibrium is reached when their rates balance, a fact obvious to us, but not necessarily to others, even chemistry students. My teaching experience suggests that discussing the forward and backward reaction kinetics can also help students to gain an intuitive understanding of activity. I appreciate the authors' careful use of “conjugate base/conjugate acid”, which confuses many students. However, because of that confusion, I've found it better to focus on protonation states rather than trying to explain what is the conjugate base of hexalysine.

• Objections per criterion 1b: The article is not comprehensive on some points. (1) I was surprised to see no mention of computational methods to predict pKa values. (2) I think a discussion of the analogous dissociation of deuterium would help some readers to understand the factors involved. (3) Another good topic for chemistry would be other reactions coupled to deprotonation, such as H-D or thiol-disulfide exchange. (4) I found the experimental determination section deficient, particularly in its use of the word “spectrophotometry” to cover all forms of optical spectroscopy including fluorescence and its implication that spectroscopic methods including NMR are reserved for extreme situations below pH 2 or above pH 11. Other methods have been used historically, such as volumetric and calorimetric methods, as I'm sure the authors know. (5) More history of the concept would be good. (6) I appreciate the need for summary style to keep Featured Articles short, but the applications section seems rushed and random. (7) At the risk of adding yet another random example, chelation changes due to titrations might fit there nicely, with picturesque applications ranging from soils and plants (why do blueberries grow in acidic soil?) to modern biochemistry (elution of His tags from Ni columns, metal-ion binding in proteins and nucleic acids).

After our discussion on the Talk page, I appreciate the recent additions to the Hammett equation, but I think more discussion of the physical/chemical factors affecting pKa's would help the article become (a) more comprehensive and (b) more accessible to non-scientists. A good qualitative discussion might go a long way towards bridging the gap with non-scientists. The variation of pKa's in a well-chosen homologous series of molecules, or the same functional group placed in different environments, could help to illustrate such factors. Aside from the well-known example of maleic and fumaric acid, there is little discussion of the interaction between pKa and molecular conformation, and interactions between titratable groups, that is, pKa shifts arising from the protonation states of nearby groups. For protein scientists, canonical examples would include Linderstroem-Lang's 1928 application of Debye-Hueckel theory and titrations of poly-lysine peptides, but those might be parochial.

On other points, I find the article overly comprehensive. (1) I'm not sure that the present tables of pKa values add much to the article that couldn't be incorporated into the text. I'm unclear why the authors chose to focus the tables on molecules, especially when the chosen molecules have redundant functional groups. The absence of molecular structures makes it hard for non-chemists to get anything out of such tables, although I understand that row spacing was a consideration. Have the authors considered instead a table of characteristic pKas of common functional groups bound to a common root, say, a methyl group? Such a table might tie in nicely to the discussion of homologous series and factors affecting pKa's. (2) The discussion of monoprotic versus polyprotic acids seems overly long, using space and reader focus that might be employed better in another way.

• Objections per criterion 3. The images do not seem up to FA level. (1) The lead image could be improved by highlighting the proton being transferred in a different color. Readers might not know what to look at in the present lead image. Even better would be an animation showing the (de)protonation reaction. (2) Several of the images seem redundant, such as the percentage formation plots for citrate and phosphate. (3) The images are not always well-integrated into the text, and their captions, while admirably brief, don't always make a clear point in themselves. Again, the authors should remember that they're writing for people who don't know the subject, rather than for those who do. Riddles are obvious only after you know the answer. (4) The x-y plots seem to be of below-average quality; can they be improved? (5) As an aside, why is ionic strength given in one figure with units of mol dm-3 instead of the more usual Molar?

I hope that the authors don't feel beleaguered by the criticism here and above. The authors can take pride in their work, but I hope they also see that the article can be improved, particularly to make it more helpful for novices. Since I'll be teaching this subject again next semester to undergraduates, I'm interested in helping to improve the article, not just to criticize it. Proteins (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Question: Has anyone yet considered the viability of writing an "Introduction to.. article? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support meets the FAC requirements. Improvements can be thought of for the lead and especially increase links to related topics such as acid, ionization, chemical bond and Acid–base reaction. This single article cannot be expected to encompass all related aspects. Retract, on rereading the comments of others, I see that the prose can be much simpler and direct. Shyamal (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I supported above, and my support still stands, for the reasons I gave there. However, the length of this FAC, and the nature of some of the comments, lead me to make three suggestions to the nominator and the other editors who have worked on this article.
  1. Withdraw the FAC. Resubmit it later if you are interested in doing so. The comments from Proteins are detailed and knowledgeable, and appear to have led to some modifications to the article. I would suggest that if Proteins is willing, he/she would be a valuable asset to the article as an editor and/or reviewer prior to any future FACs.
  2. Find an uninvolved editor to work on the lead. The editor should be a very good writer, either unafraid of scientific complexity or already versed in this topic, and able to appreciate the need for precision as well as the value of clear prose. If you can find someone who meets these criteria, and who is willing to work with you on a detailed review of just what the lead needs to say and how to say it, either the lead would become clearer or the editor would be able to explain to a future FAC just why the lead needs to stay as it is. Either outcome would be helpful to the reviewers here.
  3. The comment to GrahamColm about scientific illiteracy was rude and uncalled for. Even if Graham were in fact ignorant about science, this would be an uncivil remark about someone who has devoted time to trying to help the article achieve featured status. There are many who have contributed here who would like to see Wikipedia break new ground (as Petergans commented at WT:FAC) by featuring a physical chemistry article for the first time. Insulting their scientific knowledge is not only rude, but is likely to discourage those who could help the article from any further involvement. I'd like to see Physchim62 acknowledge that the tone of his edit summary was uncalled for, and I'd like to see the next FAC (and I hope there is another one) free of that kind of comment.

  I also want to add a comment about the difference between precision and accuracy. Some of the concerns expressed about proposed changes to the lead appear to be based on the inaccuracy or imprecision of the resulting statements. It's important the lead be accurate; it is not so important that it be precise. The lead can make general statements about the relationship between pK_a and the strength of acids, for example, which may not be precisely expressed, so long as the statement is qualified in such a way that the reader understands they are not reading a precise description. The qualification renders the description accurate by pointing out that it is imprecise. Some modification of the language along those lines might be worth considering.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

My own view as how to improve the article would be to work on Brønsted–Lowry acid-base theory and equilibrium constant, the two principles which underlie the chemistry discussed in this article. If we can get clear and accurate descriptions of those two complicated concepts, acid dissociation constant would be much easier to write.

I won't withdraw my comment about "scientific illiteracy", much as it might pain many people (not least the editor concerned). There is no point in sending scientific articles to WP:FAC if the result is a deterioration in quality, yet that is the result I have seen on many, many occasions. If my memory serves me right, I have never proposed an article at FAC; although I have collaborated on the reviews of articles proposed by others, as here. I would certainly never recommend an editor to send an article to FAC, and even less a scientific article such as this. The problem lies with FAC system, not with the editors of these articles: a small number of self-selected individuals set themselves up as the judge-and-jury of writing over a huge range of subject areas, applying their own idiosyncratic interpretations (there are as many interpretations as editors) of Wikipedia guidelines as if they were law. No individual editor can change the current sclerotic system, but that doesn't mean that editors should stand by while Wikipedia's best articles are degraded, even if it is with the best of intentions. Physchim62 (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I might agree with you if it was just people not familiar with the subject matter that were keeping this article from becoming a Featured Article, but you have users that are familiar with the subject matter like Proteins who are objecting to it becoming a Featured Article; that should tell you something.--Jorfer (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood me somewhere. I couldn't care less if the article makes it to FA or not, as the star has become so devalued (not only in scientific articles, I might add) as to be worthless. What I do care about are the quality and accuracy of the article, as it describes a subject which is widely taught in schools and universities, and not only to chemists. Several editors have made helpful comments; several editors have made unhelpful edits: the two groups overlap, such is life on a collaborative project. Let me just quote the first paragraph from the version of Group (mathematics) that was featured:

In mathematics, a group is a set of elements together with an operation that combines any two of its elements to form a third element. To qualify as a group, the set and operation must satisfy a few conditions called group axioms, namely associativity, identity and inverse elements. While these are familiar from many mathematical structures, such as number systems—for example, the integers endowed with the addition operation form a group—the formulation of the axioms is detached from the concrete nature of the group and its operation. This allows one to handle entities of very different mathematical origins in a flexible way, while retaining essential structural aspects of many objects in abstract algebra and beyond. The ubiquity of groups in numerous areas—both within and outside mathematics—makes them a central organizing principle of contemporary mathematics.

