I've been working on this article for a while, it passed its GAC about a month ago. The article has been through three peer reviews, and several copyedits and now, I believe it now meets the FA criteria. I would like to nominate my first featured article candidate. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I read it and loved the prose. However, there are some footnotes which need en dashes (such as numbers one through forty-seven), so I would suggest reviewing those. JonCatalán(Talk)16:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Some of the piped links to English football seasons have hyphens. Recently these links were changed to use en dashes, and I think the piping can be changed here. Not a big deal, but it would set a good example for other club pages.Done - Changed all of them.
Early years and league triumphs: Is the bolding necessary here? I can understand the first use, but the second one is just a copy of the bolding in the lead.Done - Debolded club name.
"indicating that the clubhad opened membership to all in order to relax financial troubles and increase the pool of players avaliable to it." The words that I struck are usually considered unnecessary here.Done - Removed.
Further league championship titles: "When the war ended and the league resumed, Sunderland came close to winning another league championship in the 1922–23 season; when they finished as runners-up behind Liverpool." Semi-colon should be a comma.Done - Changed.
Financial troubles and cup success: "Sunderland only needing a draw during their final game against Chelsea, and hoping Chelsea did not beat Portsmouth in their final game of the season." Change needing to needed, and hoping needs a tweak as well. Just reading the sentence will show the problem.Done - Changed.
"After spending six seasons in the Second Division, Sunderland were promoted to Division One in the 1975–76 season, they topped the table over Bristol City by three just points." Remove just, and make the second comma a semi-colon.Done - Changed.
Recent highs and lows: First, I don't like the section title. What constitutes "recent"? 1992 was a long time ago. "with Sunderland losing 2–0 to Liverpool." This is an example of the "noun-plus-ing" structure, which is often found in FACs. A better option is "as Sunderland lost 2–0 to Liverpool." This also removes some passive voice; active voice is often preferred here.Done - I've moved the header to the following paragraph as they were also in the 1992 FA Cup Final. Changed the wording also.
"Sunderland returned to the Premier League as champions in 1999 with a then-record points total of 105." Confusing, because there is no indication that they were in the Premier League before then.Done - Mentioned previous Premier League campaign.
There's more for me to look at, but this should give you some ideas for polishing the writing further. It's pretty good now, though, and I enjoyed reading it. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back for more.
Inconsistent hyphenation of "then record" in Recent highs and lows.Done - Used hyphen both times.
Ref 66 shouldn't have a space after punctuation.Done - Removed comma.
Colours and crest: "and also the land the Stadium of Light lies on". Word isn't necessary after and. Also, I'd delink the two stadiums here, seeing as they are linked in the next section, which is about stadiums.Done - Removed word, and delinked stadiums.
Stadiums: Change comma after "at Hendon Board School" to a semi-colon.Done
Problem sentence: "It was opened on 10 September 1898, and Sunderland played the same day against Liverpool, which Sunderland opened with a win."Done - Reworded.
"though albeit in a different language." I thought that albeit meant though; don't think the two next to each other works.Done - Removed although.
Supporters and rivalries: "including from; America, Australia, Canada and Ireland." Semi-colon could be a colon. I know I'm being picky on the punctuation, but getting this right really elevates an article.Done - Changed to colon.
Don't understand this sentence: "the jury stated it was described as 'like a scene from the film Braveheart' by some." What jury? And the "by some" part should be moved, perhaps to "described by some."Done - Reworded a bit.
I'm stopping here for now. I see some other problems in this section, including "Sunderland have number of supporters" and "and costs $3 as 28 November 2008." Also, is Banning Orders commonly capitalized? And "The Sunderland fans were voted as the loudest ground in the 2007–08 season..." needs work. Ealdgyth's source concerns should be addressed as well. Sorry I couldn't finish, but there are only so many issues I'm willing to list at once. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if they were missed, but my stopping point showed some problems that haven't been fixed. Maybe I should have made them more explicit.Giants2008 (17-14) 21:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I, at one time, copyedited this article for Sunderland06 and I was already impressed with the quality of the prose. It passes the FA criteria and was an enjoyable read. VX!~~~23:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, am not confident of this site since their sources also include web sites and blogs. Would it not be better to pick up the three books listed there and find the information? Jappalang (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through what this source was supposed to be citing, and noted that aside from talking the badge, it was used twice to talk about the sponsors of the clubs by noting the period the sponsors appear on the shirts. If this is the source of visual citing asked for, then why not go straight to the primary source at Sunderland's home page (http://www.safc.com/history/?page_id=3051)? That should suffice for Vaux and Cowies. The relationship between Cowies and Arriva can be sourced by Sunderland Echo. If Vady's logo is too small to make out from Sunderland's home page, the company itself mentions its sponsorship here. Historicalkits.co.uk is not needed for these. Jappalang (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk20:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support- a fantastic article and I believe it deserves the status following what it was like before the owner's work on it began. Looking at the sources I can't see anything wrong with them, can't see anything spelling or grammar wise, or any problems at all, it has my support for now unless anyone can address faults to it. Mackemfixer (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments From a read through there are no obvious omissions, with each period in the club's history covered evenly. The sourcing relies heavily on one particular book, but it appears that for a club of their size relatively few books have been published about Sunderland. There a quite a few small issues which are individually minor, but that I'd like to see resolved before I support. I've yet to go over the second half of the history section.
Sunderland-based school teacher James Allan started... The reference for the subsequent sentence states that he called a meeting of schoolteachers which resulted in the formation of the club. Does the print reference go into detail which credits him with starting the club? If not, wording like "a meeting of schoolteachers called by James Allan" would be more appropriate. Likewise the web reference does not say anything about increasing the pool of players, is this something from the book? - Done - I've changed this into a book reference. The book specifically states Allen as the club's founder.
as professionalism was creeping into the game - implies something insiduous about professionalism.Comment - For some reason, Allan was against the club turning professional, as they were receiving many payments from scottish companies to let their players play at Sunderland, and had just been in trouble after paying their players after an FA cup match with Middlesbrough.
Admission to League - I take it this resulted from a vote, with Stoke failing to be re-elected? Comment - Book says we were preffered to Stoke, I'd imagine they had failed to be re-elected.
famously declared - A peacock term.Done - Removed famously.
There's a bit of redundancy in some of these sentences e.g. However, they returned to the top of the English league in the 1894–95 season as they were crowned champions - There's no need for "English" as Sunderland don't compete in any other league. Finishing top and becoming champions are one and the same.Done - Removed redundancies.
Sunderland came close to winning a third successive league championship - six points was a wide margin for a 30 game season under 2 points for a win. Unless there was a late collapse, simply stating that Sunderland finished second would be more neutral. Done
Any idea when the club badge was first introduced. In the case of many clubs, no badge was used until the mid-20th century. Additionally, the reference does not support the statement that it was changed in 1972. Comment - No indication of date first badge was introduced, historical kits gives the other badge as 1977.
Is a more precise capacity figure for the Stadium of Light available? All seater-stadia are seldom precisely x000 in capacity.Comment - Everywhere I've looked (even the club website) lists the capacity as 49,000 exactly.
Its worth mentioning the capacity decreases caused by the Taylor Report as the reason for Roker Park's inadequacy.Done - Mentioned taylor report.
The Sunderland fans were voted as the loudest crowd - it was measurements by a decibel meter, not a vote.Done - Changed to recorded.
The Supporters section overplays hooliganism. Sunderland aren't particularly known for it, so it shouldn't be one of the very first things mentioned in the section.Done - I've moved the loudest crowd bit to above.
Oppose until the prose and linking is smoother. The lead alone provides plenty of fodder for comment:
Is it Sunderland or the FC that competes in the League? "Sunderland Association Football Club is a professional association football club based in Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, England, which competes in the Premier League." Try "..., England, that competes ...". Done - Changed to that.
Remove comma after "titles". Done - Comma removed.
"They" at the start of the second para is off-putting. Perhaps "The Club were elected"? Done - Changed to The club.
It's a messy half blue at the opening. Are readers really going to sit there are divert to all of those "Year in English football" articles before they read the rest? I don't think so. And won't most of them think the year-links are just that—links to solitary year articles? Why not (1) improve the appearance and readability at the opening, (2) make the links explicit, and (3) reduce the dilution of the other links, like this: Done - Changed to that.
Remember that there's a prominent navbox at the top of each Year in English football article. Year-in-X links can also be placed in the "See also" section, with more helpful information as you please that would otherwise clutter the main text.
"The club won their first FA Cup in 1937"—You've linked the solitary year again, but this time it's to FA Cup in 1937. Why not pipe the whole group? Be explicit, where it's reasonably brief. See MOSLINK. I think there's a case for the 1973 FA Cup link to be in the "See also" section rather than in the lead. Done - Removed link altogether, mentioned later on in article.
Clunky sentence: "The club's home stadium is the Stadium of Light, an all-seater stadium with a capacity of 49,000 into which they moved in 1997 after leaving Roker Park in order to increase ground attendances." You know how I love "in order to". "stadium ... Stadium ... stadium". Needs to be split by a semicolon or period. The 49,000 thing is revisited only four seconds later; readers will be irritated. Done - Removed first mention of 49,000. Tony(talk)08:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It is commonly likened to Benfica's Estádio da Luz, which translates into English as "Stadium of Light"." Why not "It is commonly likened to Benfica's Estádio da Luz ("Stadium of Light")." And where the f... is it? Rio? Madrid? Who is Benfica? Done - Changed and added Lisbon, Portugal. Tony(talk)08:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try to locate a sports editor who is unfamiliar with this article, for a good massage of the entire text.
Support Comment just starting to massage the prose now. Please revert any changes in meaning I inadvertently introduce. Not too bad but I will fine-tune straightforward ones. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and their performance [in the previous season] led The Times to describe them as "a wonderfully fine team" - my sense is the bracketed bit is redundant. Can the author confirm? Done - Removed redundancy.
"Mackems" is sorta sprung on readers in Financial troubles and cup success section without being explained. I'd settle for it being mentioned in lead but it isn't there. Done - Changed to "club"
The bit on the Friendship trophy looks odd stuck there way down the bottom. I think it would go better after the other rivalry info in the main text. Comment - The reason it is under the honours is because it is an actual trophy. It does not have its own article, so needs a little further explainling.
One last thing, there should be a space between the p ad the number in all the book refs. I'd do it myself but I need to sleep now. Nearly there :) Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Added all the spaces, and thank you very much for the copyedit. :)
I placed italics for the unresolved issues above, like you asked. Don't know if my initial message was missed up there, but I didn't want to take any chances. Read them carefully and the problems will become clear. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of them were still not done, but I took care of them myself, along with a few other tweaks. Here is my final round, at last. Have to get moving here, because this is the second-oldest FAC up at the moment. Normally I keep my posts together, but I'm putting this at the bottom so it doesn't get missed.
Statistics and records: "with Bobby Gurney being the record goalscorer...". Noun-plus-ing structure, which is more common for candidates than I originally thought. Try a semi-colon, then "Bobby Gurney is the record goalscorer...".Done
"making 36 appearances for Republic of Ireland." Perhaps "for the Republic of Ireland."Done - Added the.
The two transfer fee amounts need non-breaking spaces between the pound amount and million, like this: $5.6 million. The edit screen shows the correct formatting, with the exception that us Americans have dollar signs on our keyboards. Another one is needed in Sponsorship.Done
SupportOppose- the prose is still not of FA standard. The section on stadiums is well-written but the efforts of , I guess, other writers spoils the article. Here are some examples:
The club's home stadium is the Stadium of Light, an all-seater stadium into which they moved in 1997 - why not "which they moved to in 1997"?Done - Changed.
...leaving Roker Park to increase ground attendances. - something odd here, capacity? Done - Changed.
after a 7–2 win against Aston Villa at Perry Barr - can you confirm this was at Perry Barr and not Aston? These are neighboring districts of Birmingham. Was there a football ground in Perry Barr at the time?Comment - Perry Barr was Aston Villa's ground from 1876 to 1897 as mentioned in Aston Villa F.C.#Stadium.
This occurred when they won their match against Middlesbrough, which meant they finished in fifteenth place - "and they finished in.."Done - Changed.
Both Sunderland and Norwich were relegated in the same season of appearing in the League Cup Final. - "they appeared", but still confusing.Done - Changed a bit.
Swindon's victory was revoked after being found guilty of financial irregularities and Sunderland were instead promoted - how can a victory be found guilty?Comment - Changed to promotion.
The club has many different supporters groups, including from: the United States, Australia, Canada and Ireland. - no colon is needed.Done - Removed colon.
Raine's "Eye Plan" of c.1785–90 shows two of the (ultimately four) gun batteries on the south side of the Wear which guarded the rivermouth during the Napoleonic wars- this comes completely out of the blue, the writers assumes everyone knows what Raine's Eye Plan is - I don't.Done - Reworded.
think the whole article would benefit from a fresh editor giving it a thorough edit. Graham ColmTalk 21:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Sorry, but these are just examples, please see the edits I made to the article a few moments ago for more, and this: By the 1990s, the stadium was no longer large enough, and with no room for possible expansion, the Taylor Report had also brought new regulations into football stadiums, so Roker Park's capacity was continually decreased. - Is a common problem in the article. The reader has to know that the report called for all-seater stadiums. Without knowing this the reader gets lost. And, why "also", who else brought in new regulations? And, "so" is a very weak word.Graham ColmTalk22:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've gone over the article before. The language has a few problems, but these get tweaked over time (sometimes good, sometimes bad). The major structure flows well. The images seem fine. The language might not be to everyone's taste, but I helped go through somethings with Sunderland directly, so I am currently satisfied for now. I would like to see a few more satisfied (especially Graham), but this is a support as per AGF that Sunderland is working hard to accomplish that task. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your point w.r.t. AGF is a valid one. Although, FAC is not meant to be Peer Review, I am willing to copy edit the article tomorrow afternoon, (GMT), if Sunderland is happy about this, I think the article needs about another two hours of work. I think Sunderland can't see the wood for the trees, (this is a compliment of sorts ;-). Graham. Graham ColmTalk23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds informal, I think this sort of phrasing is not seen in encyclopeadic texts, except in the credits.
Changed "thanks" to "due".
Early years and league triumphs
"This helped to solve financial problems and increased the pool of players."
A bit mysterious since no problems were mentioned in the first place, perhaps it will be better to instead mention how it helped to alleviate such issues without mentioning "problems", e.g. "This increased the pool of players, thereby enlarging the amount of funds the club could draw on."
Changed to that.
"From the late 1880s, Sunderland had a brief rivalry with Sunderland Albion, until the latter club's demise in 1892. Ironically, it was James Allan who founded Albion following dissatisfaction with the way that Sunderland A.F.C. was being run, this was due in part to professionalism creeping into the game."
Was there anything interesting about their rivalry? This sounds trivial in a "A and B were rivals, but B died in xxxx." way. Since James Allan was the connection, it might be better to bring his role to the front at the start.
Suggestion: "However, James Allan grew dissatisfied with the changing attitude in the club towards professionalism and left. He founded Sunderland Albion, and the two Sunderland clubs had a rivalry that lasted until Albion's demise in 1892."
Changed to that.
"was described as the Championship of the World title match."
Just querying, I presume this is from Days, is it he who called it that, or did he phrase it in the passive without naming the parties that named the match as such?
[5] and [6] also call it the "World Championship".
It would be best to cite this sentence to Days and Hearts FC to allow verification (I have no idea of London Hearts's qualifications as a reliable site). Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cited from Hearts website.
"involved in a payment scandal payment scandal involving"
Repetition of "involve", any way to vary the words?
Would it be better to just state what it was? i.e. "come to winning the league title and the FA Cup in the same season."
Changed to that.
"The Wearsiders escaped relegation from the First Division by ..."
The who?
Wearsiders is maybe a local term, changed to "club"
Financial troubles and cup success
"Sunderland only required a draw"
Would it be wiser to say "Sunderland required only a draw"?
Changed to that.