And reviewers criticize the lead of acid dissociation constant for being arcane! As a chemist, I know more than the average person-on-the-street about group theory – I've even taught it at university level, if only to other chemists – but I still find that paragraph (and the rest of the article, for that matter) hard going. The article appeared on the main page on 5 November, it is not an old case. Physchim62 (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I for one, find that piece of writing to be much clearer and much more concise than what was (still is?) on the lead of this article. The only thing I would change about this is the word "ubiquity" which has to be looked up for most people. So instead of jumping the gun and depicting nearly everyone here, including professional scientists and graduate students, many with a background in chemistry, as unproductive and unhelpful, and to insult our efforts and feedback to make your article better, you should instead try to listen to what we are saying. I passed List of baryons as a featured list a few months ago, and don't be telling me that particles physics is a simpler subject than something that is covered in 1rst year chemistry. Sure it took efforts, namely a peer review, the first try failed, but after addressing the valid concerns, of people, it passed.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-written lead

It is clear to me from the discussions here that nothing short of a radical re-write of the lead would be needed to accomodate the reservations of many contributors. I have now done this in a way that I hope will meet with consensus. Would all those who now feel able to support the promotion of this article please indicate. I suggest you put "now support" or "still oppose" next to their name below. I also invite Proteins to withdraw his opposition on the basis that the article is already of FA standard, and ask him to collaborate on making the further improvements which he outlines. Petergans (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Graham Colm (Talk) It looks like I have been invited to comment. I think this FAC should be archived and the lessons learnt be used to further improve the article. Re-submission a later date would allow us all to appraise the article with refreshed eyes. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Headbomb (talk)

Comment, I think it would be simpler to simply closed this and not promote it, and re-submit it immediately after closure. This is a huge archive (86KB so far), and it would be wise to plan ahead for another very long discussion. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Vb (talk)

Proteins (talk)

Comments (1) I would be willing and happy to work on this article, or an "Introduction to..." article, if that were preferable. You can count on my help. (2) If I understand how FAC works, it won't matter whether I change my !vote to support, if the objections listed above have not been addressed. (3) I'm happy to see the improved discussion of spectroscopic measurement of pKa values, but most of my other concerns have not been met. (4) I appreciate the nominator's truly valiant effort to re-write the lead, but to me it seems worse than the original for comprehensibility. :( The shorter Itub version is significantly better than both, but in my opinion, it and the whole article are incomplete and not yet at that polished level that I associate with FAs. I'm sorry, truly. (5) I'm leaving in a week for a workshop, and I'm quite busy otherwise, but I'll try to contribute some pieces of an improved article before I leave. (6) The authors might re-read Pauling's treatment of acid dissociation constants in The Nature of the Chemical Bond to see what I mean about teaching from homologous series and explaining the physical/chemical factors at work in pKa's. Such homologous series might be well-represented on Wikipedia with a <gallery> at the start of a subsection, one for each major factor determining pKa's. The gallery images would be the molecules of the series, their captions the individual pKa's, and the surtitle would describe the effect causing the change in pKa. Such galleries might make the article more comprehensible and picturesque and also allow you to do away with some of those tables. A kindly meant suggestion, Proteins (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added the chloracetic acids and reference to Pauling. The remaining part of Pauling's section 7-3 is largely outdated by advances in quantum mechanical calculations and by the Hammett equation.

Proteins makes some very creative suggestions, but he should not use the FAC discussion to make them. I, for one, don't know how to make an animation, and I am just not qualified to write about proteins. These are examples of things that Proteins should do himself by editing the article. He has indicated that he is prepared to do them, so he should go ahead with them and withdraw his opposition to FAC.

One further point. Proteins has made reference to his use of WP as a teaching resource. Fair enough, but WP is an encyclopedia, and not a text-book. Text-books can give much more pedantic detail. Petergans (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

For everyone's benefit, I believe we should focus on improving the article, and not on a small bronze star. The decision to promote lies with the FAC director and his delegate, and only they can determine whether the various unaddressed objections have merit. (1') I repeat that I'm willing to help in resolving my concerns and those of others, but given my schedule, that won't happen on the typical FAC timescale. (2') I didn't mean that you should copy Pauling directly, but rather consider using his method of illustrating physical/chemical factors determining pKa values with judiciously chosen homologous series. That approach will help, I believe, when you discuss the thermodynamics and computational methods for predicting pKa. Pauling's lucid prose is worth emulating as well. (3') I don't insist on animations, although I'm sure that you would find them easy to learn. Briefly, you create the individual frames using your favorite molecular visualization program and combine them into GIF or OGG Theora format using the GIMP or some other convenient software. Once you've made one, you could probably make a dozen in an afternoon. My main point, however, was that you should spend more time improving your images, both for their instructive value and as images. (4') I don't intend that this article be a textbook presentation; I just find it unnecessarily obscure and incomplete. (5') Please don't feel as though you're beset and all alone. Others will help you to improve the article; it's a wiki, after all. I'll volunteer to make a few candidate animations and galleries of homologous series, which we can review together to see if the article might be improved by them. Hopefully, that will warm the atmosphere. Proteins (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dweller (talk)

Arnoutf (talk) (copied from above by PG)

After the recent revisions, the opening paragraph is much better. The whole introduction is however now very long. Some further copyediting maybe needed. I have striken my oppose since I think you are on the right track (and should not be blocked by my oppose if you continue on this track). I will not be able to attend to the discussion due to horrendous real life deadlines for the next few weeks. Arnoutf (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Jorfer (talk) Still Opposed - Though I feel with User:Itub/ADC lead the intro will be of Featured Article status, my comments on the body have not been addressed. The body does not need to sacrifice precision to become better; it just needs to include further explanations and clearer use of language, which I have highlighted in my comments here. By the way, I congratulate Petergans and Itub on overhauling the lead. This shows the good that comes from the Featured Article process.--Jorfer (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Tim Vickers (talk)

Vassyana (talk) Still opposed. Itub's verion of the lede is somewhat clearer, but I still do not see how it would be accessible to someone unfamiliar with the subject. As pointed out by numerous reviewers, this is a subject covered in secondary school and first year university chemistry. The lede should at least be comprehensible to the average first-year university student. I truly cannot understand why the suggestion to use an introductory-level presentation and then moving to more precise & technical matters is so controversial for an intro-level chemistry topic. Vassyana (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is not comprehensible about my proposed lead? I'm looking forward to making it more readable. However, I'm a bit puzzled about what sort of "average first-year university student" you have in mind. Despite being taught in first-year chemistry, this topic is not as "basic" as people here seem to imply. I'm looking right now at the table of contents of the Complete Idiot's Guide to Chemistry. The relevant chapter, "Acid-base equilibria", is chapter 23. This is one of the last chapters (the book has 28), after the student has been introduced to solutions, chemical kinetics, chemical equilibria, intermolecular forces, and chemical bonding. Would you expect someone who doesn't know chemistry and jumps straight into chapter 23 to understand any of it? What can we assume that the reader knows before reading the lead? --Itub (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If someone is not already familiar with the topic, it won't make much sense to them without serious study. I don't understand your question about the generic target, as it is fairly self-explanatory... the average freshman. It is a topic that is regularly explained to secondary and incoming university students. Actually, chapter 23 is "Acids and Bases" as a whole. Chapter 27 is "Cranking Up the Heat: Basic Thermodynamics". Based on your argument, basic thermodynamics would not be a basic concept, which is simply ludicrous. Regardless, I'm not asking for the article to sacrifice the detailed content or to even include lies-to-children type oversimplification. All that I am asking is that a non-specialist with no more than a cursory education in chemistry can walk away with a reasonable understanding of the basic points of the topic. This can be handled through addition, as the readable prose size is well under the limit. As it is currently written, the article is obscure (at best) to anyone without a prior understanding of the topic it covers. Vassyana (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean an average freshman who already took several months of general chemistry and is now studying the chapter about acids and bases, or the average freshman who is majoring in Elbonian studies and does not know what a logarithm is?

Sorry for the misquote, and yes, this book is unusual in putting thermodynamics at the end. Many other books puts it before acid-base equilibria. Obviously, not every chapter depends on every preceding chapter; for example, acids and bases don't require a lot of knowledge about gases. But they do require knowledge about the other topics I mentioned.

Anyway, do you have any specific suggestions for making the lead more readable? Any technical terms needing explanation or linking, or anything that should be removed from the lead and deferred to the body of the article? --Itub (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have access to the Idiot's Guide, the way its goes about presenting the formula and dissociation is a great template. It does not unduly sacrifice technical detail or accuracy, nor does it indulge in large explanatory tangents, while presenting it in a digestible fashion. Some of the way it avoids disruptive side explanations is by making certain elements clear by context. An average educated reader can walk away with the full basic gist of the topic. Breaking it down into direct suggestions: 1) Explain concepts that can be explained very briefly. An extra phrase here and there isn't going to hurt the quality if well-written, but will go a long way towards making the article more accessible. 2) Try to organize the information into more a building block format, as commonly done in science education (A and B, therefore C). Overly simple example: a) These are acids, in the definition most relevant to this topic. b) This is dissociation. c) This is equilibrium as it relates to this concept (no need to rehash equilibrium as a whole). d) a+b+c = acid dissociation constant. 3) Try to organize the information and rewrite it somewhat so that the context and interaction of facts is clearer to a reader. For example, the Idiot's Guide does a great job of making "HA"'s meaning clear to a reader mainly through context and discussion of the main topic. Does that all make sense? Vassyana (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at 1 and 3, but 2, as I understand it, is something we can't do because Wikipedia, unlike the Idiot's Guide, is not a textbook. We (according to conventional Wikipedia lead style) have to cut to the chase and give a definition upfront, preferably in the very first sentence, without "building up to it". It should be closer to the inverted pyramid style IMHO (my current version of the lead does define what it means by equilibrium and some other things, although it does it after giving at least a qualitative definition of the acid dissociation constant). We don't start the lead of Death of Hitler with a mini-review of World War II or of Hitler's life, or Death Star with "a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...." If someone comes to these articles without knowing who Hitler was or what Star Wars is, they are looking at the wrong article. Same goes for someone who comes to acid dissociation constant without knowing what an acid is. Like you correctly pointed out, the title of the textbook chapter is "Acids and bases". That is a wider scope that what my Freudian slip implied (acid-base equilibria) and much, much wider than "acid dissociation constant". I don't have access to the book, but I'm sure it does not begin the chapter with the concept of acid dissociation constant, because of the scope of the chapter, and because it is a teaching aid, not a reference. --Itub (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The avoidance of 2) makes sense as you present it. Again, I will say that your version of the lead is significantly clearer. 1) and 3) would likely be sufficient enough to address my concerns. Regardless of how it is done, I will be satisfied (and happy to support the FAC) as long as the result allows a non-specialist with only a cursory education in chemistry to walk away with a reasonable understanding of the basic points of the topic. Vassyana (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrad (talk)

Peregrine Fisher (talk)

Shyamal (talk) Some careful copyediting by a fresh eye is needed in this and the primary authors should take unacceptable copyedits as indicators of problems in the text. It would be good if knowledgeable copyeditors and the primary authors can run some positive iterations of reading and re-writing. Shyamal (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• when their concentrations do not change in with the passing of time. -> "change with"
• Strictly speaking it should be a quotient of activities, but when Ka values are determined in a medium of high ionic strength concentrations can be used in place of activities. -> pedantic tone in use of "speaking"
• but when Ka values are determined in a medium of high ionic strength concentrations can be used in place of activities -> comma needed ?
• An acid which releases one proton, -> an acid molecule ?
• in the approximate range -2 to 12 in water -> that seems like a wide range to be termed approximate - can be trimmed
• measuring the concentration of the hydrogen ion -> measuring the concentration of hydrogen ions ?
• A polyprotic acid is an acid, such as phosphoric acid or citric acid, which can release more than one proton. - one proton per molecule ?
• Current practice is to determine the pKa value of the acid conjugate to the base. - of the base  ?
• Factors that determine the magnitude of pKa values include Pauling's rules for acidity constants - gives an impression that nature follows published rules

Ling.Nut (talk)

• Conditional Support. As part of an evolving position on articles by the folks in white coats, I'm moving toward accepting the idea that such articles need not be written for the "general audience." Bear in mind that by no means do I reject the idea that the lede should be significantly easier to digest than the body; I'm only saying that the lede cannot take the place of a Chem 101 textbook. I'm moving toward accepting the idea no one would even glance at this article unless they were studying chemistry, and anyone who was studying chemistry would have the resources at hand to fill in the blanks. So here are my conditions:

1. I Support only the User:Itub/ADC lead lede.
2. I take on board earlier comments that laymen and even some Chem 101 students might believe "strong" is purely and simply a synonym for "corrosive". With this in mind, I would suggest rewording the first sentence in order to move the wikilinks to strong acid and weak acid to the fore. Of course then the wikilinks in the later paragraphs of the lede would be un-wikilinked. NOTE: My terminology will be imprecise/flatly wrong. This is just the idea of it:

   An acid dissociation constant, K_a, (also known as acidity constant, or acid-ionization constant) is a quantitative measure of the strength of an acid in solution. When converted to a logarithmic scale, it is used as the measure which distinguishes weak acids from strong acids.

3. I suggest simply removing the following sentences. They certainly do not have any unity with the rest of the paragraph. Their position is misleading; it makes the first sentence seem to be topic sentence. I'm thinking they don't even need to be in the lede at all though:

   pK_a values can be experimentally determined by potentiometric (pH) titration, but for values of pK_a less than about 2 or more than about 11 spectrophotometric or NMR measurements may be required. The latter methods are preferred with non-protic solvents.

• That's all. Good luck. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your conditional support. About the sentences you suggest removing: I agree that that paragraph lacks cohesion, as it resulted from merging fragments from different paragraphs. However, I think it is important to include them somewhere in the lead, because they are the only sentences that discuss how the ADC is measured, which is a key part of the article. I'll think about other places where these sentences can be placed, but I welcome suggestions. --Itub (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

---

• Comment. I think the new lead is a good step towards explaining a bit more to non-chemist readers. However, it is now too long. I think the best solution is to explain more but include less details on polyprotic acids, thermodynamics, and buffers, which although related are not necessary to give the general reader an idea of what the acid dissociation constant is, what it is good for, and where does it come from (basically, the "what", "why", and "how"). I've posted a suggested trimmed version of the lead at User:Itub/ADC lead. --Itub (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support with this lede. It concisely places of the topic in context, as required. The WTF factor has been removed. William Avery (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• New oppose. It is great to see editors working on technical articles and some fantastic work has gone into this article. I would love to support it, but I have to agree with Proteins and others that it doesn't meet the standards for our very best work yet. The prose is reasonable and there are many moments of clarity, but the quality is patchy, and overall the prose is not engaging or of a professional standard. The coverage is good, although it possibly goes into too much detail, partly (I suspect) because the back-up articles are not very good, making the use of summary style difficult. For instance, Activity (chemistry) and Ionic strength are as clear as mud, yet essential to understand the meaning of parts of the article.

The topic of this article is not rocket science (well, some of it might be :-). I agree with User:Vassyana and others that this is bread and butter chemistry (not(?) literally :-), a simple and very important kind of equilibrium constant. It should be more accessible, and I think some reviewers without a scientific background have been generous and modest in supporting because they found the material out of reach. Having said that, I agree that much of this article will inevitably not be accessible to a reader without a scientific background, and the first section does make a decent effort to convey the basic idea to a general reader.

For me, the main problem is that the article is hard going for the scientifically literate, but nonspecialist, reader. This is no good, as such readers are prime audience for all but the most specialist parts of the article. The prose is a problem, and could really use a copyedit by a scientifically literate editor who is good at that. Judging by some remarks made above, they may also need a thick skin. I hesitate to comment on specifics when I see an editor told he is wrong that K_b is the inverse (reciprocal) of K_a, when in fact it is K_w/K_a with K_w approximately constant. This kind of "oversimplification" occurs in chemistry all the time. When measuring K_a in terms of concentrations rather than activities, a approximately constant quantity is being discarded, and activity (according to our article) is only dimensionless because the units are fixed. On the face of it, the definition of K_a in the lead is not dimensionless, so taking its logarithm is meaningless; again, units have been fixed. The article does explain some of these issues (the concentration of water is approximately constant).

However, contrary to the view that the article cannot be made clearer without dumbing down or oversimplifying, there are actually a few places where precision is lacking, and clarity with it. Anyway, ignoring the lead (which is too long and detailed - Itub's version is better), let me raise some specific issues.