"However, Chelsea were victorious against Sunderland, and went on to win a game in hand 7–0 to clinch promotion, finishing ahead of Sunderland on goal average."
The first clause seems redundant until one reads "in hand", which might confuse a US reader (who I think is more familiar with "a bird in hand in worth two in the bush") when mixed in like that...
Suggestion (in addition to the preceding note): "Sunderland required only a draw for their final game against promotion rivals Chelsea, who had another game left to play after this match, to secure promotion. However, they were defeated, and Chelsea finished their last game 7–0 to clinch promotion, finishing ahead of Sunderland on goal average."
Changed to that.
"After the close call in the previous season, in 1964 the club was promoted to Division One after finishing in second place."
The "previous season" seems redundant after coming so soon after talking about it. Furthermore, I think the sentence can be phrased as "After the close call, the club was promoted to Division One in 1964 after finishing in second place."
Changed to that
"won the game thanks to Jimmy Montgomery who saved two attempts to score in quick succession by Peter Lorimer."
Like I said earlier, possibly informal in tone for an encyclopaedia.
Adjusted.
"This often described as the most famous save, in an FA Cup Final, of all time."
I believe either an "is" or "was" is missing here.
"As a result of this League Cup final, every time Sunderland and Norwich meet, the Friendship Trophy is contested."
Would it not be better to integrate that Friendship Trophy sub-section here? Right now, it just leads to sudden confusion on why they have to do that, forcing readers to break away to that sub-section and return.
Integrated it in.
"but were relegated immediately and returned to the First Division."
Instead of stating this, state their end of the season position, like "but ended up xx from the bottom and were relegated back to the First Division." Otherwise, it might invite suspicion to non-footers.
Changed to that.
"On leaving, former Sunderland player Len Shackleton said "There will never be another place like Roker"."
Is it too matter of factly stated? How about:
"Bearing fond memories of the stadium, former Sunderland player Len Shackleton said, "There will never be another place like Roker"."
Changed to that.
Recent highs and lows
"Sunderland returned to the Premier League as champions in 1999 with ..."
I think it should be made clear that "Sunderland returned to the Premier League as First-Division champions in 1999 ..."
Changed to that.
Colours and crest
"until they adopted to a red and white halved strip in 1884."
I believe "to" is unnecessary.
Yes, left over from one of my edits I think. Removed it. Graham ColmTalk
"In 1977 the badge was changed, but still included the ship, football and the background of red and white stripes."
Why does the caption for the badge state "used from 1972 until changed in 1997"? Which statement is inaccurate, the caption or the sentence in the text?
Caption, changed to 1977.
Stadiums
Since they had seven stadiums, then Stadium of Light and Roker Park should be "See also" articles rather than "Main articles", right?
Indeed, changed to see also.
"Sunderland then moved to Newcastle Road, which became the longest serving ground to the club up to that point."
They moved in and it became their longest serving ground "up to that point" (the time when they moved in)?
It was their stadium for the longest before they moved to Roker Park.
Putting it chronologically, "Sunderland moved to Newcastle Road in 1886. It became their longest serving ground up to 1886." That is what I was thinking when I read the sentence. Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to that.
There seems to be some confusion over my issue, and I apologise for not making myself clear. Look at the sentence (in its original form, and my analyzed break-down). It does not make sense. How can the club move to Newcastle road in 1886 and have it (Newcastle Road) be their longest serving ground in the same year? That was my problem with the sentence (hence, my thoughts above, which I should have clarified was a doubt on the logic). After looking through it again, I changed it.[7] I feel the mention of Newcastle Road as "the longest serving ground" before Roker Park was trivial, including it would have made an unwieldy sentence. Is this sentence accurate to the original intent (sans the "longest serving ground" before Roker)? Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Nearing the turn of the century, Sunderland needed a bigger stadium and moved to Roker Park, returning to Roker."
Sounds a tad weird "to Roker Park, returning to Roker."
Suggestion: "Near the turn of the century, Sunderland needed a bigger stadium. They returned to Roker and set up home in Roker Park."
Changed to that.
"The stadium's capacity increased to 50,000 ... On 8 March 1933, Roker Park had the highest ever attendance at a Sunderland match, 75,118 ..."
I have the inkling that 75,118 was due to over-crowding. Either that, or the stadium underwent further expansion. This needs to be mentioned for clarity.
Overcrowding, yes. Mentioned now.
"The Taylor Report was released in January 1990 following the disaster at the Hillsborough Stadium which resulted in 96 deaths."
The sentence as is seems to present no connection to the preceding sentence.
"In January 1990, the Taylor Report was released after overcrowding at the Hillsborough Stadium resulted in 96 deaths, an incident known as the Hillsborough Disaster."
Changed to that.
Supporters and rivalries
"different supporters groups, including from the ..."
"supporter groups from various countries, including the ..."
Changed to that.
""It was violence and disorder on a massive scale""
I think quotes are to be cited again, even if it is in the middle of a chunk of sentences cited to a source.
Referenced again.
"Like some other"
Either "some" can be dropped or it can be replaced with "several", which has a more precise definition.
"to prevent Albion from benefiting from the gate receipts."
Suggestion: "to not benefit Albion with a share of the gate receipts."
Changed to that.
Statistics and records
Although not extreme, this section still has a hint of being a list of records thrown out.
Nicknames
"They also have other nicknames which include, The Rokerites,"
Suggestion: "They also have other nicknames, such as The Rokerites,"
Changed to that.
"He said "fled from the howling of an approaching black cat, convinced by the influence of the full moon and a warming dram or two that it was the devil incarnate"."
Huh??? Is this supposed to be "He was said to have "fled from ...". By the way, what is a "warming dram"?
I think a warming dram may be a glass of whisky.
Okay with the "warming dram", but what about the start of the sentence (read it from the previous line: Manned by volunteers, one of whom was Dunn. He said "fled from the ...")? Who fled? Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, the editor who added this must have just took it as a direct quote.
"took a black cat to the 1937 FA Cup final in his top pocket as a good luck charm; it worked as Sunderland brought home"
Let us not propogate any superstitions here: "took a black cat in his top pocket as a good luck charm to the 1937 FA Cup final in which Sunderland brought home" Either that, or attribute whoever claimed it worked in the text.
Changed to that.
Managers
I see no point to this section. The list is a near replica of the List article. Take out the list and integrate this section into Players, turning that section into a "Players and managers" section.
Oh, I thought you meant to merge it. Its not the full list of managers, just a cut down version who have managed 50 league games.
It might be reduced, but what is the point of the table? I would not mind a talk on notable managers of the club (by means of trophies, recorded popularity, or controversies) but here we have an arbitrary cut-off of 50 games. I think it makes sense to follow the way it is done with players (although I do not totally agree with it) for consistency's sake. Have a "Current manager" entry, and let those who want more go to the List to find out. Notable managers would have been mentioned in some manner in the club history or records above. Jappalang (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to just current manager, but I'm not sure of its format.
One last issue: as have been said earlier, but seems to have been overlooked, there are still violations of MOS:FLAG. It is not clear to me why flag icons are used in the Infobox. For the player list (which should have been the one doing this instead of the manager's list, now axed), the flags do not have the names next to them.Jappalang (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed the flags from the infobox and player list.
With the resolution of the above issues, I believe we have a general, concise, and comprehensive article of a football club. The ideas conveyed by the language flow smoother than at the start of the FAC. I think all issues (including sources) have been resolved and this article is worthy to be of featured status. Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have forgotten to completely review the lede in my judgment. To make up for this, I have copyedited it to what I think would have rectified my possible issues with it (scattered ideas, awkwardness of certain thoughts in certain places, etc). Jappalang (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Status - the prose issues seem to have been resolved, but there is still one problem with a source. I think it would be a good idea to invite reviewers with unstruck comments to revisit the FAC. Graham ColmTalk19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is now done with sources provided by Jappalang.
Comment(sorry I didn't notice this sooner) in the Colours and crest section, the first mention of a ship is when you say it's "still included". For the benefit of those who can't see it in the image, could you add a bit more detail to (presumably?) the "upper part of the Sunderland coat of arms", and perhaps clarify it as the coat of arms of the city of Sunderland. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Struway2 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not happy - To be honest, I'm quite disappointed with a few things that I'm seeing, even after heavy copy-editing.
The parenthetical Years in English football link looks like an afterthought. Also, what is the method of deciding which year gets linked? Tony1 has done more than anyone here, except Sandy, to raise standards across the board, but I don't think this is one of his best ideas. I prefer his idea of placing such links in a See also section; while I'm not a big fan of See also sections in general, I feel that is a better way. I understand if you don't want to go against Tony, but that's just my opinion.
Why do some clubs have F.C. at the end and not others? Actually, I don't think much of the F.C.s and believe that they can be dropped.
Major tense problems. Just in the lead, I see "Sunderland Association Football Club is", "Sunderland have", "Sunderland were", and "Sunderland's only major triumph after the Second World War was its". Is Sunderland singular or plural? The recent Liverpool F.C. FAC was derailed by this issue, and I see parellels here.
Financial troubles and cup success: "At the end of the decade, they were again relegated to the Second Division after finishing 21st ." Number ends this sentence, which isn't even the main problem; the space before the period is.
Further league championship titles: "The club escaped relegation from the First Division by one point in the 1927–28 season despite 35 goals from Dave Halliday." Sounds like those 35 goals were the only thing that saved the team, so why is "despite" used?
Early years and league triumphs: "After winning the English League Championship, Sunderland played against Heart of Midlothian F.C., the champions of the Scotish League." Please tell me that "Scotish" is British English.
After seeing problems like this after the amount of work that has been done here, it leads me to believe that this still needs more time. Therefore, I'm going to oppose. Sorry, but I have to call them like I see them, and I don't think it's ready to be promoted now. If this gets archived, a few more weeks should be enough to polish the article sufficiently. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "Major tense issues", please note that British English allows the use of singular and plural contructions for a proper noun such as companies, organizations, and football clubs.(British Council, American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement) In general, there is not so much a constant tense to be called for, but a rendering based on the context that the subject is to be expressed in. To expect "Sunderland" or "Sunderland A.F.C." to be only referred to as either singular, or plural in a British English article could be an erroneous expectation. Jappalang (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does not supercede the requirement for the country names on first use of the flags. As previously stated, if the flags are wanted in the player list, then the countries have to be named beside the flags. Jappalang (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a second look at the article, I find myself agreeing with Giants2008, and have to go with a reluctant Oppose. It is getting close to FA standard. It is incrementally improving, and has improved over the course of this FAC, but there are still sufficient rough edges to make me think that more time to refine it is required than an FAC usually grants. There's still an element of proseline, and there are frequent abrupt changes of subject between sentences, which could have better flow. In terms of things other than prose, I think the Supporters and rivalries section needs a bit of an overhaul. Sunderland are a well-supported club who have maintained their support through lean times, but not a global "big name" like Arsenal or Real Madrid. Their support is consequently located primarily in north-east England, but the section doesn't really give that impression. Unless I'm mistaken, the Tyne-Wear derby is a much bigger deal than matches against Middlesbrough, and this should be reflected in the text. The part about Sunderland Albion is certainly interesting, but should not have a larger portion of the section than more enduring rivalries. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the captaincy and vice captaincy in the squad list: The Kieran Richardson article says "He has captained Sunderland on occasion, when regular captain Dean Whitehead has not started the match." So is Richardson or Whitehead the captain? Also is there such a position as "vice-captain" and are you able to provide a source for Andy Reid being given this position? --Jameboy (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't actually find a source for who is the club's captain and vice captain. I think it is Dean Whitehead, but can't be sure, Kieran Richardson was also captain while Whitehead was injured. I think it might be worth just removing the captain and vice captain parts from the list altogether. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not trying to rub it in, but we can't have this many issues up top after so much has been done.
"As of 2009, it is competing in the Premier League." "As of" implies that this is and has been subject to change at a high frequency. Have they changed leagues all that often? Comment - Over the last 10 years they've changed leagues quite frequently, and only rejoined the Premier League in 07-08.
"Sunderland performed well in the league, earning them plaudits such as a "wonderfully fine team"" Done - Removed them.
"However, their achievements petered out, and in 1958, they were relegated. " Sounds like the achievements were relegated. Change "they" to "the club". Done - Changed.
"Their stay in the top flight was a record 68 successive seasons" Jargon in the lead (top flight) is not helpful, maybe it is a regional variant but stay as clear as possible. Why does the sentence use the passive? Try: "They stayed in the top league for a record 68 successive seasons". Done - Changed.
"Sunderland's only major triumph after the Second World War was its second FA Cup in 1973" Is there such thing as a "minor triumph" (in this context)? Done - Simply triumph now.
"when the club secured a 1–0 victory over Leeds United, due to a goal scored by Ian Porterfield." The comma after "United" is not really necessary and disrupts flow. Done - Removed comma.
"Based in the same region, Sunderland has a long-standing rivalry with its neighbour Newcastle United, both contesting the Tyne-Wear derby since 1898." "neighbour" tells us all that we need to know. Done - Removed.
"Sunderland-based schoolteacher James Allan founded the Sunderland & District Teachers Association Football Club" I don't quite see the purpose of bolding down here, it is kind of distracting. Done - Removed bold.
"He founded Sunderland Albion, and the two Sunderland clubs had a rivalry" Almost sounds like they had children, change "had"-->formed, or something like that. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Changed to had. I understand this FAC probably won't pass at the moment. I feel a lot of improvements have been made, but should've been done at peer review really. However, I'll keep sticking in at this article, and renominate it in the future. Cheers for all the help. Sunderland06 (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-checks in one small section reveal significant prose issues. I've given hints below as to how to overcome these. I think this one should be withdrawn and resubmitted after at least a few weeks; then it should go through without too much trouble. Reviewers have been put to far too much work here, and basic problems remain.
"Found guilty of making additional payments to players in excess of the maximum wage"—I may be wrong, but do we need both "additional" and "in excess of"?
I can't remember, but if you've chosen plural for "club", I suppose I can swallow it, but ... "the club were"? Uncomfortable; yes, I see you have used plural. Hmmmm.
Clunky order: "Sunderland required only a draw for their final game against promotion rivals Chelsea, who had another game left to play after this match, to secure promotion." Why not "To secure promotion, Sunderland required only a draw in their final game against promotion rivals Chelsea, who had another game left to play after this match." Have I got it right? Is "in" right?
It goes straight on to say "However, they were defeated"—which team is "they"? Hey, this is basic: you really need to go through all text to zap these back-reference problems. It's an easy class of issue to do housecleaning on, because you simply hop from pronoun to pronoun, and from "this" to "this", etc.
"to clinch promotion" twice in five seconds. Go through and identify the close reps—that's another simple task.
More clunky sentence structure and punctuation: "Montgomery's feat is often described as the most famous save, in an FA Cup Final, of all time." The commas wreck it. Why not "Montgomery's feat is often described as the most famous save of all time in an FA Cup Final."? That way, this habit of separating bits that desperately want to be together in the sentence is overcome, as well as the bump-bumpety-bump ironed out.
Clunky: "Sunderland, a Second Division club at the time, won the game, mostly due to the efforts of their goalkeeper Jimmy Montgomery; he saved in quick succession two of Peter Lorimer's shots at goal." How about "Sunderland, a Second Division club at the time, won the game; this was mostly due to the efforts of their goalkeeper Jimmy Montgomery, who saved two of Peter Lorimer's shots at goal in quick succession." Does one not say "at the goal"? Have an eye for recasting the boundaries between sentences and clauses, with periods and semicolons, to give readers a more even run in length and complexity. The last bit was stubby, the first was awkward in length and arrangement.