• The equilibrium constant for this "dissociation" reaction is known as a dissociation constant. However, since the liberated proton combines with a water molecule to give a hydronium ion (also called oxonium), Arrhenius later proposed that the "dissociation" reaction should be written as an acid–base reaction. Why the quotes? This isn't use-mention distinction, and certainly not scare quotes. "dissociates" is quoted again later on, making me begin to feel sorry for this poor distrusted word :-)
• It also puts acids and bases on the same footing as being, respectively, donors or acceptors of protons. How can something which donates be on the same footing as something which accepts?
• In fact the bicarbonate ion is amphiprotic "In fact" adds nothing here. Also, water provides a simpler example.
• It is important to note that, in the context of solution chemistry, a "proton" is understood to mean a solvated hydrogen ion. In aqueous solution the "proton" is a solvated hydronium ion. Don't note what is being noted. Also when I checked the references I did not see them using the word "proton" to mean solvated hydrogen ion. For instance, in water, care is taken to distinguish between the donated proton and the solvated hydronium ion it is part of.
• For the specific equilibrium between a monoprotic acid, HA and its conjugate base A−, in water Why mention monoprotic here? Polyprotic acids also have this equilibrium - only several of them.
• Activities of the products are placed in the numerator, activities of the reactants are placed in the denominator. Since it is an equilibrium, "product" and "reactant" are not terribly precise. What is meant here is that, for the dissociation constant, the products of dissociation are in the numerator. Cf. the later discussion about association constants, which are essentially the reciprocal.
• In the case of VO2+(aq), the vanadium is octahedral, 6-coordinate, whereas all the other species are tetrahedral, 4-coordinate. "6-coordinate" presumably refers to 6 water molecules around the ion with an overall octahedral geometry. I had to figure that out for myself, though. The link helped a bit.
• VO₂⁺⇌ H₃VO₄ + H⁺. There appear to be some water molecules missing here.
• DMSO is widely used as an alternative to water. Yikes, I hope not :-)
• The apparently unlikely geminal diol Apparent to whom?
• The reason for this is that when the solvent is in its standard state its activity is defined as one. For example, the standard state of water:dioxane 9:1 is precisely that solvent mixture, with no added solutes. To obtain the pKa value for use with aqueous solutions it has to be extrapolated to zero co-solvent concentration from values obtained from various co-solvent mixtures. Neither brilliant prose, nor clear and precise.
• These facts are obscured by the omission of the solvent... How dare they!
• Ascorbic acid is an example of this effect. No, it is an example of an acid. Suggest "exhibits this effect"?
• Structural effects can also be important. The difference between fumaric acid and maleic acid is a classic example. Another imprecision in weak prose.
• The first point to note is that when pKa is positive Unencyclopedic prose construction.
• including those for protein-ligand equilibria Relevance? I also think Proton affinity is a bit of a stretch.

I hope the above late comments are helpful, and can be taken in the spirit of a peer review. It seems to me to be likely that this FAC will be closed soon anyway. Good luck improving the article. I hope it will be featured in the future. Geometry guy 16:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

How can you say "the prose is not ... of a professional standard"? I can accept that you may not like my style. That's one thing. It's quite another to impugn my professional integrity. Petergans (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a misunderstanding. The "of professional standard" clause in the criteria refers to professional standards of copyediting. It has absolutely nothing to do with content or professional integrity. And actually, I do like your style. Much of the article is very good, but it needs copyediting. Geometry guy 22:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:48, 6 December 2008 [32].

---

Bob Chappuis

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger

previous FAC (00:24, 24 April 2008)

I feel that this is an interesting article of sufficient breadth and depth to qualify at FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Good work overall, but there's a bit of work to be done.
• Chappuis parachuted from the plane before it crashed and was rescued by Italian partisans who hid Chappuis and two other crew members for three months until the end of the war. - Needs a comma somewhere.
  • Reworded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• The Early years section is somewhat lacking. First off, when was he born? Who were his parents? Surely there's more information than a few sentences. Also, I don't think the College football in 1942 is needed.
  • I fixed were he was born and removed the subsection. I have no more info on his parents.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• At the time he was a Sergeant. - Stubby sentence.
  • I both expanded the sentence and added punctuation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Chappuis and his crewmates finally wound up in a home in the small town of Asola, Italy, in the Province of Mantua, Lombardy, about 40 miles (64 km) from Milan. - "Wound up in" → "reached".
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• They passed the time playing cards with each other and with the Ugolini family with whom they stayed, and reading a well-worn copy of Uncle Tom's Cabin. - Do we really need to know that the book was worn?
  • I think the implication is that all of them read the book often and it got worn out from this type of use. It is not a statement of coincidence about a book that was old upon their arrival, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Despite any difficulties in re-adjusting to civilian life and football, Chappuis had a tremendous football season in 1946. - "Tremendous" is a bit POV.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Though reports differ as to Chappuis' total yards gained, University of Michigan records show that Chappuis gained 1,284 yards in 1946 – 734 yards passing, 501 yards rushing and 49 yards receiving. - Change the en dash to an em dash.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• He completed 48 out of 84 passes for 976 yards, including 11 touchdown passes. - Link touchdown.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• This stood as a school single-game total offense record for over twenty years. - Numbers above 10 are written in digits.
  • Re-read Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• An interesting sidelight of the Rose Bowl was the Rose Bowl Queen nomination of Ann Gestie, the future Ms. Bob Chappuis, which was against the tradition of having a queen from Pasadena, California. - "Interesting" is POV.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• The pros included Paul Christman and Charlie Trippi. - Is "pros" is formal word?
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, the college All-star game caused Chappuis to miss three weeks of practice and he played little in the early season games because he had not learned his plays. - "Unfortunately" is POV.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Unfortunately for Chappuis, the Dodgers finished the season with a 2–12 record and folded after the 1948 season. - Again. Also, this sentence needs a source.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Chappuis is also the uncle of former Michigan and Baltimore Colts strong safety Rick Volk. - Remove "also". This needs a source too. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I added the ref, but I beleive "also" is proper contextually.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    • "Also" is redundant. Please read User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
      • The only way I see removing the also without creating two stubby sentences would be to combine them into a one-sentence paragraph, which is probably a worse problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Explain to me how the removal of a single word leads to a stubby sentence. Every single sentence is "also" a piece of information. Why mention that in this particular instance? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
          • I made the edit, but I don't think it improved the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review

• Two infoboxes? Please decide - this looks ridiculous.
  • It is fairly common and non-controversial for an athlete who is notable for a second reason to have multiple infoboxes. I know of no policy that this goes against. Military service box sections have been incorporated into politician infoboxes (see Jon Corzine and Jack Kemp) to lessen the confusion, but nothing has yet been done for athlete military combinations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, but in the Corzine and Kemp examples, there is only one box. In the Chappuis article, there are two separate infoboxes and one of them has that ugly "click here if you have a free image" space in it. It is a terrible layout and, apparently, completely unnecessary. Why don't you just combine the boxes? Awadewit (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
      • My point was that athlete infoboxes have not been streamlined to incorporate double infoboxes in a unified single infobox. As far as the click here goes, we need help finding a military picture of this guy so that placeholder image seems appropriate. If this does not pass here, I will post it at WP:MILHIST A-Class review where the military guys might know how to find a military image for the guy. Is there a way to combine the military info in the main box? The MILHIST guys might be able to help us in this regard as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Robert Chappuis.JPG - I didn't see the CC-by-SA 3.0 license at the source website - can you show me where it is?
  • I am in conversation with Karen Jania at the Head of Access and Reference Services at Bentley Historical Library about twenty images including this one (sparked by Garland Rivers' image). I hope to have this resolved soon.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    • This morning, regarding my query about 20 images used on WP from the Bentley Library, I was officially forwarded to another administrator who is the Director of Licensing for the University of Michigan. I will keep you updated. I only have about 50 rollover minutes left on my phone until Thursday. I will probably call on Wednesday, but won't be hounding her if she does not contact me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I have spoken with the Director of Licensing about the statement that "This collection is open to the public." and the WP licensing requests for either GDFL or CC. There is concern about use of images to give the appearance of endorsements by University Athletes. Is there a way that a consent could be worded to alleviate this concern.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
        • I would suggest taking this to OTRS. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
          • What page do you go to to do that? I am confessing to being confused about WP:OTRS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
            • You simply have your contact email the Wikimedia foundation. Start here. (Next time, it might be a good idea to sort out these image release issues before FAC, as they can take some time.) Awadewit (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
              • I understand where to start. I may be dense, but that does not explain to me how to email them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There is more information at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. The email address is: permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. Awadewit (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:B-25J Bomber.jpg - Source link doesn't seem to work quite properly - I just reached source code. We need the source link to be able to verify the license.
  • I don't know much about aircraft, but if that image is no good, I imagine a free one could be found.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Here are a couple properly licensed images at flickr. Let me know which one you prefer:
    1. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ackook/253796605/
    2. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nostri-imago/2858208004/
    3. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ackook/1450093528/
    4. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmwolf/577084718/
    5. http://www.flickr.com/photos/freelancer1/2013180/ --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Did you try searching the original site? I found the original photo with a good link here. There is nothing special about aircraft. We just needed a working link. (It is best to fix images rather than let images will incomplete descriptions pile up.) Awadewit (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Chappuis.jpg - I'm on the fence about this non-free image. No real effort went into constructing a fair use rationale for this specific article. For example, the generic statement "The image is needed to identify the person for educational purposes in an encyclopedia entry and significantly improves the quality of the article" does not really explain why we need this image and I'm not sure what having the cover really adds to the text. The text says he was on the cover of Time. Must we have that cover as well? If so, please explain why. It is certainly not to "identify the person". There is already a picture of him.