Comment Two much work? (yes, spelling intentional, just for you ;) ) I thought reviewers did this for pleasure, just like everyone else? If they don't wish to collaborate then they are under no obligation. I must say, looking above, it seems some have been exceptional: GrahamColm appears to have been especially helpful, putting his money where his mouth is by actually doing some work. The JPStalk to me17:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is nice when reviewers help out. However, they are under no obligation to do so; the purpose of this process is to determine whether the article in question is ready to be promoted. FAC is meant for fine-tuning, it is not a build-a-Featured-Article service. Our reviewer resources are stretched thin. I review for pleasure also, but I don't want to turn the FAC into a peer review. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realise now this article was not ready to be submitted. Most of this stuff should have came up at peer review, and I'd be happy to withdraw this and resubmit it in a couple of weeks. Sunderland06 (talk) 08:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've achieved the GA criteria, and I'm hoping to improve it further. I'm not overly familiar with the improvement process, so it may well not be ready, but it looks to me at least as though it meets the criteria. If it's not, though, I thank you for any help you can provide in getting it there. matt91486 (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'll look into if Minnesota has a similar policy with regard to it's logo and get back to you. If not, there is a separate men's basketball logo that has at least sometimes historically been used, which I believe would meet the requirement. matt91486 (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images need to be re-arranged to conform with WP:ACCESS (no left-aligned images under third-level headings) and WP:MOS#Images. Inconsistency in page numbers in citations: some use pg. and some use pp. Inconsistent dates: some use ISO dates and some use Month day, year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I always like to see a new article type at FAC; unfortunately, pages without a good model are the most difficult to get promoted. Questionable organization and rough edges are easily found, leading me to oppose.
I don't like how the first few sections are organized. I would place the team history section first; this method is used commonly in sports team FAs, such as Arsenal F.C. and Nashville Sounds. The coach and player sections can be placed after the history.
The yearly standings don't need to be here at all; they really clog up the bottom of the page. I recommend splitting them off into a new article, namely Minnesota Golden Gophers men's basketball seasons. If you play your cards right, you could get a featured list out of the deal.
A number of newspaper references without links lack page numbers, which should be included for verifiability purposes.
Peeking into the Clem Haskins era: "Besides lying about the $3,000 payment, he'd also told several of his players to lie to the NCAA." Contractions like "he'd" should be fixed. See if there are any more hiding in the article.
Facilities: To quote our Manual of Style: "Em dashes should not be spaced." They can either be made unspaced or turned into en dashes. I would go for the former option.
Rivals: "The greatest rival in the early years of the program were the Minnesota Aggies." Watch for tense issues ; here we have "rival" (singular) and "were" (plural). To fix this, change "were" to "was".
Unspaced hyphens need to be fixed, see my comment on dashes above.
"A one sided rivalry is with Ohio State." This comes off more than a little POV without any stats (like head-to-head record) to back it up.
Peeking at the history section: "The team finished fourth or better in the conference seven times in Cowles eleven seasons as Gophers head coach." Apostrophe needed for Cowles.
The comments on the writing are only examples of problems throughout. This needs a good copy-editor who is new to the article; that person can help you smooth out the rough patches. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I definitely think you're right with the copyediting - I've been too involved with it for too long to catch all the mistakes. With regard to the newspaper articles, I'm not precisely sure how to source them. Oftentimes they have been accessed from research databases available at universities, but not to the regular public, so it's impossible for me to get a valid checkable link. At the same time, though, page numbers aren't always available. I'll do what I can to investigate further. matt91486 (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the grammatical errors you've pointed out. It will take me a bit to figure out exactly what to do with the dashes, I'm not very good at telling the difference, but I'll try to get it cleaned up. matt91486 (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article is part of a featured topic and the most recent console entry in the highly acclaimed Legend of Zelda series. The game was a launch game for the Wii system. The article is stable, well written, and has improved since the last FA nomination. If anyone disagrees, I will help make the needed changes since the game is deserving enough to be a FA. TJSpyke05:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
I applaud you for wanting to bring the article to FAC once more; I've been working on this article for a while and it's nice to see it's here again. I've been planning to work some more on this article soon; as it stands now, is still has issues. Nice job so far, but I think that it's still too soon for FAC.
There are a few [citation needed]s
Several awards in the Reception box aren't used, so they should be removed. It's not intended to be simply a score aggregator.
Is there any more sales information? By the looks of it, the one sentence that talks about sales is worldwide; what about United States and Japan separately, at the least? And, the game's ranking among versus other games?
Reception is several small paragraphs; the review ones should be merged.
A few unreferenced paragraphs in Gameplay and Plot sections.
The image captions that are not sentences should not have periods.
Oppose on criterion 3 - There are only fair use images in this article and none of their rationales are sufficient.
File:TP Wii.jpg - Could you explain a bit more clearly why this is the best packaging to have in the infobox. What does this mean, exactly: "This particular version of the game, while technically not the original, was released first. Thus, this cover is more appropriate in representing the game."
File:Zelda - Twilight Princess - stab.jpg - I don't see the need for this image. The stated "purpose of use" is: "Used to illustrate the L-targeting feature of the game". However, the article only discusses the Z-targeting system (I assume there is a difference).
File:Zeldatp-screens (120).jpg - The purpose of use is: "Used to illustrate the wolf form feature of the game". However, WP:NFC has a standard far higher than illustration. The article does a fine job of describing the character changing into a wolf. I'm unconvinced that we need this image.
File:Zelda - Twilight Princess - Twilight Realm.jpg - The source for this image is "the game" - does that mean it is a screenshot the uploader took himself? The purpose of use for this image says: "Used to illustrate the Twilight Realm of the game, the wolf form, and the artistic style of the game", however in my quick skim of the article, I didn't see any text about the artistic style of the game related to this image. Could you add some to justify this image?
File:ZeldaTP-WiiRemoteExample.jpg - This has an incomplete fair use rationale and I find its use dubious. I think the caption does a good job of explaining this feature - integrating that text into the article will be sufficient. I don't see a need for the image.
I have decided to re-nominate the article after a peer review process that has just concluded. It passed GA review back in March. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, based on spot-check of sources from this version:
fn 4-- page not found
fn 16-- page not found
fn 17-- the two sentences of text cited by this footnote are taken verbatim from the cited source, aside from minor punctuation changes, omission of one sentence from source, and addition of two words to article. Are there other incidents of copying and pasting of text?
fn 24-- page not found
fn 61-- page not found
fn 95-- goes to current news page of tv station; not applicable
All incidents of copying and pasting should be removed, unless quote marks are used.
Sources need to be rechecked and broken links replaced.
In the first sentence, is there a way to avoid the redundancy - tornado outbreak was a deadly tornado outbreak? Did the outbreak have any sort of superlative?
I'd like a better source for the damage toll, which is very difficult to find with the source provided in the Infobox.
Some voting locations were forced to close early due to the approaching severe weather
That seems a tad unimportant for the first paragraph of the article. I feel more pressing details should be in the first paragraph, such as more on the actual states affected (and not just which states had primaries that were affected). After all, the article is on a tornado outbreak, not on the election day. It might be useful to specify whether Super Tuesday was on the 5th or 6th.
Were all of the deaths direct? Also, the lede says At least 57 people were killed, but since it's been almost a year, shouldn't a final total be out by now?
Sorry to be pedantic, but I'd like a source for - The outbreak is the deadliest in the era of modern NEXRAD doppler radar, which was fully implemented in 1997. As it's in the lede, it should appear somewhere in the article, but I'd be happy at least with a source.
On February 5 at 7:00 am CST (1300 UTC), the Storm Prediction Center (SPC) issued a high risk of severe storms for most of Arkansas; the first in February since 1998
Two problems. First, the semicolon creates an incomplete statement. Either rewrite the last portion, or change it to a comma. More pressing is what you're trying to say. Was it the first high risk in February for Arkansas alone, or for anywhere covered by the SPC?
Somewhere a link for UTC is needed (I don't see one, at least).
Quick question about this phrase - Some of the most powerful tornado producing supercells - should that be tornado-producing? Or am I reading it wrong?
Better clarification would be good for - A record of five tornado emergency declarations were issued. I happen to think it's out of place, as watches and warnings were dealt with two paragraphs prior.
File:UnionDorm.jpg - The text at this image says "I created this image and give permission for it to be used" and then links to flickr. However, the license at flickr is different than the one chosen by the uploader. Two options here: 1) Enter the information for this image, as if it were from flickr, using the license there; 2) Contact the uploader to establish that s/he is indeed the creator of the image and ask the user to state as such on the image description page ("I" is not sufficient - it needs to be "I, Tms8707056" or something like that).
File:Damage Macon County.JPG - This needs to link to the html page on which the photo appears. I looked through 30 photos - after that I thought you could perhaps take up the search. Start at photo 31! :)
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been peer reviewed and has passed GAN successfully. I'll try my best to address issues. GeometryGirl (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Vietoris4343.jpg - Twice now, I've tried to access the source and permissions links for this image (last night and this morning). Both times I've gotten a "The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later." message. Anyone else having this problem?
All of the diagrams have descriptions and PD licenses. I am incapable of assessing whether or not they require sources. Someone with more mathematical knowledge than myself will have to decide whether or not the information in them requires verification.Awadewit (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify? Do you think the images need to be sourced on their own? Remember, these images are independent files. Since they are not always associated with this article, all necessary sourcing information needs to be on the image description page. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Awadewit, I was wondering if you could tell me what type of info in an image needs to be sourced (for FAC) (or tell me where I can read about it). I've never participated in such a review so I have no idea. Do things only need to be sourced if they are contentious? or does everything need to be sourced? For example, here is an image that is on a current featured article (and was on it when the article became a featured article [13]); this picture expresses a mathematical theorem, does it lack a source? if so there are probably a few images on the article under discussion that could use a source. I was also wondering whether you were also talking about the commutative diagrams that had to be rendered as png's in a separate software and uploaded to wiki as images (such as [14]), or just the other images. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not know whether the mathematical diagrams (what I would call "pictures") need a source. I really am just too ignorant of this field to judge. I didn't even realize the "commutative diagrams" were images until now, I'm afraid - I supposed they had been rendered using LaTeX. If these "diagrams" represent formulas or equations, they do not have to have a source. For example, if they are the equivalent of something like "2x = 4 therefore x = 2" (to be basic), there is no reason to have a source. Does this make sense? In the end, the mathematically-informed users will have to decide the source question. Awadewit (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The diagrams are expressions of facts that can be represented in other ways. The facts need a source; once they have a source, then the diagram does not need an additional source (except in unusual situations). Ozob (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To try and simplify it a little, these are sort of like Venn diagrams, marking out how you'd divide up simple topological shapes into other simple shapes, and where the overlap is. For instance, you could split the 2-torus (two toruses stuck together) back into two toruses by snipping along the region where the red and blue lines cross. While this may seem an imprecise way to define it, that's because topology is geometry without area, volume, or well-defined positions. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Sources in languages other than English should note that in their reference entry
Comments. A lot of work has gone into this article, which is now deservedly a GA. However, there is quite a gap from GA to FA, and I don't believe it has been bridged yet. The main challenges are engaging professional prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b) and more rigorous referencing (1c). The issues can be illustrated by the "Background, motivation and history" section. This has only one citation to a secondary source (Hirzebruch's essay – the papers of Mayer and Vietoris are primary sources). The section combines two distinct but related things: the motivation of the Mayer-Vietoris sequence from a modern perspective, and the history of how and why it arose. The latter is not covered comprehensively, and needs to be well cited. The history does not end with the papers of Mayer and Vietoris, and Eilenberg and Steenrod deserve more than a brief mention at the end of the derivation section. For example, I don't think the concept of an exact sequence existed in 1930 and Mayer and Vietoris did not present or name their results in this way. Who did?
The references could use a good book on the history of (algebraic) topology. The standard one is by Dieudonne: pages 39 and 110 provide some information. Ioan James' recent book may also be helpful.
Concerning the prose, I find the "(co)" appearing everywhere unhelpful. Historically, and primarily, the Mayer-Vietoris sequence is about homology and I suggest concentrating on that. The fact that there is a dual version for cohomology is important too, but it doesn't need to be mentioned continually in the lead and first section (the relative version isn't). An example of the prose is:
"The Mayer–Vietoris sequence is such an approach, giving partial information about the (co)homology groups of any space by relating it to the (co)homology groups of two of its subspaces and their intersection."
There is a mismatch here between "groups" and "it", and a further confusion when "its" refers to the space rather than the groups; "any space" is also a bit awkward.
Concerning citation, a useful rule of thumb is that Wikipedia has no opinion. Whenever an article contains a statement which is not purely factual, it needs to be cited. The question I ask when I review an article is "according to whom?". This can be asked, for example, of the statement "a theorem such as that of Mayer and Vietoris is potentially of broad and deep applicability." Also, the section uses the word "important" three times. Later on, there is also "As an important special case when G is the group of real numbers...", which could be rephrased. (This segment needs a citation too, but Bott and Tu surely cover it.)
"He was told about the conjectured result and a way to its solution, and solved the question for the Betti numbers in 1929."
What conjectured result and what question? Is this sourced to Hirzebruch's essay?
There are issues elsewhere. For instance, "holds" (in the lead) is jargon (and confusing here). "Covering subspaces" is confusing too, even with the wikilink. Finally, it would be good to back up Hatcher with another source or two, especially when the citation is to an exercise (refs 14 and 15). J.P. May also has a textbook which is available on line. I hope this and the other references given above help in improving the article. Geometry guy17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I think this is a really nice article, generally well-written and with very pretty illustrations. I have a number of relatively trivial issues, and
one major concern. My main concern with the present version of the article becoming featured is that it is not comprehensive (a FA criterion).
(It is nice that the article is so well-referenced, but also shows, that the content is pretty much taken from
one type of book, which increases the potential to miss important points not covered by those references). In my view, to be featured the article should at the
very least mention the following topics: MV for multiple open sets/subsets, MV for sheaf cohomology including a mention of cohomology of coherent sheaves, cohomology of sheaves w.r.t.
more general topologies (etale cohomology, say). For example, it is an easy, but really useful example of MV that cohomology of coherent sheaves on P^n (projective space
of dimension n) vanishes beyond n+1, simply since projective space is covered by n+1 affine spaces, which don't have higher cohomology. (I'm not too much
a connoisseur of advanced algebraic topology, but I suspect that there are more advanced applications of MV in this realm, too.)
The current article conveys a bit the image as if the parallel statements of MV for singular cohomology
and for de Rham cohomology are merely coincidential, but should (IMO) at least tell briefly that both are instances of the more general sheaf cohomology.
lead section
why "attributed to" (sounds a bit like it might be due to somebody else)?
the 2nd section of the lead sounds a bit like reduced and relative cohomology are an additional case (in addition to the cases covered by Eilenberg/Steenrod)
I suggest moving the sentence "Because the cohomology is not computable directly..." to the first lead section, as a motivational statement.
The statement "and a precise relation exists for homology of dimension one" has nothing to do with M/V, and should be removed.
The examples are not covered in the lead. They should be, perhaps as part of the motivation.
background section
In general I think that's well done. However statements like "the cocycle groups are often too big to handle directly" would probably be good with a reference.
"a theorem such as that of M and V" is vague, just "the MV sequence" would be better.
basic versions for singular homology
OK, if you call this basic, what is the non-basic stuff?
It would be good to mention that A and B can simply be open subsets, this is a case often needed.
Generally, * should be replaced by ∗ (∗).
"In particular, H_1 is the abelianization" is misleading. This is a general statement, unrelated to MV. I suggest rewording it to "since, quite generally, H_1 is the abelianization of pi_1, this is precisely the ..."
Basic applications
"the homology groups for A and B are trivial" should probably read "the higher homology groups" or "the reduced homology"
in the Klein bottle, putting some parentheses around Z + Z_2 would be good (in the 2nd term in the last eqn)
Further discussion
"are the usual ones" might deserve a brief explanation
"Consider the ..." could be reworded (things like "note that" etc., directly calling for a reader, should be avoided by MOS, where possible)
Thank you! I am very pleasantly surprised by the feedbacks of Geometry guy and Jakob. There is enough material above to keep me working a bit. Thank you for your criticism and suggestions. GeometryGirl (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree with including a lot of material on MV with three or more open sets. That takes you in to Čech cohomology: The reason why the higher cohomology of a coherent sheaf F on Pn vanishes is because F is quasi-isomorphic to its Čech resolution, which terminates after n+1 steps. (The Čech resolution doesn't appear on the Čech cohomology page, but it's the same idea as the Koszul complex.) That's really a different topic than the present article. I agree that it deserves a mention, but not much. (The generalization of the MV long exact sequence is the Čech-to-derived functor spectral sequence.) Going out into maximal generality, we end up with Verdier's hypercoverings and Deligne's theory of cohomological descent. Here's a set of notes on them: [15]. But these are all well outside the scope of the article, and they deserve a sentence at most.
I agree that it would be good to include statements of MV for other cohomology theories (such as sheaf cohomology). Does anyone know if it holds for extraordinary cohomology theories? (Weibel's K-theory book says there's a version for algebraic K0 and K1, [16], pp. 14–15) I think the right general statement for this might be that some cohomology theories preserve homotopy colimits? But I don't know much about these things. Ozob (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, call it Cech or call it MV for 3, I see it as really closely related. But simply writing "The MV sequence can be seen as a first step toward (or special case of) Cech, since..." is probably also sufficient. Hypercoverings are certainly a bit far off. And yes, there is a MV sequence for algebraic K-theory (this should be in Quillen's original paper (Quillen, Daniel (1972), "Higher Algebraic K-theory. I", Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 341: 85–147), which is mirrored by the MV sequence for (mixed) motives, and every other cohomology theory in algebraic geometry I know of. I would go as far as saying that the existence of a MV sequence is a first test for the reasonability of a cohomology theory. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Ozob has found the way to phrase the Cech vs MV issue over at "Čech-to-derived functor spectral sequence", i.e. the MV sequence is the long exact sequence associated to the spectral sequence coming from a cover by two sets. So something to that effect mentioned in the MV sequence article should be enough (and in fact pretty cool, imho). As for the more general cohomology theories, SGA4.V.3 shows the existence of the Čech-to-derived functor spectral sequence (they call it the Cartan-Leray ss) in an arbitrary topos (as far as I can tell), so the MV sequence holds for sheaf cohomology in an arbitrary topos. Furthermore, Section 2.1 (page 25) of Kōno and Tamaki's "Generalized cohomology" shows that the existence of the MV sequence doesn't depend on the "dimension axiom", and so it exists for extraordinary cohomology theories as well (such as topological K-theory and cobordism). Does this cover everything? And if it does, would the following address your major concern, Jakob?
Mentioning the MV sequence is the long exact sequence associated to the Cech spectral sequence;
Saying that the MV sequence exists in sheaf cohomology in an arbitrary topos;
Saying that the MV sequence exists in both ordinary an extraordinary cohomology theories (in the sense of Eilenberg-Steenrod).
Comments. A couple of quick comments. First, I think it'd be good to mention the dates (1930/31) when the basic result for homology was proved in the lede section, and not just in the main body of the article, to give the reader a better idea of its age. Second, does anyone here know around what time the actual term "Mayer-Vietoris sequence" was introduced (and maybe even by whom)? It is often difficult to pinpoint such things precisely but something approximate should be known. Nsk92 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I agree with the above comments that the "history" portion of the "Background, motivation and history" section needs to be expanded. E.g. who and when stated the result in its modern form? (Presumably Mayer and Vietoris used different language.) Also, when and by whom was the cohomology version obtained? (I assume that Vietoris stated the theorem for homology only, right?) Same for the relative version. Nsk92 (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the moment - I have an amateur interest in topology, but even I find this a bit jargon-dense. Now, obviously, this is an esoteric subject, and noone expects you to simplify the entire thing, but I do think that at least the first paragraph in the lead should attempt to give a brief explanation that a layman could understand. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One could write "In mathematics, particularly algebraic topology and homology theory, the Mayer–Vietoris sequence is a tool to help compute certain invariants of topological spaces. The result is due to two Austrian mathematicians, Walther Mayer and Leopold Vietoris. The method consists of splitting a space into pieces for which these invariants may be easier to compute. The sequence relates the invariants of the space to the invariants of the pieces via a mathematical object called a long exact sequence." Is this preferable? All I've done is remove all the jargon. It is my opinion that the introduction as it stands explains the MV sequence, but perhaps this would be clearer if scary jargon were removed. Or do you think some attempt should be made to explain more of the context such as what are (co)homology groups, what is meant by invariants (and maybe the term algebraic), and maybe even what a long exact sequence is. All this is layman's terms. Is this the sort of explanation you think is lacking? Cheers. RobHar (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Shoemaker Holiday said it was "jargon-dense", not that he was opposed to the presence of any jargon, but rather the high concentration of it. The appearance of one jargon term may be acceptable to him. Or if there's a way of saying "invariant" in layman terms then that could be substituted in. Let's see what Shoemaker Holiday thinks. RobHar (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have already commented on this at the GA stage. I think it would be unfortunate to have on the main page of Wikipedia an article of which only a small subset of Ph.D. level mathematicians and graduate students can understand even the first sentence. For anybody else, the article doesn't even serve the purpose of provoking curiosity, because the background articles that it links to are, excuse me, crappy. The article may be very useful to a tiny group of specialists, but I don't think we should be advertising it to people who won't have any chance of getting anything out of it. Looie496 (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I also have my concerns (see above), I want to make it a point that your objection is not based on FA criteria and seems to be largely irrelevant: The argument with the main page is irrelevant, because we don't discuss that here. Also, that background articles are crappy is not the fault of this article. It is true that the article has narrow importance for the general audience, but this does not preclude it from being featured. Also, I (myself a Ph.D. student) think the article is well-written and understandable for an undergrad student willing to delve into the matter (or having had a course on basic topology), which is exactly the right audience for the article. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said in my GA comments, I think of myself as a test case here: I came close to getting a Ph.D. in math before switching to neuroscience, and have a decent understanding of algebra, analysis, logic, linear algebra, differential geometry, dynamical systems theory, and point set topology -- more than the majority of undergraduates would know. But I never delved into algebraic topology, and don't know what a homology group is, and consequently I can't get anything whatsoever out of this article. Of course I could go to the library and check out a book that deals with algebraic topology, spend a day learning the fundamentals, then come back to this article. But it doesn't seem to me that a Wikipedia FA should have such stringent requirements. Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that the article is consistent with WP:MSM#Article introduction, which is implicitly part of the FA criteria. For what it's worth, a statement at the beginning that "you have to know homology theory to understand any of this article, and you won't be able to learn it using Wikipedia" would resolve some of my issues, as it would prevent people from getting frustrated. Looie496 (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think that I've improved it quite a bit since it became a GA, and believe that it meets the FA criteria. I'll do anything I can to help get this to FA-Class. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, inconsistent date formats in citations:
^ "American Mensa mind games past winners". Mind Games. Retrieved on December 27, 2008.
^ "Origins Award Winners (1993)". Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts & Design. Retrieved on 2007-11-01.
I'll fix that up shortly. I hadn't before I nominated the article because I'd read somewhere that date formatting shouldn't be changed much, although it does make sense for consistency. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I don't know where that specific image comes from, but I'll try and find one that I do know the source for and replace the current one. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean when the logo was created for use by the corporation? That sort of information may be very hard to track down. BOZ (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant when the logo was created for the corporation, yes. It is not necessary information - it is just best to include every last scrap of information available, particularly for fair use images. Awadewit (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is more like a "if you have the information, add it" and "if you don't have it, don't bother to hunt around for it" kind of thing. Awadewit (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that most of RPGnet isn't reliable, because it is mostly a freely editable database and forum site. I considered this page to be reliable because it is written by Shannon Appelcline, and with fact-checking information at the bottom of the article. The article also doesn't look like one that is open to all editing. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the MTGsalvation forum cites are to posts by Daron Rutter, who was involved in the lawsuit with Wizards. I'd assumed that his posts on the lawsuit would be reliable, although other comments in the forums aren't. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Major problem with forum posts is that how do we know that the proported person writing it is really the person writing it? On official forums, when the author is given some identification as being "official" then, yes, they become slightly more reliable, but this isn't the case, as this isn't an official forum for WotC. Ealdgyth - Talk18:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, so here's a bit more info to try and make it "official": his profile page at MTGSalvation, which presumably can only be edited by him, does list his name as Daron, and the combination of two official Wizards of the Coast pages ([18] and [19]) would point to rancored_elf on MTGSalvation as being Daron Rutter. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 15 (Engleman..) the title of the journal is Puget Sound Business Journal, and it should be in italics. Use the work field in the template to accomplish this
Thanks; I'll look into replacing/removing the refs that aren't reliable. I've left two questions above regarding the reliability of MTGSalvation and RPGnet. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed everything with the refs except for the RPGnet and MTGSalvation refs being discussed above. I didn't notice any journal names that should be in italics but aren't; am I just missing something? -Drilnoth (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it means anything, I tried it again just now and it said "database replication lag is 4301 minutes"; that's about 71.6 hours, or about 2.4 days, and I did fix it since then. :) BOZ (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the "History" section: "Magic's release has been called "Probably the most dramatic event in RPG history since the 1974 release of D&D", because by 1994 "A mad rush was on to create 'the next Magic.' RPG design came to a standstill at many companies as they scrambled to create a CCG of their own."" These quotes are unnecessarily sensationalist. They should be paraphrased into a more encyclopedic description rather than a Wizards soundbite. Axl¤[Talk]22:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to be sensationalist when I added the lines (originally found in The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible), although I can understand if they need to be removed or paraphrased. I'll see what I can do. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From "History", "Sold to Hasbro": "Hasbro had expressed interest in purchasing Wizards of the Coast as early as 1994, but had become impressed with the success of its Pokémon game." [Emphasis mine.] The conjunction doesn't seem appropriate. Axl¤[Talk]09:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've looked at a couple of featured articles about companies: "BAE Systems" and "Oliver Typewriter Company". The Wizards article has a well-developed History section. However a lot of information is missing. What's Wizards' market share in CCG and RPG? What is their turnover and other relevant financial aspects? I realise that the spin-out article "List of Wizards of the Coast products" is linked. However the article would benefit from a "Critical reception" section, discussing the major products: M:TG and D&D. There should be a list of the main awards received. What about criticisms of the company? Wizards has been accused of trying to monopolise the market, dumb down the game, and overcharge customers. Surely there are some reliable sources about this? Axl¤[Talk]19:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WotC has been accused of monopolization, dumbing-down, etc., but to my knowledge there are few if any reliable sources; it's mostly just postings on messageboards and the like. I was also under the impression that "criticism" and "controversy" sections were generally discouraged and better fit into the rest of the article if possible. Otherwise, I think that you definitely have some good points and, looking again, the article does need a fair bit of expansion. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Overall it looks to be in pretty good condition, and is close to meeting the FA criteria. I only have a few concerns:
The "Sold to Hasbro" section has one paragraph on the sale; the remainder appears unrelated. How about some information on how the sale to Hasbro has influenced the WotC company? My understanding is that the reason for the sale of WotC was some disgruntlement by the early stockholders who had not seen much of a payback for their investment. Is there any information about this that could be added?[20]
The title to the next section, "Changes and controversy", could just as easily apply to the "Sold to Hasbro" section. Is there a better sub-division of the information?
The following sentence seems to be dangling a bit, and needs expansion for clarity: Adkison "Set [the] overall design direction for the new edition of D&D". Perhaps some explanation could be provided about the business reasons for producing a new version?
Is there any information on the company revenue and profits? I know their sales were $3.3 billion in 1999; not exactly chump change.
"Games and products" is mostly redundant with the previous sections. The only new item is the publication of novels. Perhaps the last could be expanded?
"Recent years" might not work because it introduces a time dependency into the article. But I'm not sure what to suggest as an alternative. "Second decade" wouldn't quite work since the prior section covers events up through 2008.—RJH (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding revenue/profits, I didn't see any really reliable sources in my first (albeit short) search. I'll see what I can do about expanding the games & products section and the reason for the sale. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a fair amount of information available via a google of: "wizards of the coast" revenue. It probably doesn't have to cover every year, but some information on trends would be good. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Axl and criteria 1b. I don't think that an article about a well-known company which only consists of a history section can be a featured article. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I have moved my original oppose and subsequent discussion to the talk page, as it was getting rather long and cluttering up this FAC. I will be traveling over the next few days. If the article is not significantly different from this version my oppose still stands; otherwise, please feel free to ignore it. I'll revisit the article when I get a chance. BuddingJournalist02:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well-known site that provides web browser usage statistics. This reference is used to back up the assertion that Internet Explorer 6 was the most widely used web browser at the time of Acid2's release, which is common knowledge among web developers and easily verified by any of the sites listed in the Usage share of web browsers article. —Remember the dot(talk)21:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Written by Mark 'Tarquin' Wilton-Jones, a web developer. Used to back up the easily verifiable statement that Internet Explorer 6 did not support alpha transparency and Internet Explorer 7 does. Would you prefer that we used a statement from Microsoft instead? —Remember the dot(talk)21:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Web development tutorial that provides visual examples of various positioning options. You can get the same information from any web development site or book; this one seemed to be the most clear. It is certainly more clear to the average reader than the actual technical specification. —Remember the dot(talk)21:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about using the technical spec as the "real" source and doing a footnote that gives the other, less technical site as an place to go if they don't understand the main source. Ealdgyth - Talk17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 17 (HTML 4.01...) is lacking a publisher.
Current ref 51 (K Desktop...) is lacking a publisher
Current ref 52 (The Acid2 test..) is lacking a publisher (And what makes this a reliable source?)
Current ref 57 (KDE 3.5.2...) is lacking a publisher
Current ref 67 (Baron, David...) is lacking a publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I did not evaluate the non-English sources. I'll note that some of the missing publishers were pointed out in the first FAC, and are still missing now. Ealdgyth - Talk15:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - Can you show me where it says on this website or elsewhere that the Acid2 images are released into the PD. I couldn't find the statement. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the article states, Ian Hickson was the principal author of Acid2. What do you mean, "The source link does not work"? I just checked it and it is functioning correctly for me. —Remember the dot(talk)04:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because...
This article has passed A Class Review. For Wikipedia:MIL the article has reached Class A status. A formal Copy-edit through MilHist Copy Edit Department was completed as suggested in the A Class Review process. A Peer review was completed in past and all those comments have been since incorporated. Its been archived here. I originally was planning to stick with A class. However now that I think more, I feel it deserves a shot at being FAC for the reason that There are very few articles in its class that have had reached this status. According to FA Class list, there are a total of 37 articles in all and predominantly Military related articles. Luftwaffe related articles are very few. I am not stating that this is the reason. (Lack of articles) Please note that being numbered One in among the wings was a big deal but to be named after its Wing Commander was considered a really big honor that very few people received. I think that this article deserves a shot on merit alone. Perseus71 (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I noticed no major problems with the article during my copyediting, however there ar two things;
In the "Wartime history" section the pictures of people are a little small; on one you can't even see the caption
In the "Aircraft of Jagdgeschwader 1" there are two pictures, a BF109E and a Fw109A, that have no border or caption.
Oppose for the moment on 1(a) (prose) grounds.Comments: In the lead alone I found several examples of awkward writing. For example:
Opening sentence has a double meaning. A wing is either a fighting unit, or it's a piece of an aircraft. It becomes obvious which meaning you intend, but you should avoid the initial confusion. Suggestion: Jagdgeschwader 1 (JG 1) was a German World War II fighter aircraft unit or "wing".
Second sentence: the English eqivalents rather than the German originals should be parenthesised, but personally I would do away with the parenthesis, which make the text read jerkily. Suggest: The name derives from Jag, meaning "hunting" and Geschwader, meaning "wing".
Unnecessary close repetition: "Originally formed...JG 1 was one of the original groups..." Suggest replace "Originally" with "First". I also think the latter part of this sentence would read better as "...created by the Luftwaffe as part of its expansion plans".