I'm sure we can resolve these issues quickly. Awadewit (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• • This was my argument in the prior FAC: By its inclusion in the article the picture adds a lot of information. Very few college football players ever make the cover of Time. When you read the lead and then scroll down for a quick look this picture jumps out at you. It is not unusual for an important politician, world leader, or corporate titan, but this image is sort of shocking and adds to the article for that reason.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The fair use rationale doesn't say anything about "very few college football players make the cover of Time". Can we find a number somewhere? If we could say "only 1 of 5" or something, I think that would be a good argument. However, we should remove the part of the fair use rationale that says "identify the person" - the purpose of the image, as articulated by your rationale, is not to do that. Awadewit (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
      • FUR has been changed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
        • We need to find out just how rare this is. Can we find out how many college athletes have been on the cover of Time? Also, please remove the unnecessary "identify the person" part of the rationale. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
          • The focus would need to be on college athletes. I think many athletes have been on the cover, but not so many college athletes. I am not sure where to find this stat, but I will try. I have removed the last element of need for identity from the FUR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
            • Here is a source that claims that there have been 398 Time covers that have been in some way related to sports or featuring an athlete, owner, manager, or coach in 85 years. That is less than 5/year. The majority seem to be Olympic and professional athletes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
              • Would it be asking too much to ask you to go through all 398 and find out just how many were college athletes? Awadewit (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
                • Would it be WP:OR? Also, I am quite certain it might not be so easy. I have to look at each image and determine if at the time of the cover appearance the person was still in college. It is possible that not all the earlier year people have WP pages especially if they were in college. The first question about policy is really what matters. If it is not OR, I guess I would do it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
                • Without waiting for an OR verdict, here is what I find in the first six pages of the source above:
                  1. June 26, 1978 http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19780626,00.html
                  2. Oct. 28, 1966 http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19661028,00.html
                  3. Oct. 18, 1963 http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19631018,00.html
                  4. Nov. 9, 1953 http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19531109,00.html
                  5. Nov. 19, 1951 http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19511119,00.html
                  6. Nov. 6, 1939 http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19391106,00.html
                • unsure about:

                  Bus Mosbacher / TIME Cover: August 18, 1967

                  Jim Clark / TIME Cover: July 09, 1965

                  I am officially unqualified to do the count. There are several amateur players who may or may not have been college athletes. I am unable to tell if people like Ellsworth Vines Jr. / TIME Cover: August 01, 1932 counts. Anything I do would be OR because I am not qualified to do any further counting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

                  • Ok. Let's just say 398 of X total, then. Awadewit (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

                    • Are you requesting that I add something to the FUR or the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You said that 398 covers were of athletes. To demonstrate rareness, we need to say 398 of how many total covers. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Let me ask again: "Are you requesting that I add something to the FUR or the article?"--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. The fair use rational says that his appearance is an example of a "rare" phenomenon. We need to show that: there are only 398 Time covers that feature athletes out of [X] number of total Time covers. Awadewit (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments - If memory serves me right, the last FAC was one of the last sports candidates that I didn't review. It's like taking a trip back in time, only this time I have a clue of how to review articles. Nice to see you back to work on sports pages; it at least gives you a break from Chicago buildings. First batch of comments is below.

• Pair of All-American links in the lead. Usually I suggest that the second one be removed, but I think the first one is a better candidate in this case. An unpiped American football link could remain. Also two Michigan Wolverines links. The one in the third paragraph is for a different article, but I fail to see how it adds any value.
  • I simply unpiped the American football. Is there a problem with the adjacent links. I have never had an unbolded instance where a second occurance of a link was preferred before. Thus, I think linking the first is proper.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The adjacent links aren't what bother me. I just think that it's awkward to have "All-American American football player" in the first sentence. If anything, I'd suggest removing All-American to avoid this. It already says later that he was named to the team. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Service in World War II: "Chappuis was rescued by an Italian partisan, Aldo Comucci. Comucci..." Don't like the last two words being the same. I actually think the sentences could be combined; they flow logically and the sentence wouldn't be too long.
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• "He threatened to turn the American in..." Everything surrounding this is Americans, so why is this singular? Was Chappuis the only one who was going to be turned in?
  • Good eye.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• 1946 season: Em dash code shows up in the text halfway through the second paragraph.
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• 1947 season: He breaks the single game total offense record twice in three sentences, alternating between 20 years and "over twenty years".
  • 20 it is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Same paragraph: Does Wikipedia have an article on the concept of two-way players? If so, a link to it would be a good addition to the end of this paragraph. Always a good idea to provide links to jargon words.
  • No article yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Look magazine has a link, which can be inserted into the next paragraph. And put it in italics as a printed publication.
  • It is already linked. I don't think the word magazine should be linked with it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Busy in real life at the moment, so I must stop here. I'll be back to read the rest on another day. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Took me a while, but I'm finally back to continue the review.

• 1948 Rose Bowl and All-Star Game: Comma after 1947 Chicago Cardinals?

• Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• "In the 15th game College All-star vs. NFL champion match" Don't understand this. Should game be removed?

• Yes it should be and I did so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Celebrity: "In addition, his time at Michigan defined an era in a way that became a permanent reference." Maybe so, but how did he define it? The latest addition to the criteria is that subjects should be placed in context. I'm not sure yet how this criterion works, but this seems to be a perfect example of where more context is needed. It would add some flavor to the article, and beef up a short section.

• Are you looking for more expansion than what I just did?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Professional football: "However, Chappuis passed up the Steelers offer" Steelers could have an apostrophe.

• O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Two All-American Football Conference links. I'd remove the second, and define the AAFC abbreviation (place the initials in parentheses after first use).

• O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Watch the capitalization of the college all-star game. Some inconsistencies there.

• I think it is a formal name and should be capitalized even when shortened.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Although, Chappuis led the team in total offense..." Remove the comma after Although. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Newspaper titles should be in italics.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [33].

---

Slovenian presidential election, 2007

Nominator(s): Tone

previous FAC (01:36, 23 September 2008)

After I believe all the issues raised at the first FAC have been fixed, I am renominating the article. The images now have proper OTRS, the references are attributed to reliable sources with direct quotes where needed and copyediting has been done. Thank you for your reconsideration. --Tone 13:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. The article covers all important criteria. Definitely improved from when I last looked it over in the previous FAC. All the shortcomings I pointed out have been fixed. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review

• Image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

*Image:Danilo Turk.jpg - At Flickr, this image was not released under a CC 2.5 license, as is claimed on the image description page - all rights were reserved. Second, the image description page claims that the image was released through OTRS, but there is no OTRS ticket number.

That's up to people at commons to decide. If any problem appears, the image can be removed. At the moment, I am happy with the description there. By the way, there are two sources for the photo, it is possible that the admin of the other website released the copyright. Any suggestions what else could be done? --Tone 18:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no OTRS ticket number to confirm and the license cannot be verified - at present, this image does not violates the copyright laid out on Flickr. This image needs to be deleted from the article or an OTRS ticket needs to be obtained. Awadewit (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A new photo has been recently uploaded to Commons, a gfdl one. I have temporaly changed it, when the otrs problem is resolved, the old can be put back. --Tone 16:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Coat of Arms of Slovenia.svg - There is ultimately no source for information for this image - where did the information to make this image or its parent image come from? Also, who are the authors of this image and when was it made and/or uploaded?

The image was, according to the Commons page, created and uploaded by User:Zscout370 in 2005. The source is the flag of Slovenia. I don't see any problems here. --Tone 13:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Commons page lists the uploader - that is not always the same as the creator/author. Please add the uploader's name to the author field, if you know that they are same. We cannot use the svg image as the source - it is a user-generated image. We have to have a reliable source that depicts the flag. Awadewit (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Source added. --Tone 18:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Author issue still needs to be resolved. Awadewit (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been fixed now. --Tone 16:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Glasovnica za predsednika republike 2007.jpg - The source listed is "Slovenian WP" - what is that exactly? The metadata hints that this is an amateur photograph taken by the user listed in the image description. Is that correct? If so, the source should say something like "own work" or "self-created".