Starting two sentences in the same short paragraph with "Like" does not read well; in any event the second of these should read "Like that of..." but it would be better to try and replace one of the "likes". Also, "7" needs to be written out.
The opening of the last paragraph is very clumsy: "In summer of 1944, the "Oesau" suffix was added after its then wing commander, (Geschwaderkommandant) Colonel (Oberst) Walter Oesau (127 kills) was killed in action over the Ardennes." Punctuation, the meaning of "its", and the over-use again of parentheses, all need to be considered.
I have not read in detail beyond the lead, but a little way down in the main text I saw: "On 31 March 1943, JG 1 was split to form the new JG 11. I./JG 1 became II./JG 11 on 1 April 1943 and III./JG 1 became I./JG 11. IV./JG 1 was re-designated as I./JG 1. A new group was added to JG 1 as III./JG 1." This seems to be over-detailing beyond the limits of what is understandable. Also, since this happened in 1943, I found it strange to read about it in a section titled "Formation history"; surely, four years into the war, this is part of reorganisation rather than formation?
I don't want to put a damper on an article that has obviously been researched diligently, but at present the prose is not up to FA standard and needs some considerable work. I will be happy to review the oppose when the necessary copyediting has been completed throughout the article. Brianboulton (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good, positive response to my criticisms of the lead. I have done a bit of punctuation and copyediting to enhance it further. Can I suggest two further improvements: First, you say "the Oesau" suffix was added, but you don't say what it was added to. I suggest you say "the Oesau suffix was added to the unit's title". Second, is it really necessary to use German ranks, which look particularly awkward in italics? I'd just use the English equivalents, so the start of the last lead paragraph would read: "...after the unit's commander at that time, Colonel Walter Oseau..." etc. If you do want to keep the German rnks, then at least lose the italics. I have struck my oppose; as soon as I can I will go through and give comments on the remaining text (this may be a few days). Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the comments are incorporated. As to the ranks, I have removed the italics in the lead and will follow it in the main body. I am aware that WP:MIL requires using English words wherever possible. Replacing German ranks with English version had been discussed before but a consensus has not emerged. One of the main reasons is that some of the German ranks have no real counterpart in US or UK military Ex. Unteroffizier. For others, there are multiple equivalent ranks for air forces or land forces. Ex. Oberfeldwebel can be interpreted as 'Technical Sergeant' in the US, as 'Master Sergeant', or 'Flight Sergeant' for RAF. Which version can one use ? I am also aware that this is English language Wikipedia. But then I really do not want to confuse the reader. I hope you understand. Perseus71 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert on this topic. But based on all the information I have received, support personnel were part of the unit. Given Luftwaffe's structure of the time based on Vertical Luftflotte, I am not sure if there was any separate organization for Support personnel. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
The "II.Gruppe Jagdgeschwader" ref is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this site a reliable source?
This web page is part of a website maintained by User:Klaiber. It does not have a known publisher. As to the reliability, the page is based on two separate books as mentioned on the article's Talk page. Those books are Defenders of the Reich : Jagdgeschwader 1 by Eric Mombeek and Jagdgeschwader 1 und 11 : Einsatz in der Reichsverteidigung von 1939 bis 1945 by Jochen Prien. Both the books have been listed in my References. I believe this should make the page a reliable reference. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the books are listed in your references, did you use them? I guess I'm confused as to how if they are used in the references, you can't just cite the books direct. Ealdgyth - Talk16:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the books I have listed are used. Each citation refers to the books by the Page Numbers in accordance with WP:CITE. Specifically to the two Books used by the website, Defenders of the Reich : Jagdgeschwader 1 and Jagdgeschwader 1 und 11 : Einsatz in der Reichsverteidigung von 1939 bis 1945, I don't have those books. Hence I can't cite them. I had added them simply to support the information used from the website. If this is not following Wikipedia standard then I would be happy to remove those two books from the list of References. Perseus71 (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greg Goebel's Public Domain webpage cites three different sources for the information presented. All of these are reliable sources. Besides his Vector Site has been extensively used on Wikipedia as maintained in this article. Many other examples can be found on Wikipedia where his work has been extensively utilized. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This website has been used as a secondary source since the primary sources I have consulted do not have a list form for the Leaders of this unit. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're using it just because the information is presented in a table? Why not just use the primary sources, rather than a self-published site?
The transition information is too fragmented to make any sort of sense in the primary sources. For Example, The appointment Date for one of the Wing commanders would be in one book and Transition Date in some other book. This will then be repeated for all the commanders. Hope that illustrates the point. Perseus71 (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This webpage is maintained by a very respected author whose other book is cited as well. This website is actually cited in a section that has been commented out as part of GA review of this article. You may wish to visit the same for details. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk22:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. (As an aside, unrelated to this FAC, Jagdgeschwader 1 is not a correct dab page, and should be repaired per WP:MOSDAB. Awkward image layout with large blocks of white space, quotes are not in italics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have tried my best to comply with the guidelines. If you could point out any specific instance, I'd be happy to correct it. As to the image layout, to my knowledge the images comply with MOS:IMAGES. The largest block of images in the "Unit emblem and color schemes" section use {{ImageStackRight}}. That combined with section titles so close, tend to give the appearance of more white space. This article was copy edited by User:Patton123 for WP:MHL#COPYEDIT criteria. Their comments are in this review. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: well-researched and comprehensive, but in need of attention to the prose. I dipped into it and found "The spitfires shot down 1.and 2./JG 1 squadrons at the Twente airport as they took off for the loss of two. Of note was the loss of Unteroffizier Günter Sill of I./JG 1 flying Fw 190D-9. Ihlefeld threatened to court martial Major G. Capito the new leader of I./JG 1. But wasn't able to do so in the process of transferring to Eastern front.In Poland,..."
The first sentence isn't clear - does it mean the spitfires destroyed two entire squadrons for the loss of only two of their number? Why did Ihlefeld so threaten? ".But" should be "but" with no period and there is a space missing before "In Poland". If this isn't typical and/or other such issues are fixed get back to me and I'll take longer look. BenMacDui18:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the spitfires destroyed two entire squadrons while loosing only two of their own. I have made it more explicit. Ihlefeld threatened to Court martial for this loss of two entire squadrons. Rest is incorporated. To my belief, this is not typical. This specific piece of information was added only very recently. Perseus71 (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Formation history
I prefer "Messerschmitt Bf 109" to "Bf 109" - the average reader will have no idea what the latter is.
For the first instance as well as template, the name has been introduced as "Messerschmitt Bf 109". Subsequent usage is restricted to Bf 109 to keep it simple. Perseus71 (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Bf 109E Emils" Emil meant nothing to me either until I followed the link. In fact, I think the last two sentences of this para would be better as "He set upon modernizing this unit by re-equipping it with the Emils version of the Bf 109E, a process that was complete by June 1939.", which avoids short sentences and duplicate " re-equipping"
"On 5 January 1942, Oberstleutnant Schumacher transitioned the command of JG 1 to Major Erich von Selle". "transitioned" may be military jargon, US English or similar, but British English would be "handed over".
Both terms are incorporated. 12:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The last three sentences seem to have escaped from the lead - they don't have anything to do with the formation.
This is not your fault but the numbering system makes this very heard to read. I wonder if it is permissible to avoid some of the "JG1"s and /or occasionally use the full name e.g. "Two groups of JG 1 (I. and III.) were transferred to JG 11. Group IV. was re-designated as I./JG 1. Thus Jagdgeschwader 1 was left with two operational groups, I. and II. A new group was formed in Leeuwarden, Netherlands and added as III./JG 1."
"JG 1 Wing Commander Erich Mix was replaced by Major Hans Philipp as Geschwaderkommodore of JG 1." This reads as if we know about Mix, but we don't. Did he take over from Von Selle?
He did take over from Von Selle. For lack of primary source it can not be worded to that effect. Instead its been restructured to clarify. Perseus71 (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In early 1944, the Reich Air Ministry (Reichsluftministerium - RLM) reinforced day fighter units engaged in the Defense of Reich (Reichsverteidigung)." Why is this relevant to this section? BenMacDui19:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geschwader should be linked on its first appearance rather than later.
Geschwaderkommodore, Oberstleutnant, Oberst, Staffelkapitän, and Oberleutnant are not italicised
I now see User:Brianboulton asked you not to do this. Oh well, you can't please everyone. So long as you are consistent and can provide a justification for the usage... BenMacDui09:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
consider making "for example Adolf Galland became Geschwaderkommodore of JG 26 in August 1940 while still a Major, the equivalent of an RAF Squadron Leader." a footnote as it isn't about JG1 as such.
No citations at all in this section.
Changes incorporated. As to the citations, this is an extract of the parent article. So I believe that article is the source. I just personally am not aware of citing Wikipedia articles. Perseus71 (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't cite Wikipedia as a source, but nor do I think you can have an entire sub-section without a citation. I note the main article has only 1.5 citations in total and none for this section. You may need some assistance from your WP:MIL colleagues here. BenMacDui09:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to keep repeating the German word after the English e.g. "Thus was born the Headquarters Flight (Geschwaderstab)". You told us the HQ flight was the Geschwaderstab a couple of lines earlier.
" I./JG 1 consisted of one Headquarters Flight and Squadrons 1./JG 1, 2./JG 1 and 3./JG 1." Can this not be written " I./JG 1 consisted of one Headquarters Flight and Squadrons 1., 2. and 3." It's obvious they are in JG 1.
" I./JG 1 was formed from JG 2 and located in Jesau (modern Nivenskoye) in East Prussia." Why are we being told this again, with duplicate links? BenMacDui12:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Having been asked to comment further I do so with reluctance. The article has clearly involved a lot of work, and I have enjoyed finding out more about the subject matter. However, as I look further down the page it seems that what I am engaging in is a copy-editing exercise, and this is not my strong suit. (For example I notice that a sentence I suggested be dramatically reduced in complexity is, in its altered form, still described as being part of an "impenetrable" paragraph below). I believe the article needs a comprehensive copy edit from a skilled person, and preferably one who does not have a deep knowledge of military affairs. If this can be achieved please feel free to get back to me. BenMacDui21:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The "Organization Structure" section seems incredibly crowded with the way you've jammed the tables in there. Might I suggest separating them from the prose by putting them at the bottom of each sub-section and centering them? I'd suggest something along the lines of what you've done with the Group I./JG 1 table, except centered. Doing that also would allow you to spread out the aircraft profile images you've got crammed into the unit emblem section and give that section a little more room to fit in all of the emblem images without forcing them down into the next section, as they are currently. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3
All images should be unsized, according to WP:MOS#Images.
The layout of this article is, honestly, terrible. The tables crowd the text and make the "Organization structure" difficult to read.
Almost all of the images are right-aligned - please stagger per WP:MOS#Images.
The logos are smooshed in the "Organization structure" section - I would delete some of these images or move them.
File:JG1 New Logo.png - The copyright holder needs to be listed in the fair use rationale.
Reluctant oppose: I earlier registered a tentative oppose on the grounds of prose issues in the lead. These were speedily resolved, so I struck the oppose, pending reading of the remainder of the article. After a delay I started to do this, but soon found myself bogged down and scratching my head. Here are a few stumbling blocks:-
Formation history:
"Even those failed to materialize, and several groups (Gruppen) were activated". The "even" is redundant and anyway smacks of POV; it is not entirely clear what failed to materialize; you have adapted an Am-Eng spelling for an article which assume is in Brit-Eng (the date formats are, anyway); the connection between the two parts of the sentence is not clear - the impression is that "groups" of an undescribed nature were activated as a result of the failure of certain plans to materialise. Is this so?
It continues: "As part of this policy..." Which policy is this?
The second paragraph states "In May 1939 the entire organisation of the Luftwaffe was changed". In the previous paragraph we were reading "In the summer of 1939", so there is some chronological confusion. This is made worse, later, by "On 7 May..." without specifying a year. This must be 1940.
In the last paragraph you mention things which happened as late as 1944 – in a section called "Formation history"?
Reorganisation: Sorry, I find this section impenetrable.
This paragraph:-
Similar to its parent Jagdgeschwader 2, Jagdgeschwader 1 (JG 1) was designated to be a "donor" unit in forming a new unit. Given the large territory JG 1 had to cover, it was decided to form a new unit called Jagdgeschwader 11 (JG 11). On 31 March 1943, JG 1 was split to form the new unit. Two groups of JG 1 (I. and III.) were transferred to JG 11. Group IV. was re-designated as I./JG 1. Thus Jagdgeschwader 1 was left with two operational groups, I. and II. A new group was formed in Leeuwarden, Netherlands and added as III./JG 1. This group was headed by Major Karl-Heinz Leesmann who died on 25 July 1943.
""Similar to" presumably means "In a similar manner to..."
The multiple repetition of terms, particularly "unit", makes for difficult reading
The distinction between a "unit" and a "group" is not clear.
The mix of Arabic and Roman numerals is somewhat confusing. I suppose this can't be helped, if the units and subdivisions were designated in this way, but it requires prose of great clarity to avoid a total head-spinning experience.
I have not ventured much beyond this point, except to note reference to the RAF rank of "Group Commander". The RAF has Wing Commanders and Group Captains, but not Group Commanders.
A general concern to me is the steady growth of this article since its nomination. During that period it has expanded by 1,500 words; it was long (8,200 words) to begin with, and is now super-long at almost 10,000 words. Most of the problems I have identified in the sections I've read arise, in my wiew, from over-detailing, and I suspect that this may be an issue through the article. I have great respect for the research, but for this to be fruitful the article must be more accessible to the general reader than it is at present. It is with great reluctance that I reinstate my oppose, but I feel that the article needs significant prose attention before it can be promoted.
The first thing that will likely stand out with this article, is it's small size. However, size doesn't always matter, and when size may be lacking, quality sticks out. This article has been through several copyedits, a peer review, and has been fully reviewed by the editors of WP:WPTC. All thoughts and comments are encouraged and welcome.Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments; even assuming that all conversions are precise (which is probably the case), maybe it would be better to use conversion templates? Also, I believe that single digit numbers should be spelled out (such as nine instead of 9). Conversion template helps because they follow article MoS, including spelling out single digit numbers and spelling out the first unit (the unit in which the number is converted to, in parenthesis, is left abbreviated, however). Furthermore, I know that the article says and cites that it was a shortlived storm, but that doesn't mean that it was one of the shortest lived storms. In other words, the first sentence of the lead may be considered original research, since it's not supported by the text (that it is one of the shortest is not intuitive from the fact that it was a short lived storm). JonCatalán(Talk)04:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the opening statement, I meant to change it before the nomination but it seems I forgot to. In an off-wiki discussion, it was determined that it was best to stay away from that claim as it doesn't specify the type of storm (i.e. Tropical Depression, Tropical Stom...). Regarding the units, the only digit that is less than ten that is in numbers is 9 for mph. In that case, since it's conversion is greater than 10, it would be better to keep it as a number instead of written out for consistency. With the conversion templates, they don't match up with the NHC distances, as they only use numbers divisible by five. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to conversion templates, the problem with them is that they have no way of taking into account the fact that the figures for maximum sustained winds and maximum estimated gusts are already rounded to the nearest multiple of five. As a result, when they apply the conversion, they treat it as an exact quantity, which a) gives the appearance of more precision than there actually is, and b) removes accuracy in the measurement. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)21:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tropical Storm Karina was a weak, short lived tropical cyclone which developed during the 2008 Pacific hurricane season. - "Which" → "that".
Karina was designated a tropical storm for only 12 hours before being downgraded to a tropical depression. - It's odd that you mention tropical storm status before you talk about the storm's development.
The 12th tropical cyclone and 11th named storm of the season, it developed out of the same tropical wave which spawned Hurricane Gustav in the Atlantic basin. - This makes it sound like Karina developed in the Atlantic.
Later that day, wind shear weakened the storm to a depression on September 3, and it dissipated shortly thereafter. - Remove the last comma.
The origins of Tropical Storm Karina are from the southern portion of the tropical wave that also spawned Hurricane Gustav in the Caribbean Sea. - Why the present tense?
After two days over water, the wave triggered the development of an area of low pressure south of Manzanillo, Mexico. - No need for "over water". Also, "triggered" → "spawned".
The low was located beneath an area of moderate convection, but was nearing cooler waters and a moist, but stable, air mass. - Change the second "but" to "yet" to avoid repetition of the word.
In an area favorable for development, the formation of a tropical cyclone was possible and a tropical cyclone formation alert was issued on September 2. - Remove "the formation of a tropical cyclone was possible". Technically, tropical cyclone formation is possible any day.
However, strong easterly shear caused the showers and thunderstorms to become displaced from the center. - Change this to "However, strong easterly shear separated the showers and thunderstorms from the center."
Despite the shear, sufficient convection developed around the center; the National Hurricane Center (NHC) classified it a tropical depression at 0600 UTC, while located 390 miles (630 km) south of the southern tip of Baja California.[1] The NHC initially recognized the system as a tropical depression and did not initiate advisories on it until several hours later.[4] The depression quickly intensified into a tropical storm due to a brief relaxation of the wind shear and was given the name Karina while located about 25 mi (40 km) north of Socorro Island. - This is confusing. Why mention twice that it was designated a tropical depression by the NHC?
Karina had winds of 40 mph (65 km/h) upon being named, which was its peak intensity. - This sentence sounds like it's trying too hard to be written professionally. Try "Upon becoming a tropical storm, Karina reached its peak winds of 40 mph (65 km/h)".
There was uncertainty as to the intensity of the storm as the Dvorak technique—a system used to estimate the intensity of a tropical cyclone—rendered an intensity of 50 mph (80 km/h) but since the center of the storm had just moved under the deep convection, the winds were held at minimal tropical storm intensity. - Needs a couple commas to improve flow. Also, "since" → "because".
That night, only 12 hours after being declared a tropical storm, Karina was downgraded to a tropical depression. - "Only" is POV.
The foreword motion also began to gradually slow. - Rather clunky wording.
By the morning of September 3, convection had been blown 125 mi (200 km) from the center of circulation, leaving only a swirl of clouds. - "Blown away" sounds awkward in this context.
The remnant low quickly dissipated that afternoon without redevelopment. - If the low dissipated, it is already assumed that there was no redevelopment.
When the National Hurricane Center issued its first advisory on Karina, the storm was located very close to the island of Socorro. - "Very close" → "near".
There were no known preparations taken prior to the storm, as the island is mainly a natural reserve and the only inhabitants reside in a military base. - Does the source explicitly say there were no preparations?
On Clarion Island, residents took minor actions to prepare for possible impacts from the storm. - Why is "impact" plural?
Officials advised residents to cancel all coastal activities and comply with advice from the National Civil Protection. - Remove "all". As a side note, is it possible to elaborate on what advice the agency provided?
Small crafts were advised to take extreme caution. - "Take "→ "exercise".
Small crafts such as water taxis and jet skis were to stay at the port. - This should be merged with the previous sentence, and "stay" → "remain".
There were also no ship reports of sustained tropical storm-force winds. - Remove "also". Were there any reports of tropical storm-force gusts?
When the area of low pressure was upgraded to Tropical Storm Karina on September 2, it was the first use of the name Karina for a tropical cyclone. - This contradicts other parts of the article in that it says the low pressure went straight to tropical storm status, while the lead says it was first designated a depression.
This value—an approximation of the kinetic energy used by a tropical system throughout its existence—is, so far, the lowest of the season. - The season already ended.
Comments on the prose and requests for clarification.
In this sentence: The origins of Tropical Storm Karina were from the southern portion of the tropical wave that also spawned Hurricane Gustav in the Caribbean Sea. The expression "The origins ....were from.." sounds odd. I know it was not a storm to begin with but, how about "Tropical Storm Karina originated in the southern portion the tropical wave that also spawned Hurricane Gustav in the Caribean Sea." ?
I think here: However, strong easterly shear separated the showers and thunderstorms from the center. Center sounds odd to the lay reader; they will be left thinking center of what.
The word "advisories" clearly has a precise meaning here. Can you expand/explain it?
The word "located" is used a lot and often it is redundant as here for example, When the National Hurricane Center issued its first advisory on Karina, the storm was located near the island of Socorro. How about a simple "the storm"? Are all the other uses of "located" justified?
Please don't use "prior to" when a simple "before" carries exactly the same meaning.
I've corrected the issues you've addressed and clarified what an advisory is. I'm a little unsure as to why advisory needed to be clarified though. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamental oppose on featuring something so short and non-notable, but since I know that will be ignored, I have other comments in the form of an actual oppose.
Meteorological terms (like Tropical wave, convection, shear, ridge) could be explained better.
Reference #3 doesn't say anything about the circulation developing. They just said it exists. What if it developed days prior? Likewise, I'm a little confused what the phrase developed partially underneath means. Did it develop partially? Or did it develop partially underneath.
Question: why did the NHC not classify it right away?
However, strong easterly shear separated the showers and thunderstorms from the center of circulation. Despite the shear, sufficient convection developed around the center
I'm a little confused at these sentences. Does it mean that the shear separated the convection from the circulation at first, and then additional convection developed around the center? Or is there some redundancy I'm missing?
The depression quickly intensified into a tropical storm due to a brief relaxation of the wind shear and was given the name Karina while located about 25 mi (40 km) north of Socorro Island
This sentence is a bit of a run-on, and the subject becomes a bit clouded.
There was uncertainty as to the intensity of the storm, as the Dvorak technique—a system used to estimate the intensity of a tropical cyclone—rendered an intensity of 50 mph (80 km/h); but because the center of the storm had just moved under the deep convection, the winds were held at minimal tropical storm intensity.
There are some grammar problems in the . The semicolon means the last statement should not begin with but because, as that's basically starting a sentence with but because. Maybe try splitting it into two sentences? I'm confused why the intensity would be lower if the center just moved under the deep convection. Typically that means the storm is becoming stronger.
That night, 12 hours after being declared a tropical storm, Karina was downgraded to a tropical depression
This sentences comes as somewhat of a surprise. I suggest moving the sentence that follows it to before it, as you should explain what's happening before you say what happened.
The foreword motion gradually decreased.
Aside from the typo (shouldn't it be forward?), that is a really short sentence.
Top five hits from dictionary.com on "dissipation" - 1) "the act of dissipating" 2) "the state of being dissipated" 3) "a wasting by misuse" 4) "mental distraction" 5) "dissolute way of living". I think some clarification couldn't hurt ;) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image reviewFile:Karina 2008 track.png - Please list the author for this image - not everyone who edits the image page is really an author of the image itself. Since it is the author that releases the copyright, so the author must be listed. (Why do I always have to ask for this at hurricane articles?) Awadewit (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with "See file history?" I can't delete any of the file history so I don't think it is credited correctly the way it is now (because we did not collaborate on the picture). Usually individual editors contributed different versions of the images. Actually, in this case every single editor was the creator of the image. It was pretty self-explanatory the other way. Potapych (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ambiguity on the page between the history of the file and the history of the image page (yet another type of file). If I change the description of the image, for example, I am not really altering the image itself, yet that is recorded in the history of the page. The larger point is that these tags need to be as clear as possible. If you want, you can make the author information even more explicit, but at least the basic information is there now. Awadewit (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any ambiguity with that. It only says "File history" in one place. Clicking on the history tab brings you to a page called "Revision history of File:..." The way it is currently set up is ambiguous because it infers that Ramisses and I worked on the current file together, when we did it completely independent of one another. Potapych (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hink, the hyphen problem that we've spent much time commenting on in previous FACs hits you in the opening sentence: "Tropical Storm Karina was a weak, short lived tropical cyclone that developed during the 2008 Pacific hurricane season." North American English uses hyphens less than other varieties, but insists on "short-lived". In fact, I see many hyphens in good US English—perhaps the differences are overstated.
"originated out of" ... bit clunky. "grew out of", but probably "originated from" is better.
"... later in the morning, at which time it was named Karina ..."—Are you scanning your text later like a radar beam to locate opportunities for removing verbose expressions? "... later in the morning, when it was named Karina ...".
"and it dissipated shortly thereafter"—sounds like the small print on an insurance document. Simple, please: "and it dissipated soon after".
I'm not seeing the personal investment in simple measures to improve your prose: the hurrican project and WP more broadly need you to do this. To start with, try these exercises on hyphens and dashes. Tony(talk)02:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'm withdrawing this nomination as I now feel that this article isn't ready for FA and to allow me to have more time to deal with other, more important articles. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is probably the umpteenth candidacy this article has now gone through but I feel the article is in the best state it has been in for while. I have gone through the article and addressed numerous problems which existed before and have hopefully I have rectified them. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a 'pool fan, I think the Everton rivalry is just a bit more important/notable than the Man U rivalry (it is one of the only derbies in the country without fan segregation).
"The match was against Juvenus at the Heysel Stadium before kick-off, disaster struck. Liverpool fans breached a fence separating the two groups of supporters and charged the Juventus fans.": read it carefully. A colon might be nice.
"However, Liverpool's successes were overshadowed by the Hillsborough Disaster. On 15 April 1989, when Liverpool were playing Nottingham Forest in an FA Cup semi-final, hundreds of Liverpool fans were crushed against perimeter fencing." -> "Liverpool's successes were overshadowed by the Hillsborough disaster: in an FA Cup semi-final against Nottingham Forest on 15 April 1989, hundreds of Liverpool fans were crushed..."
It may be prudent to point out that the Kop is the original and/or most notable.
Again, it may be prudent to also mention the Sun boycott in Merseyside.
OpposeConditional Support. This is an engaging, comprehensive article. The referencing problems highlighted by Ealdgyth must be addressed and problems with the prose remain. I have done a little copy-editing of the article, and would have liked to have done more, but I'm very busy in other Wikipedia areas at the moment and cannot give the article my full attention that it deserves. I suggest asking another established editor who is new to the article to review the prose. Please don't take this personally—it's amazing what a fresh pair of eyes can bring to an article. Graham ColmTalk21:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'm willing to do copyediting and other tasks on this article, as suggested by Graham above. I am completely new to the article, but am familiar with the subject matter. I have made a few changes already, and will be available over the course of the FAC to try to make more improvements. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)22:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Wish I had time to do some cleanup work, but I'm in a similar position as Graham; I'm swamped with reviews at the moment and can only focus on not falling too far behind. Here are my initial recommendations:
"two FA Cups and the club's first European trophy the UEFA Cup." Try "two FA Cups and a UEFA Cup, the club's first European trophy."
"having won four European Cups from between 1977 and 1984." Something looks off; I think from is the problem and should be removed.
I'm not sure about capitalization in Heysel Stadium Disaster. Is Disaster frequently capitalized here, like the Hillsborough Disaster apparently is? I'm not familiar enough with the event to know.
"At the Heysel Stadium Disaster, 39 Juventus fans died when a wall collapsed in the 1985 European Cup Final." Should be "when a wall collapsed before the 1985 European Cup Final."
History: Comma after John Houlding.
Non-breaking space needed for $218.9 million (where Gillett and Hicks bought the club). I used one here, in case an example is needed. This is something to check for throughout.
Photo comment: Where was the photo of the 1892–93 squad published? It needs a source to prove that it's out of copyright.
I don't think it will. Proof needs to be provided that the photo was published more than 70 years ago; the link doesn't seem to indicate that. I'm not a photo expert, but I can see that from looking at the template in the file. Are there any books or newspapers from the time that published the photo? Those are the best places to look. If nothing can be found, the picture might need to be removed. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to come back here, but please don't expect too much from me, since I have many other articles to re-review. If I have time, I'll go over the article later in the week and try to make improvements to the prose. Best of luck. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just made a quick cleanup pass and took care of some minor things (en dashes in piped links, couple of easy grammar fixes, etc.). Still want to come back and read it again, but hopefully the edits are helpful. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colours and crest: "and the home kit has been all red since the mid 1960s; but red has not always featured." Change the semi-colon to a regular comma. And should it be "has not always been featured."?
George Gillett or George Gillett Jr? Both are used at various times.
There are also still some capitalization differences involving the stadium disasters.
Statistics and records: "Liverpool's first competitive game was in the Lancashire League against Higher Walton, they won the match 8–0." Comma should be a semi-colon.
"Ian Rush, who scored 346 goals whilst at the club from 1980 to 1987 and 1988 to 1996." Remove the second comma and change whilst to while.
I must be fried, because I'm not finding anything else at this time. I'll have to read it again later and see what I'm missing. By the way, my first round of comments was addressed, even though NapHit didn't explicitly type that in his message above. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Comments from Dabomb87 (talk·contribs) Not happy with the prose, samples starting from the Ownership section down:
Tense inconsistencies: "Liverpool is owned by George Gillett and Tom Hicks" but "Liverpool have often featured"
"Tensions between the Americans and their lack of support and their lack of support from the fans" Ambiguous, who are " the Americans" in question? What are tense over? "lack of support from the fans"-->lack of fan support
"also expressed an interest"
"funded by 100,000 fans paying" noun + -ing structure is awkward.
"aluing" Is this a typo?
"Liverpool fans singing "You'll Never Walk Alone" were featured " Another noun + -ing sentence structure.
"Francis Scully trying " and again...try "Francis Scully, who tried "
"A team of mostly Scottish players won the match 8–0." Two rather unrelated ideas (nationality and match result) jammed together, I recommend doing away with that rather trivial information about the players' nationality and combining the sentence with the previous one.
"346 goals in two spells" Comparative quantities should be written out the same way.
Liverpool's biggest victory"—"biggest"-->largest, not sure what you mean by "biggest", are you referring to most goals scored or margin of victory?
"Rotherham Town, beaten 10–1 in 1896, were the victims of Liverpool's biggest league win."-->Liverpool's 10–1 defeat of Rotherham Town in 1896 was its largest league win.
"This margin of victory was matched in the modern era when Crystal Palace were defeated 9–0 at Anfield in 1989." What defines the "modern era"? Comma after "era".
"Liverpool's 8–0 victory on 6 November 2007 against Beşiktaş J.K. in the Champions League is the record win in the competition." Ambiguous again, record for what? Were both teams in the Champions League or do you mean "against Beşiktaş J.K. of the Champions League"? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not ambiguous, it is the record win in the Champions League, I've changed it a bit, and have addressed all your concerns. NapHit (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"During the current season Liverpool have the fifth-highest average" Comma after "season".
You fixed the "Liverpool is/are" inconsistencies that I highlighted above, but now those instances are inconsistent with similar phrases in the above sections:"Liverpool have a large and generally loyal fanbase" "Liverpool have played at their current ground,"Liverpool FC were founded" Fix these inconsistencies throughout the article.
Is there no way to add some prose for the "Reserve and Youth Team" section?
→In my view, that section was only tangentially relevant to the article, so I've taken it out and put a {{for}} template at the beginning of the subsection (thus "For honours won by Reserves and Academy, see..."). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1906, the banked stand at one end of the ground was formally renamed the Spion Kop,[34] after a hill in Natal." Comma not necessary.
"more players have been sent off in it"—"sent off"-->disqualified.
Although in no way involved with the article, I feel I should interject here to point out that "disqualified" is not a term used in any capacity in association football and "sent off" is the perfectly correct usage per Law 12 of the Laws of the Game...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Liverpool fans charging " Another instance of the noun + -ing sentence structure.
"families, survivors and supporters campaigning" Yet again...
"His reign saw the club win another three League Championships and two FA Cups including a League and Cup "Double" in 1985–86."-->During his reign, the club won another three League Championships and two FA Cups, including a League and Cup "Double" in 1985–86.
"During the past 30 years they have been one of the most successful clubs in English and European football, having won four European Cups between 1977 and 1984."-->In the past 30 years, they have been one of the most successful clubs in English and European football, having won four European Cups between 1977 and 1984.