I fixed that now. --Tone 13:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As the author and the uploader are not the same, how can we be sure that the author released the copyright? We need a statement from the author on the image page releasing the copyright. Awadewit (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I added the link to sl: wiki where the image was uploaded first. That should do the trick.

With some careful attention, these issues should be easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Inconsistent date formatting: " ... 11 November 2007 ... " but " ... On December 22, Türk was sworn ... ". Which is it? Also, see WP:MOSNUM regarding percentage ranges and spelling out vs. using digits for numbers, example: " ... with nearly 3 in 4 voters ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't think the prose is of the standard required. There are too many one- or two-sentence paragraphs, and too many awkwardly-worded sentences (e.g. "The Slovenian National Party (SNS) nominated its leader, Zmago Jelinčič, who had already run for the office at the 2002 election, finishing third with 8.51% of the votes."), along with a few run-ons ("Peterle replaced the head of his campaign, and concentrated on questioning Türk's role in the 1991 secession from Yugoslavia, alleging that at the time when Peterle as the Prime Minister struggled for Slovenia's independence, Türk continued to act as an official representative of Yugoslavia in international institutions."). In my view, a complete rewrite would be required to get the prose to FA-standard. I also have some concerns with 1b and think that a few of the shorter top-level sections could be merged (for example, the five sentence "First round results and reactions" could easily be merged with "first round campaign"). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The dates formats are now consistent through the text and through the references. Regarding the sections, this was discussed at the previous FAC. A new paragraph is used when a something unrelated with the previous paragraph is introduced. Merging them would make the article less comprehensible IMO. By the way, where do you see problems with 1b criteria? The reason why I left the campaign and the 1st round results separate is that the paragraphs deal with different things again. Also, we have 2nd round and results separate. Regarding the prose. I went through the text several times. Since I am not professionally trained in writing English texts, I'd appreciate if you could point out other bad formulations so that I can fix them (a good practice for me as well). Thanks. --Tone 14:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Some more improvements to the text have been made. If I left anything, please point it out. --Tone 16:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I know it's been poor of me not to have followed up on this in the last week; I swear I'll get to it within the next twenty-four hours. Apologies, and thanks for your patience. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Man, missed my own deadline; that's unlike me. Anyway, to demonstrate what I mean by the writing quality, I took a section of the article at random ("Leading candidates") and went over it with a fine toothed comb. Here's some of what I found:

• "Pahor himself confirmed that he is ready to run for the office." - wrong tense.
• "Instead, Social Democrats nominated Danilo Türk, a former Slovenian ambassador, high official in the United Nations, and a professor at the University of Ljubljana's Faculty of Law." - faulty parallelism here, as the indefinite article is included in the first and third items, but not the second. Alternatively, if "former" is only intended to modify the first two items, there should be a conjunction.
• Some of the party names are preceded by "the" and some aren't, with no apparent reason for the differences. Even within a single party (e.g. Liberal Democracy) this isn't consistent.
• "All of them managed to collect the enough support votes with Peterle reaching the required number in the first 4 hours of collecting." Superfluous "the".
• "...who had been campaigning for months and cultivated the image of a "man of the people"..." Tense shift.
• Besides the above objective problems, there are plenty of stylistic problems, in that much of the wording is awkward and inelegant. Many words are repeated unnecessarily from sentence to sentence, for example.

I'm sorry to be the sole opposer like this, but in my view the article requires a rewrite by a native English speaker. I'd offer to do it myself, but I'm frankly unlikely to have time to do a proper job until the new year. It would be great of somebody else could step in within the next few days and do so, because most other elements of a featured article are in place. Let me also add that, having visited a few years ago, I very much agree with Todor Bozhinov's comments about Slovenia rocking. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is now undergoing a copyediting. User:Scapler was kind to help. --Tone 21:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support, well done! The article is pretty thorough and well-written; it provides a good introduction and background. The sources look fine in terms of credibility (generally usually the top Slovenian media or well-known international news agencies and publications). I found the article very well illustrated for an election article, with photos of all major candidates and a handy map. Overall, I do think some paragraphs can be merged: although they do represent different lines of thought at present, they are related in most cases, like the short nominations paragraphs in Leading candidates. I don't consider that a big deal really: I'm all for reviewing the overall quality of the article instead of focusing on almost-bureaucratic WP:FA? details (copyright of the Slovenian coat of arms?!) and subjective stuff like writing style. If someone's opposing because he doesn't think the prose is good enough, please provide a thorough review so the stuff can be fixed, or even copyedit it yourself; the ultimate goal is to improve the article after all! And one last thing that didn't influence my supporting decision, however: Slovenia rocks! :) Todor→Bozhinov 14:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose by karanacs. Disclosure: I know very little about Slovenia, and nothing about their political system, so this article was my introduction to that topic. I thought that the article had too much detail in some places, and not enough in others. The prose is also okay, but needs work. There are grammatical errors, and there are many sentences which don't read well. (For a non-native speaker, this is quite well done, but I recommend getting a good copyeditor to do a bit of polishing.) Please note that the issues below are in many cases just examples of areas to be fixed:
• I don't understand why the referendum is mentioned in the lead. Yes, it was held on the same day, but that does not appear to be directly related to this election (and it is not mentioned in the body of the article at all)
• The first sentence of the lead seems very unwieldy to me (The 2007 Slovenian presidential election was held in two rounds, on 21 October 2007 and 11 November 2007, in order to elect the successor to the second President of Slovenia Janez Drnovšek for a five-year term) but my brain is tired and has not come up with something better.
• I am unclear from reading the lead why there were two rounds of elections and who exactly won the election
• In the background section, I am not entirely sure why we learn about Drnovsek's change in lifestyle - that seems to be unnecessary detail to this article.
• In the requirements for candidacy, what is meant by "support votes"? Do they have to file a petition? I'm a bit confused by this.
• Why did Peterle, Turk, and Gaspari decide to run as independents? It looks like they were already endorsed by multiple political parties?
• It seems weird to me to have the same pictures in the infobox and in the body of the article.
• There seem to be many awkward sentences. Examples only:
  • The candidates appeared in televised debates during which they discussed various topics, including the rules governing the voting of non-resident nationals, which had been changed by the National Electoral Commission during the campaign
  • The campaign was backed by the Prime Minister Janša and the Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel who went so far as to confirm Peterle's claims on the Foreign Ministry's official website. - no need for "the" before PM or FM, "went so far as to" is overly wordy -> could just be "who confirmed"
  • "Later, he also stated that he would work closely with Janša's government during Slovenia's six-month EU presidency." - Later and also are redundant
  • Türk's candidacy was also endorsed by Zares, a splinter party made up of many of the members of the National Assembly who left the Liberal Democracy, which quickly disintegrated in opposition after 10 years in government,[21] and the pensioners' party DeSUS - seems to have too many ideas in it
• The First round campaign section does address some of the issues facing the candidates, but there is really no information on what type of campaigning the candidates did (beyond debating). What did they do?
• What impact did the journalists' petition have on the election or campaign? Were their complaints directed partially at measures in place due to the election? I'm not sure why this event is important in relation to the campaign
• Need a citation after every sentence with a quotation, even if that means some citations are repeated in subsequent sentences. This is an issue in multiple places in the article.
• Nowhere in the article is it explicitly explained how many people go to a runoff, or what percentage of the vote is necessary to win
• Jelincic is described as "flamboyant", but we are never told in the article what he did during the first round that might have made him appear such - how did he differentiate himself from the others?
• How much time was allocated for campaigning in both the first and second rounds?
• I am not sure what this means: "Since the EU presidency was closing"
• Make sure all newspapers are italicized in the references. It appears that some, like International Herald Tribune, are not
• Any other information about the supposed movie that Artur Stern was making?

Karanacs (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [34].