"Liverpool Football Club have won a record 18 First Division titles, and seven League Cups." Comparative quantities should be written out the same way.
Please note that these are merely examples that demonstrate why a fresh copy-editor is needed to go through the text. As Graham said above, no offense to you, but when you work so hard and spend so much time on the article, you tend to miss things, making the need for an uninvolved editor necessary. I can help out a little bit in the next couple of days, but don't depend on me. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still inconsistencies with Liverpool is/are was/were:
First sentence: "Liverpool Football Club is an English professional association football club"
But then, just a couple sentences later: "Liverpool Football Club have"
"The club was founded in 1892, though it had limited success until the appointment of Bill Shankly as manager." False contrast, clubs don't necessarily experience success immediately after creation; this is implied by "though it had limited success". Change "though it"-->and.
"in English and European football" Is English football not considered part of European football? Colon that follows later in this sentence should be a semicolon.
"with flames added to the crest following the Hillsborough Disaster in honour of the 96 Liverpool fans who lost their lives."-->with flames added to the crest in honour of the 96 Liverpool fans who lost their lives in the Hillsborough Disaster.
"Liverpool FC have played at Anfield since their formation, but there are plans to move to a new stadium in Stanley Park, which is due to be completed by 2011." Another false contrast, "there are plans to move to a new stadium" is just additive info, change "but" to and.
"who hold a string of long-standing rivalries with several other clubs." "other" is implied, they can't be rivals with themselves.
"The most notable of these are their rivalry with Manchester United" "are"-->is, we are talking about one rivalry.
"due to the success of both clubs, and their proximity to each other; and with Everton" Comma note needed.
I have changed to oppose; these problems in the lead alone trouble me. Please find someone who is completely new to the article—maybe even unfamiliar with the subject—to copy-edit the article, as a major prose cleanup is needed for FA status to be attained. Sorry to be harsh, but we can't have an article be promoted with this many problems in the prose. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments: I am sorry but I cannot support this FAC at this time. I have spent an hour or so working on the prose [25], but every time I re-read the article I find other problems. Some of the problems are so elementary (such as "colours is") and there are still inconsistentcies w.r.t. concessionary plurals, (club is/club are). Also, I am constantly reading "club won", and not much "club lost" and worse "manager won". This article is tantalisingly close to FA, but it's not ready yet. I take no pleasure in writing this, please don't shoot the messenger and more importantly don't give up. Graham ColmTalk20:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just gone over the article again, doubt it will sway your decision too much, but would like to know if some items have been resolved. NapHit (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know how you feel, but I have to be fair. The nomination was premature, the edits that have been made since have improved the article but more work is needed before it can be promoted. Graham ColmTalk21:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is one of my older GAs, one which passed early last year. As with many of my nominations, it is a fairly short article, but as the storm remained at sea, there is little information that can be added. A couple of users have helped with the article, and I feel it meets the criteria. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone01:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the development section (TD to Cat 5) is rushed, without sufficient detail. You don't go into *how* the hurricane intensified, what structural changes occurred, etc. The prose from when it reached hurricane status to Cat. 5 status only mentions the development of an eye, in terms of actual meteorological information.
Most of the advisories are named wrong in the references. You call them "public advisory", but I checked and they're discussions.
You never say why the hurricane weakened, except for these statements - as it began to lose tropical characteristics. Strong wind shear developed, further dissipating the depression. The first part isn't true, as the TCR says nothing about Hernan becoming extratropical (just becoming a remnant low, which has plenty of tropical characteristics). The second part is the only meteorological reason I can find which would cause weakening, but that's only mentioned when it was on the verge of dissipating (which I believe is the wrong term here - dissipation means the circulation is about to break apart).
Something is missing or wrong in the meteorological history. You say it meandred (typo, should be meandered) off the coast of California, but the TCR says the remnant low tracked southwestward until dissipating. The article should mention and focus on what the TCR says, and ideally you should find more on what the remnant low did (did it reform? why did it track southwestward?)
Some of the prose feels clumsy. Meteorological terms aren't explained that well. For example:
where it merged with a pre-existing intertropical convergence zone disturbance - this isn't what the TCR says, and it's confusing
The system gradually developed moderate convection, and on August 30 it had developed sufficient convection to be designated Tropical Depression 10-E. - as I said above, you don't go much into the origins; the current prose has a redundancy with the word convection, but hopefully that will be changed
The depression produced persistent strong thunderstorms, primarily in two areas of deep convection located to the northeast and west of the center of circulation - first, that is not supported by the ref, and second you don't explain why the convection was like that
outflow was good - non-meteorological people won't know what that means.
This article went through a peer review a while ago, and I believe most of the issues have been addressed. The article has been improved by various editors since, and this version has been largely stable for a few months now. This is an important topic for readers interested in Chinese history and culture, and I hope that it will be deemed - or improved to - FA quality. PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Non-English sources of Wikipedia:Verifiability, says "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." Forbidden City being such a famous structure, there must be plenty of references in English. There are around 25 Chinese references.
The text is being sandwiched between Images, reorganization of images needed.
Bullet-point lists in "Influence" and "Symbolism" should be converted to paras.
"The Hall of Supreme Harmony ("G") is the largest, and rises some 30 metres (98 ft) above the level of the surrounding square." "It weighs some 200 tonnes and is the largest such carving in China." "According to the results of a 1925 audit,[64] some 1.17 million items were stored in the Forbidden City." " includes some 30,000 pieces." Vagueness: exact figures can be included, also "approximate" will be more suitable
"Interestingly, this axis is not exactly aligned north-south, but is tilted by slightly more than two degrees." Interestingly may be seen as one of the Words that editorialize.
There are places where there is a lack between ref tag and period. (he was evicted after a coup in 1924. [16] ,as the core of the National Palace Museum in Taipei. [20] ) Please fix them
References needed:
"Paintings": and many of these were subsequently lost or destroyed.
"The Forbidden City is the world's largest surviving palace complex"
"(Hall of Supreme Harmony is) and the largest surviving wooden structure in China"
"the imperial libraries housed one of the country's largest collections of ancient books"
"The personal interest of Emperors such as Qianlong meant that almost all surviving paintings from the Yuan Dynasty and before were held by the palace." WP:OR?
"Emperor Gia Long of Vietnam built a palace and fortress that was intended to be a smaller copy of the Chinese Forbidden City in the 1800s"
References: What are
"The Palace Museum. "Collection highlights - Ceramics" (in Chinese)"? A book? no date, author.
THanks for those ocmments Redtigerxyz. "Some" is a term of expression that means "approximately and/or at least". The reference issues you mentioned seems to be a cite template that has malfunctioned since it was added to the article. I'll see if the template is being repaired or whether an alternative template can be found. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I see a lot of work has gone into this article, my concerns about the Chinese references may be not be fully satisfied in the short period of the FAC. I also see a need for a section devoted to the restoration of the Forbidden city. A section about the construction and materials used in much more detail. (Read comprehensiveness concerns) Both of these were detailed in much detail in a programme on National Geographic, yesterday. So i am opposing the article in the current form. --RedtigerxyzTalk15:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This article is gonna take a long time to examine, and I'm not gonna have any time at all... just off the top of my head, the Symbolism section is way too list-like and way too sketchy. Not much discussion of numerology etc. I'll try to add more comments, but I'm gonna go catch a flight in about 2 hours or less.
I hope you can find a better word for "pierced" to describe the entrances. And yuk, the Influences section is looking a lot like a "Forbidden city in popular culture" section. Yuk. Yuk. Why on earth is it notable that some theater in Seattle looks kinda like the Forbidden City? I know a Chinese restaurant in [city omitted] named "Forbidden City"; should we include that too? This looks an awful lot like boosterism. Anybody from Seattle involved in writing this? As for Kingdom hearts, I don't think it's notable that a scenario takes place in the Forbidden City. I mean, if the game were titled "Kingdom Hearts in the Forbidden City" I could... extremely reluctantly.. close my eyes, grit my teeth and let it pass. But it isn't. So I won't. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR)09:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Just from glancing through the article, so I may have more to add.
There are many scholarly books in English on Chinese architecture that include in depth analysis of the architectural elements of the Forbidden City and how they evolved. Suggest that you include information from these books for a more in depth description of the Chinese aspects of the architecture, rather than a tourist guide view. You could also include more of the distinctively Chinese style that for thousands of years has distinguished it from Western architecture.
Suggest that you expand the "Religion" section and include a more in depth description of the interweaving of religious and architectural elements so important to Chinese architecture.
Suggest you remove tangential sections, such as "Surroundings" which, again, is more like a travel guide approach.
Suggest that the "Symbolism" section be written in prose (the bullet points removed) and expanded, as this is a very important element of the Forbidden City, not just a side note.
The "Influence" section could be expanded to reveal more of the significance of the Forbidden City to the Chinese.
Also, "Depiction in art, film and literature" and "As performance venue" seem tangential and could be removed entirely.
Perhaps the "Collections" section should be spun off into another article, much as the History of the Forbidden City has been (which seems more important than "Collections") as "Collections" takes up a large percentage of the article.
Seems like there are too many images relative to the text, but this may be a personal preference. (I don't think images from the "Collentions" are necessary unless they illustrate a point pertinent to the city's architecture or history.
Thanks for those comments Matisse. Much appreciated. As to the issue of collections, my understanding is that this article deals currently with the Forbidden City as an architectural complex *and* as a museum, hence a description of its collections. There is already a main article on the museum collections, which is linked from the Collections section, at Collections of the Palace Museum. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cite web template is not working properly in the article, which is why a lot of the references are not displaying correctly. This may take some time to clear up. Should this be withdrawn until that's fixed? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, Luan Da, the mystic and conman who became the second most powerful man in the sixth largest ancient empire simply by telling tall tales (and a little magnetic trick with chess pieces), is back at FAC. He's been through two previous FACs - premature, of course - since when he's undergone the rigors of a peer review (which unfortunately didn't get a lot of love, though Rjwilmsi helpfully fixed up some MOS trinkets for me). The article still is fairly short, though not as short as before; a brief description of the changes since the previous FAC can be found in the peer review. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite yet English sources are preferred to Chinese when available. Here they clearly are (for example, the magnetic statues are in Needham, and most of the story of Luan must be in Sima; the customs of Early Han China must be available hundreds of places), and I encourage the efforts to replace one with the other, and look forward to supporting when this is done. (I should also like to see Sima Qian cited by chapter, as well as page number, which would make the references independent of edition.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And sources of equal quality to a publisher's website and China's 30 Most Controversial Historical Figures should not be hard to come by. The rest of the sources aren't popularizations; why should we put up with worse soources which will be of limited use to our readership? We should not assume that the users of this English WP read Chinese. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson21:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about magnetic statues is now sourced to Needham. I'll see how much of Luan's life I can source to the English sources I'm using. I'm not sure what you're talking about in regards to "the customs of Early Han China must be available hundreds of places," since that's entirely sourced to Lewis, a very recent scholarly work in English. I added the chapter for Sima Qian as well. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this article is in a somewhat catch-22 situation. On one hand, there is a complaint that the article is too short, so additional information is brought out. These sources are not found in English sources as most Western works go for a general summarized approach that drops the details between various historical accounts and Sima Qian's works (this is described by Nienhauser in his prefaces of his The Grand Scribe's Records). Chinese sources are used to verify additional information (they are linked to websites, but the contents are lifted from the books). However, now the contention is that these sources are supposedly "not as good" as English sources (which do not cover the details). So should this article take out the Chinese sources and the information they source, and be left with a shorter article, or should it keep looking for likely non-existent English sources to back up those details?
Regarding the use of Xuhui's reference, there are English sources that tell of how ancient figures are named in historical accounts (e.g. see "Family Names and Given Names" of Endymion Porter Wilkinson's Chinese History).[30] However, there are none found so far that specifically name Luan Da as an example. It still boils down to the fact that Xuhui's is the only book found so far that specifically analyzes "Luan Da". Jappalang (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The Beginnings of Alchemy journal Isis, Vol. 38, No. 1/2 (Nov., 1947), p. 74, Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society [31] I found some things that are not mentioned in this article, but need to be mentioned (doubts about comprehensive). The half page para in the journal speaks about
Another name of Luan Da: "Taida", i do not know why a superscript is used in the journal
"alchemical gold" (no mention of alchemy, gold is mentioned)
Alchemy is mentioned in the current article via the "[[alchemy|create gold]]" piped link in "Rise to power". King Kang was Liu Ji's posthumous title, they are one and the same. As for "slave", this was discussed in the previous FAC. Jappalang (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The particular article should not be considered as a source for the article, however, as it deals with entirely different subject matter and only mentions Luan Da trivially, with redundant information. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I can and will replace most of Luan's life and perhaps the naming customs above with English sources - however, I refuse point-blank to use a source like Dubs. Nousernamesleft (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better, certainly. The remnant appears to be Xuhui's assertion about historians not using surnames for the common people which is surely findable elsewhere, and several digs about Luan's corruption. If these are consensus (aren't some of them in Sima himself?) they can be sourced elsewhere; although even if they are, we may not need them. If they are only in Zhang, why do we need them at all? (I'll do some research myself after Christmastime.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson14:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—1a. Sorry, but it's not well-enough written. It's hard to summarise the technical deficiencies, but they're there. You need to bring on-board one or more good copy-editors. You know how to find them for this type of topic? The lead provides ample evidence of the problems.
Does MOSNUM really say to put a ? for the birth-date when it's unknown? Maybe it does.
"Possessing the gift of gab and adept at confidence tricks, Luan Da gained the favour of Emperor Wu of Han, also known as Han Wudi. In the space of a few months, he rose from"—"the gift of gab" is not English ("the gab"), and is rather too informal, especially at the top. Is this a phrase you've seen in one of the sources and simply moved across? The last "he" refers to which man?
"In the space of a few months, he rose from a commoner to great influence, holding titles and land, and marrying one of the emperor's daughters. However, he could not fulfill his promise to Emperor Wu, failing to produce a means to immortality." The "However" doesn't work well, because it refers to something we should already have been told about—the promise. Clunky effect.
"He gradually lost the emperor's favour and went on a purported visit to immortals; however, he was ..."—Who did the purporting? He, presumably, but we shouldn't have to wonder. Nor should we have to click on the link to "immortals" to find out what on earth it all means. Very odd. Another "however", in the very next sentence.
Another back-to-front sentence: "His death was a sign of the trade's fall from favour; laws were passed to restrict the practice of mediumship, even penalising those who married its practitioners." The trade? What trade? Ah, we reach it later—mediumship, whatever that is.
Comments: I can't comment on the content as I lack any knowledge. Instead I'll suggest a few small improvements that might be adopted.
In the first para of the Rebirth section the word "Buddhist" or "Buddhism" is over-repeated (five mentions in all). A spot of rewording should deal with that.
"the adept's body..." An adept is a person with some particular skill or proficiency, and I'm not quite sure how this meaning suits your phrase.
"Sinicization" should be linked
"kalpa" should be linked at first rather than second mention.
It may be worth looking out for other specialist terms that should be either linked or explained. However, I believe the links on "sun", "moon" and "planets" are unnecessary overlinking.
Support — Language is fine, and the article performs well as an introductory guide to Lingbao School (origins, beliefs, and legacy). Whatever jargon (deity names and spiritual terms) are much easier to identify than before. I think this qualifies as a Featured Article. Jappalang (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments — generally the language is fine, but I removed redundancies and changed several sentences to avoid repetition and bad forms. Content-wise, however, this article might be confusing...
Language
First off, the article should be consistent. Is it US English or British English? "-ize, -or" are US English. "-ise, -our" are British English. Currently, the article is a mix, with "visualize" and "colour" as examples.
History
"Ge Chaofu did not claim to have had the scriptures revealed to him directly from the spirits, but rather from a line of transmission going back to Ge Hong's great-uncle, Ge Xuan (164-244)."