---

The Teen Idles

Nominator(s): CloudNine (talk)

An article I wrote about a fairly obscure (yet very important) D.C. hardcore punk band a while back, that I feel is comprehensive, well-written and easy-to-read. There's a lack of free images on the subject, but I feel the article reads well without them. Hopefully this candidacy will motivate me back into editing Wikipedia regularly. CloudNine (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I understand that this may not be a solvable problem, but I simply don't think this can be a featured article with no images. Does not fulfill Criteria 3 for that reason. Criteria 3 doesn't say anything about it being ok to not have images if none can be found after all. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 01:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem dealt with, fair play to you. I won't give my support vote just yet though, I want to give it another lookover Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 06:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• But it doesn't say that a featured article should have images, which is the key thing here. I've read a number of featured articles that have none (because they either don't apply or there are no free ones). CloudNine (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• CloudNine is correct - images are not required for an article to become FA. Awadewit (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• But the criteria states that images should be used where appropriate, and images would most certainly be appropriate here. At least one in the infobox I would've thought Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 13:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• But I can't find any free images. You're welcome to try. "appropriate" here relies on actually finding images in the first place. CloudNine (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Why not add some non-free images? There are several non-free images of The Teen Idles out there. Wikipedia allows non-free band images if the band is no longer active (i.e. it is not possible to create a free image of the band). Kaldari (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about some non-free images, but a non-free image would probably be acceptable. I think this image, credited to Lucian Perkins at the Dischord Records site[35], would be good. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Used to have that image in the article, but it was removed by someone else because it didn't meet fair use requirements (I tend not to bother to find non-free images anymore as a result). CloudNine (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't let the image nazis discourage you. I've restored the image for now. Kaldari (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• http://www.dischord.com/band/teenidles deadlinks
  • Fixed; dischord.com added a hyphen to the URL. CloudNine (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• What makes http://www.threatbase.com/ a reliable source?
  • Removed; the sentence it was linked to was cited already by Azerrad anyway, so it didn't add much. CloudNine (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. On the picture issue, pictures are not a requirement, the criteria merely says "where appropriate". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please review the dab links in the tool box, and be aware of WP:ACCESS and WP:DASH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I actually removed the only dab while you were presumably writing that (my mind-reading skills are still up to scratch). Any particular points I need to address w.r.t WP:ACCESS? CloudNine (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comments — Some things I noticed at a brief glance:
• The Teen Idles history began when Washingtonian Ian MacKaye discovered punk rock through a local college radio station, Georgetown University's WGTB. - "The Teen Idles history began" → "The Teen Idles began".
  • Technically the Teen Idles (as a band) didn't form then, but the history behind it began. Is there a better way of phrasing it?
• The two became friends and quickly discovered their shared interest in punk. MacKaye and Nelson saw their first punk show in January 1979 — a benefit concert by The Cramps for WGTB. - Em dashes are unspaced.
  • Fixed.
• The Slinkees then renamed themselves The Teen Idles. - Remove "then".
  • Fixed.
• After about a dozen concerts, opening for bands such as the Untouchables, The Teen Idles decided to tour the West Coast in August 1980. - "A dozen" → "12.
  • Fixed.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Hopefully I've addressed at least some of the issues. Thanks for the review. CloudNine (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose... Kaldari (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a little concerned about several sentences from this article appearing verbatim on this blog. Did one source copy the other or are they both copied verbatim from another source?
  • No, the blog most definitely copied the Wikipedia article. The blog entry was "written" months after the Wikipedia article. Looks like a copyvio to me.
• The lead mentions the band's influence on straight edge, but straight edge isn't even mentioned in the article body. A good source is Ross Haenfler's book Straight Edge which discusses the Teen Idles on pages 8 and 9.
  • It's not mentioned by name, but the trademark Xs are discussed in the paragraph describing the band's final gig. I'll see if I can work in more information (perhaps even a separate section). Do you have a copy of Straight Edge?
    • That's definitely an improvement. Were there any other ways that the band influenced Straight Edge besides the X's?
• The article should mention the issue of the band's youth more prominently. The band and their fans were commonly dismissed as "teeny-punks" and had to struggle to be taken seriously. Take a look at the book Dance of Days for more info on this.
• I'd like to see more books cited in the references. There are a lot more books than just Our Band Could Be Your Life that discuss the Teen Idles.
  • Good points. I'll try and pick up those books from somewhere. CloudNine (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
    • You can find Straight Edge and Dance of Days on Google Books if you need to. Also, it looks like some sources claim the band only earned $600 from touring instead of $700 as is stated in the article. You might want to double-check the figure and add a citation for that sentence specifically. Kaldari (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Support (as fanboy, alt rock project member, now a contributor and friend of the nominator). I think its a fine artice that can pass after a few bits and pieces are added. "All Ages" has a lenghtly interview with Mackaye (ever read a short interview with Mackaye?) and he mentions the band at a few points. He talks about the origions of the Straight Edge 'X', and its appearance on the Minor Disturbance EP. I could add a section on this, and that might give rational to use feature the EP artwork. I'm asking here first in case you might think it might be off-topic. The other thing is, yes as per above there are a lot of books out there on straight edge, and it might be an idea to get other perspectives. Small fixes needed here and there re prose, but nothing drastic - its quite well written. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm taking a while to read through some other sources (to be honest, I didn't know the Teen Idles appeared in several other books in detail). I'll let this FAC gain as much review as possible, and then try to address all the issues. CloudNine (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Just say the word and I'll add the section. Ceoil ^sláinte 12:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Oh, that would be great. I'm guessing it would be titled "Straight edge philisophy" or similar? CloudNine (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure; but almost they were the first straight edge band, and the article should be weighed in that direction. Ceoil ^sláinte 13:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I shoehorned it into the ablum section. Its mostly quotes, but I think relevant. Ceoil ^sláinte 14:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Cheers for the addition. It's much appreciated, and it definitely improves the article. I think I'll investigate some other sources to see if I can add to it. CloudNine (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll do the same. I'm inclined towards a support, but we'll see what can be dug up. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comments. The article looks quite nice but could do with a thorough copyedit. I gave the lead a quick one and will finish the rest of the page in the next couple days. NSR77 ^T 23:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work! NSR77 ^T 03:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comments. the lead mentions twice that the band were one of the first straight-edge and hardcore bands. Could you make the genre in the lead a little more general than "hardcore punk" (for those who are unfamiliar)? Punk rock maybe (the overarching genre)? indopug (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Reworded as "The Teen Idles were among the first punk groups from the early 1980s hardcore movement..." Ceoil (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I just don't feel like I really have a good understanding of this band. That may be because I know nothing about punk, or because they didn't do that much, or because there isn't more info to be found (or there is, but we haven't found it yet). Contrarily, there is some detail in the article that I feel is a bit irrelevant. If there are more books available that discuss the band, I highly recommend that you make use of them. Interlibrary loan can help, but it would likely mean withdrawing the FAC for now until the books come in.

• Is it important that we know how MacKaye and Nelson met? I can see that having more relevance in their individual articles but don't see its relevance in this one.

Its important to punk historians - ;) - at least, as the birth of Fugazi, which is what we are really talking about here, and it encompases Teen Idols, Minor Threat, Rites of Spring and Embrace; all significant early hardcore bands, and has been mythologised to a degree that beggars belief, frankly. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Watch for overlinking - for example, don't need to link WGTB twice in one paragraph.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• How old were MacKaye, Nelson, et al when they started playing in The Slinkees? Were they all in high school?

Would have been about 16, but I clarified as "teengaers". Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• "After about local twelve concerts" - what?

Reworded. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Teen Idles decided to tour the US West Coast during in August 1980" - decided on their own - no sponsor? Did they have gigs lined up or did they just show up at each city and try to find a spot to play? How difficult was it usually for this kind of tour without being on a label of any sort?

• I still don't see any further details about the "tour". They were refused entry to one of the locations - did they actually have gigs lined up? Karanacs (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why were they hassled by police?

In the late 70s, US punks were routienly beaten up on the street by concerned members of the public, and because a number of them were also squatters, they were tarnished and seemed to have been espically targeted by The Man. Rollins has been very articulate about this, and a friend of the band, and hammered by dudes with mullets and moustashes a good few times; tring to find the copy of the autobio of his I know is somewhere in my attic.Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That is good background to have, and I think it should be included in the article for people like me who are unfamiliar with the history of punk. Karanacs (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• "People were freaked out by how fast we were" - fast at what?

Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• The info about Inner Ear/Don Zientera is not presented in the best way - it doesn't flow well at all

Reworded to make a bit clearer. Ceoil (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Is that perhaps too much detail to have? It still doesn't read very well to me. Karanacs (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Grindle's disillusionment with the band" - what disillusionment - that they weren't successful, that he didn't like touring, that he was getting tired of his bandmates?
• not sure what this means - "was a key event for all-ages shows"

Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't quite get the inclusion of the story about the Xs for underage club goers. What is the purpose of its inclusion?

Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• any info on how many copies, total, they sold of their album or of the 1996 issue of their demo sessions?

Not very many, likely less than 1500 at the time. This kind of info is usually paticularly hard to find for independant releases. As the figures are so low (the phrase is more talked about than heard), labels tend to be silent as to the actual volume. Marketing, see. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• did the album get airplay around the country? was their music ever played overseas?

This is covered by the "one of the first to break out of their regional scene" statement. Can find no info re oversees. Germany would be the most likely place they would have recieved attention, but I can't speak German well enough to trawl the web archives of their radio stations. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• All sentences with quotations need a citation, even if that means the citation is duplicated in subsequent sentences.

Done, as far as I can see. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• I see that the X is explained again later - perhaps just leave it out of the first section?

• The X stuff makes more sense to me, but the article has not fleshed out how this was "a key event for the popularity of all-ages shows". Obviously, this had been done before in California. What made this particular show a key event? What impact did it have in the future? Karanacs (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, all of you points are astute, but all can be resolved. Will let you know when the corrections have been made. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has been improved - thanks Ceoil! A few more issues:

• Probably need a cite for "The band adopted the marking, and though it was initially meant to signify youth, it became a wider emblem for bands prepared to play to audiences under the legal age to be served alcohol."
• Perhaps straight edge could be explained a bit? I had to follow the wikilink to figure out what it was.
• Should the lead clarify that the record label was created specifically for this band?

Karanacs (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Any sound samples possible? indopug (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This FAC seems to be stalled, I'm asking for reviewers to revisit. Ceoil (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Most of my concerns above still stand. Kaldari (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Which ones have been addressed/still stand? Thanks for your edits so far. CloudNine (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
      • The article still doesn't discuss the issue of the band's youth (other than the fact that they were underage). I think this deserves a little more prominence in the article—not just saying they were teenagers, but talking about how this affected their place in the local punk scene. Dance of Days has some good material on this. Also, did the band influence straight edge in any way other than introducing the black X's? If so, that should be mentioned. Finally, I still think the article could use some more book citations, although this has improved substantially since the article was nominated. Kaldari (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Ceoil (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:Maralia (18:21, 1 December 2008) [36].

---

Truong Dinh

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!)

Vietnamese militant leader, fought against French invasion in the 1860s... YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review

• Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Phan Thanh Gian.jpg - Could you fill out an image description in English? Thanks.

• The image license claims "life of the author plus 70 years" but we don't have an author listed. Also, we need a more specific source than "museum in Paris". Awadewit (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Surely we can assume that the photographer died before 1938? Because that was 75 years after the photo was taken. Surely he didn't live to be 95, at least? I've commented it out for the time being. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• I was hoping that discovering the specific museum might lead to specific author information, but apparently not. I've marked the author as "unknown". We'll work on the presumption he died at a normal age. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Goody. reinstated. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 01:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Tu Duc.jpg - Can we get some verification that this is indeed a 19th-century drawing? Does one of your books discuss it, for example?

These should be easy issues to rectify. Awadewit (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the first and commented out the second. It's probably scanned from some old thing but not used in any books I could find. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 03:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment — Sources look good; links check out with the link checker. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Dabs: dab links identified in the toolbox need attn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 01:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This article contains a lot of good information, but I think it still needs some polishing. I also have concerns about one source:

• I'm a little uneasy about the balance of this article - over half of it is dedicated to an exploration of the historiographical debates surrounding Dinh. I'm wondering if this is the appropriate balance for a biography article. I hesitate to ask you to restructure the article and to place the details about Dinh's disputes with Hue in the body of the biography because I know nothing about this time in Vietnam's history. Help me understand this choice better. :)

• Is there any other information about Dinh's wife? We hear that he marries this woman and then that she gets a good pension after his death. Anything else about their life together?

Unfortunately, the old Confucian Vietnamese history style is to deliberately stay mute about wives (or mistresses) of public officials and mandarins. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 07:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Whenever scholars are named in the next, please identify them and their expertise.

• Dinh took advantage of his improved socio-economic status to recruit a group of impoverished people, whom he organised for clearing land and founding a đồn điền (military colony) in Go Cong. - awkward construction - It seems odd to pair clearing land and founding a colony - one seems like such a vaster undertaking than the other.

• This occurred after Emperor Tu Duc's 1854 order, which granted General Nguyen Tri Phuong permission to organise southern levies in this manner. - I did not understand the connection between the military colony described in the previous sentence and the information in this sentence.

• The first paragraph of "French invasion of 1859" does not flow well - it starts out with the attack and then gives the reasons for the attack. What do you think about presenting the reasons first and then the actual attack? This would also make the following paragraph, which begins with the razing of the Citadel, flow more seamlessly into the narrative.

• Around 150 guerrillas commanded by Truc ambushed the vessel, killing some of the crew before sinking and burning the boat. - The boat was first sunk and the burned or first burned and then sunk?

Fixed. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 07:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• However, the overall Vietnamese military performance was not as successful. - Since this sentence is at the beginning of a section, its comparisons need to be explicit - "not as successful" as what?

Fixed. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 07:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• The treaty was accompanied by financial compensation to France - Why was France receiving financial compensation?

War reparations/punitive taxation. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 07:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you make this explicit in the article? Awadewit (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• The actions of Dinh in the wake of the Treaty of Saigon has long been a bone of contention - colloquial and not entirely clear - be explicit that it is the French and Vietnamese doing the contesting

Fixed. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 07:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• The French had long accused Huế of surreptitiously supporting Dinh in contravention of the treaty - Do the French no longer do this? Is it really "had" or should it be "have"?

I think saying that they "did" is what is needed, as this is what they said in the 1860s. I don't think the French govt/army cares about it now frankly. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 07:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• The paragraphs explaining the French view that the Hue court violated the treaty in the "Defiance of Hue" section could be condensed - there is some repetition in them.

• The paragraphs explaining the Vietnamese view regarding the violation of the treaty in the "Defiance of Hue" section could be trimmed, perhaps by removing a quotation or two.

• In light of Dinh's disobedience of Tu Duc, his justification for his defiance is discussed against the backdrop of the Confucian expectation for him to defer to the emperor's "mandate of heaven". - This sentence is hard to follow - perhaps an inversion is in order? Begin with Confucius and the mandate of heaven?

• The above postulated explanations of Dinh's behaviour are seen as plausible, given the chaos engulfing Vietnam at the time and the lack of conclusive documentation. - Seen as plausible by whom? Since this is a controversial area of history, we should probably be explicit.

done. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 07:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• What do you think about putting the lines from Nguyen Dinh Chieu's poem about Dinh in a quote box?

• The last paragraph of the "Legacy" section seems to belong in one of the sections about the historiographical debate.

• Nguyen, Thanh Thi (1992). The French conquest of Cochinchina, 1858–1862. University Microfilms International - Is this is a PhD dissertation? How do we feel about using dissertations as sources? Frankly, I wouldn't use one unless I saw it cited in other scholarly works as some sort of groundbreaking dissertation. Most dissertations aren't worth much - the only worthwhile parts get published as real journal articles anyway. (I say this as a dissertation writer, sadly.) This source is used a lot in the article, so I think we need to extra careful.

It's cited by thsi book on googl books by Choi Byung Wook. Usually I wouldn't pay attention to PhD theses too much, but this one was done at Cornell, where there is a big SE Asia history program and her supervisors have written a few notable books and have chaired a few conferences on Vietnam and such and their conference proceedings are turned into books. It seems to available in a few Australian unis in hardcopy, does that mean it that it was a relatively influential one? The other thing is that the source was mainly used to raw events, such as various military engagements. All the parts abour style and character and conjecture/inferences etc, were from journal articles and textbooks by staff academics I think.YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 06:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Notable professors who were there include John K. Whitmore, David G. Marr, Keith Taylor, example conference - [37]. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 06:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The argument about the person's supervisors doesn't wash. This person's work has to stand on its own. It doesn't matter, for example, that my dissertation director is a world-famous novel scholar and an Austen expert. If I want to be taken seriously in Austen studies, I have to publish something myself. What has Nguyen published? What conferences has s/he appeared at? If the dissertation was published in hardcopy, that might indicate someone thought it was important, but the true test of importance in scholarship is citation. If the dissertation is only cited in one book, I would be worried (is that book her dissertation director's book? even worse!) Dissertations are not rigorously fact-checked, so I really think this source should be replaced if we can't find better evidence of its importance. Awadewit (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, okay, I'll wait and see what unfolds. No, the guy who cited it was not her professor. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 06:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Second cite [38]. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 06:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Are these seminal books on this topic? And we still have only two? Awadewit (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• I copyedited this article a bit while I was reading it, but I would like to see another copyeditor go over this article - there are some wordy passages. Find a copyeditor who can reduce redundancy. I'm not the best person for that. :)

• Now that dates no longer have to be linked, you might think about unlinking the dates in this article.

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Withdraw due to lack of time to fix all these things up. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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