Are scriptures supposed to be by default revealed by spirits? This sentence seems to imply so. It is a surprise out of the blue, and it is rather pointless if it is not the default rule (which it is not). Hence, simply stating that the Lingbao scriptures were passed on generation to generation by word-of-mouth (or handed down) would be sufficient.
"Under the Tang Dynasty, the Shangqing School, better integrated with the aristocracy, was more influential in court. The Shangqing School, however, borrowed many Lingbao practices, thus further integrating the two schools."
Here, an unknown school is introduced, then revealed as a successor of the Lingbao School. The order is reversed. I also suspect that the "further integrating" should not be used in that manner. It would have been better to phrase, "Over the centuries, various teachings formed as offshoots of the Lingbao School. One of them, the Shangqing School, prospered in the Tang Dynasty. Borrowing many Lingbao practices, it was well accepted by the aristocracy and established an influence in court."
Rebirth
"These were reborn into earth prisons, as a hungry ghost, as an animal, as a man or as a celestial being."
"These" refer to what?
Cosmology
"kalpa cycles"
The what?! There is the article, kalpa (time unit), but for all I know, kalpa cycle might be talking about another thing.
"Deviating from Buddhist beliefs was that the heavens rotated around a huge mountain known as the Jade Capital, which was the residence of the Celestial Worthy."
I would suggest "Lingbao cosmology deviated from Buddhist beliefs by proposing that the heavens [...] Worthy.", and who is the Celestial Worthy?
"traditionally Daoist ideas"
I would hazard it is supposed to be "traditional Daoist ideas"
Please explain what is the Single Breath.
"is subdivided into three breaths that corresponds to three deities, the lords of the Celestial Treasure, of the Sacred Treasure and of the Divine Treasure."
Better punctuation is recommended here, I recommend a dash or colon between "three deities" and "the lords". Furthermore, first it was divided, then the breath was subdivided? This is getting confusing.
"During the subsequent three cosmic eras in the three Daoist heavens, these three lords introduced the teachings of the Dadong (Great Grotto), the Dongxuan (Mysterious Grotto) and of the Dongshen (Divine Grotto). These three teachings form the basis for the later classification of texts in the Daozang."
Lots of "three"s and an expectation of the reader to know of the cosmic eras in Daoist heavens. What are they?
"the emperor of the colour that was associated with that era would descend onto earth"
Most people would think of an emperor as a mortal. Who is this "emperor" who came from the heavens? He deserves clarification.
"the Nine Breaths of the universe"
Nine? I thought the Single Breath was divided into two, three, or was it six?
"ten thousand emperors"
Where did they (no mention of there being 10,000 before) come from? Are there supposed to be 10,000 colours as well?
Immortality techniques
"their essence coagulating and entering the body."
"These practitioners were not professional priests, but rather 'students of the Dao'."
Do you mean "Early practitioners" rather than "These practitioners"?
"meaning that it was carried on at several different levels simultaneously." and "In addition, rituals always involved three levels: heaven, earth and man."
These sentences can be merged.
"and in addition to preventing bad weather, also ensures salvation."
Suggestion: ", ensuring salvation and preventing bad weather."
The article seems to presume the reader has some insight into Daoist teachings (especially the Cosmology section), which makes it inaccessible to those who do not have an inkling to the teaching's gods and hierarchy. (update: I will re-read later to verify if this still stands.) Finally, the article fails to talk about the relevance of Lingbao School in the modern days. We are only vaguely told that it survives in some form, and those descriptions are scattered across the article.Jappalang (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken many of your suggestions to heart, and have tried to simplify much of the content, by standardizing terms and clarifying the language. I added a new legacy section at the bottom to synthesize the parts of the Lingbao School that are still relevant today. I am Canadian, and follow Canadian spelling, which is a combination of British and American spelling. I don't believe this to be too much of an issue. If you have any further suggestions, please let me know! Zeus1234 (talk) 08:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lede needs to be fixed to summarize the changed article (right now, it states the Single Breath, which is no longer stated in the text; furthermore, the present day situation of Linbao School needs to be accounted for in the lede). Jappalang (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a preference for -ize is fully compatible with a preference for -our even before we considering Canada, thanks to "en-GB-oed". That little matter aside, the spelling of the article seems to be in accordance with an emerging quasi-standard for Canadian spelling of English as I infer it from this explanation. Morenoodles (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ge Xuan.jpg — Source given, but it is not the page the picture exists. Please provide the link to the page where the picture is shown by this site (not the direct url of the picture). Furthermore, date of the picture must be provided by sources to prove public domain. Jappalang (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I located the image here but it is of smaller resolution. The page list four sources (I doubt it could be from the Records of the Three Kingdoms—Wu, so it might be from the other three), so it should be looked into from which book it came from. Jappalang (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could not adequately source the other two images, so they have therefore been replaced with images that I was able to provide adequate sources for.Zeus1234 (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments — looking into the sources, several items are cited to The Encyclopedia of Taoism, which is a tertiary source. Can references to it be reduced? Wikipedia is aiming to be a tertiary source, and it is desirable for most (if not all) of its sources to be secondary per WP:PSTS. Jappalang (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to get rid of all references to the encyclopedia except for 12 and 27. These are probably present in sources I don't have access to, as I've looked in all sources available to me for any other reference.Zeus1234 (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this objection has been addressed and struck out, but I think it deserves a comment all the same. It strikes me as an extremely strict application, or even a misapplication, of "WP:PSTS". The "tertiary source" cited in this article is not a general-purpose work of reference that must ruthlessly or hurriedly crush knowledge and educated theory into a short space for casual or quick consumption. Instead, it's a special-purpose encyclopedia for which (or for half of which) the publisher charges $300, with signed articles; and the article cited here is written by somebody who's written other pieces that this article cites and who seems to know what he's talking about. Citing it seems perfectly proper to me. Morenoodles (talk) 09:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick-fail—1a: My head is spinning. Poorly organised ideas; repetitiveness. Here are examples just in the lead. The whole text needs a good massage. I think this should be withdrawn and put through a major clean-up.
"The Lingbao School is a synthesis of religious ideas that is based on Shangqing texts, the rituals of the Celestial Masters, and Buddhist practices." Somehow a little wordy. What about "The Lingbao School is a synthesis of religious ideas based on Shangqing texts, the rituals of the Celestial Masters, and Buddhist practices."? Or "The Lingbao School is a synthesis of the religious meanings in Shangqing texts, the rituals of the Celestial Masters, and Buddhist practices." Unsure.
"The beliefs of the Lingbao school were based on the Buddhist concept of reincarnation. The school's cosmology was also influenced by Buddhism, but still maintained many Daoist beliefs, including the idea that the world emerged from a type of qi called yuanqi, and that an apocalypse would occur that only a limited few could avoid through faith." Also? These sentences seem to contain repetitiveness/circularity. I'm confused.
"Laozi. Alongside Laozi," So reorganise the sentence boundaries to overcome this rep., and the noun+ing urchin, and the clumsy order of the phrases and groups: "One of its most important gods was the deified form of Laozi, alongside which were minor gods, some in charge of preparing spirits for reincarnation." That also solves the "important" but then "minor" (other minor gods) description of Laozi. Very confusing.
"Although reincarnation was an important concept in the Lingbao School, the earlier Daoist belief in attaining immortality remained." The logic of "although" will escape non-experts. "Likewise, Lingbao ritual was initially very similar to individual Celestial Master ritual, but went through a transformation that put more emphasis on collective rites." Why "Likewise"? I can't see the connection. Why "but"? Can a transformation put more emphasis on something, or lead to more emphasis? What a mess. Tony(talk)15:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Shanqing" is linked twice in a few seconds. More to the point, its very appearance twice at the top of the lead seems repetitive or redundant. The relationship between the first and second paras needs to be more logical and cogent.
I've looked over the lead, and have edited it as per your suggestions. I kept the sentence "Although reincarnation was an important concept in the Lingbao School, the earlier Daoist belief in attaining immortality remained." There is an although because reincarnation seems to be diametrically opposed to the idea of immortality. If you have the ability to reincarnate, why would you seek immortality? I hope that clarifies things.
As for the rest of the article, I looked it over and gave it an edit. However, it has been looked at by other editors already, so if you have any significant problems with the rest of the article, if would be very helpful if you tell me where so I can fix them. Zeus1234 (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm here to try again. Myself and others have continued to do work towards the improving of this article; concerns cited last time mainly revolved around perceived problems with clarity and tone. Now that the article is slightly longer and more detailed, with a longer lead and clearer explanation, I'd hope that these problems would be fixed. While some of the omissions in content noted at the last FAC have been remedied, we have still taken care to give a comprehensive but not overly scientific coverage; this is, after all, an encyclopedia, and we wouldn't want a book length analysis of a topic that could become easily convoluted with too much advanced scientific and/or theoretical exploration. I'm perfectly happy to act upon any concerns mentioned. I just hope that this article will be deemed simple enough but detailed enough now; last time, we had one camp saying that the article wasn't written simply enough, while another was calling for greater technical expansion. It's my belief we have a better mix of both now. —Anonymous DissidentTalk09:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues
Comment Lead is much better now. So is the overall prose. I would support the FAC nomination, but for one omission that I failed to spot last time. As noted on the talk page. The article does not mention the CKM matrix for the quark masses/ quark mixing. It is one of the most striking differences between quarks and leptons in the standard model. (in the SM the leptons have no generation mixing) Hopefully this can be corrected during this FAC round, because I feel overall the article is very strong. (TimothyRias (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I must confess I don't know bout that particular concept. I'll read some material on it today and tomorrow, and insert some information on it into the article then. I wouldn't want to add some ill-informed stuff right now. —Anonymous DissidentTalk12:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well now, let's have a look. The lead needs some work to make it crisper, and the logic could be tightened. Avoid elegant variation (called, known as, named). Be consistent in style (serial comma or no serial comma?). Try this alternative (references omitted):
Quarks are of six different types, or flavors: up (symbol: u ), down ( d ), charm ( c ), strange ( s ), top ( t ), and bottom ( b ). The up and down quarks are the lightest and most stable; as the constituents of protons and neutrons, they are primary and most abundant building blocks of matter. The unstable charm, strange, top, and bottom quarks decay rapidly, after formation in particle accelerators, cosmic rays, or similar high energy environments. For every quark flavor there is a corresponding antiquark: an antiparticle differing only in that some of its properties have the opposite sign. The properties of most quarks must be deduced from experiments on the hadrons they compose; but the top quark, decaying too rapidly to hadronize, is observed by identifying the particles it decays into. Some Big Bang theories postulate a quark-gluon plasma with single unbound quarks (including "free" top quarks), in the extremely hot early universe.
The quark model was proposed independently by physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig in 1964. Confirmation came in 1968, when electron–proton scattering experiments revealed three "sphere-like" regions in the substructure of the proton. In 1995 the last of the six, the top flavor, was observed at Fermilab.
Such a concise style can become hard to read when it is full of technical terms. Phrase such as known as signal a reader that it is not expected that he has known of the term. I definately prefer the more gentle style of the current lead. Note that elegant variation refers to using different words for the same thing, not to using different phrases with a similar meaning in different contexts. (Imagine a text that describes complex reasoning that only used the word thus and never any of its synonyms consequently, so or therefore because they would constitute (in)elegant variation.) (TimothyRias (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Timothy, I agree that conciseness can be taken too far. I offer a much tighter version as a basis; anything that is then added might require specific justification. As for elegant variation, I disagree. It can apply to any wording, not just nouns (as your reference to "things" suggests). Perhaps this in unclear in our article; but it is plainly stated in its primary source, which begins like this: "We include under this head all substitutions of one word for another for the sake of variety,...". Fowler addresses nouns mainly, but gives a few examples like this: "I must ask the reader to use the same twofold procedure that I before requested him to employ in considering...—H. Sidgwick." Anyway, the contexts here are not different, as you seem to imply; and the varied words are quite near each other. –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Timothy; we should give a definition of quark as soon as possible[1], but it cannot be made specific enough without using technical terms, and the In technical terms tells the reader "don't worry if you don't understand this now".
[1] Not everyone would agree to call that a "definition", as it would also apply to gluinos, but given that the hypothesis of the existences of gluinos (and supersymmetric partners in general) is (IMO) largely speculative with very little or no empirical evidence, and that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, better not worry about that. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Army, it ought to be blindingly obvious that the terms are technical. Would anyone think they are the common terms of everyday life? Because they are likely to be unfamiliar, they are clearly linked. We should not patronise readers; we help them best by writing lucidly what they need to know.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is "In physics" absolutely needed? I think the next clause, "A quark is a type of subatomic particle." encompasses that sentence perfectly (cf [34]) Sceptre(talk)14:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, be wouldn't that conflict with the also true statement that "A quark is the sound a duck makes"? Now, of course, I don't think anybidy would be confused by this. But it is a wikipedia best practice to establish the right context in the opening sentence. (TimothyRias (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I'd think the context is there without "in physics". I normally see In topic opening clauses as poor writing and can be easily replaced with {{about}}. Sceptre(talk)15:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Sceptre, even though I retained in physics in my concise draft above. I was tempted to drop it; there is a pointer to a disambiguation page at the top, after all. –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: is the first citation necessary? Seeing as quarks being subatomic particles is pretty much the first thing you learn in A-Level Physics... I don't think you really need to cite that. Especially in the lead section. Sceptre(talk)22:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not convinced of the way information about hadrons and strong interaction is scattered in several sections in different places in the article, but as soon as I figure out a better way to do that I'll fix the problem. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Like Tim above, I also would mention the CKM matrix. And that color coded table still is an eyesore. I'll make a thourough review in the next few days, but it looks pretty solid.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lead : Quarks are the only particles to experience all four interactions. This is mentioned in the "classification" section, but IMO this should also be in the lead.
Is it accurate to describe Zweig as a co-proposer rather than an independent proposer or something to that effect? Co-proposer seem to imply that Zweig and Gell-Man collaborated on this.
"However, this notion has been recently challenged in quantum chromodynamics by theories that include vacuum polarization and the coupling of quark hadrons to strange quarks in the vacuum.[41]" The reference given is from 1993. That's 15 years ago...
"Current quark mass". I feel the term should be a bit clarified. "Current" could be interpreted to mean "the quarks of 2008's mass" instead of "flow".
And I just have to reiterated that I really hate those nigh pointless colors in that table...
In the color confinement section, more could be said about how the top quark's "non-hadronization leads to direct measurements of the mass. It says it's an exception, but stops there. I feel this leaves the reader wanting for more.
Assymptotic freedom --> Mentionning that this got Wilczek et al. a nobel prize here would be fitting here I think.
I think the note about the number of generations should be merged in the text.
Should the image about the decay include "rarer" arrows from t to d and b to u?
I've done most of what you've requested. I removed the 15 year old material. It didn't seem very relevant and was representative of just one of the many fringe views on the topic. i think the colours are fine. I also didn't mention Wilczek; I don't necessarily object to a mention, but I couldn't see how that would fit well into the section, as we were right into the throes of a deep explanation when the freedom was mentioned, and noting that a Nobel Prize was won would kind of distract from that. I also don't really know what more information you want about top quark non-hadronization; there isn't much more to say, from what I know. —Anonymous DissidentTalk01:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And here are mine:
I have attempted, and might have succeeded, in re-organizing the material about strong interaction. But since Murphy's law predicts a very high probability that I screwed something up, I saved my new version to User:Army1987/Quark. Might someone take a look at it? If there is nothing seriously wrong with it, it can be incorporated into the article.
Hmm, I'm not sure. Could you outline exactly what you've done? I don't have the time to read through it all now, and I certainly don't have the time to actually compare the two side by side. From a quick glance, you've elected to place the material about hadronization first, and the "other" properties last. I don't think that's entirely sensical, myself, and, at least in that regard, I prefer the way the current article is structured. —Anonymous DissidentTalk02:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is keeping all the information about the same topic together. All those "below" links about gluons and sea quarks are not very reader-friendly. As it currently stands, the article introduces some of the concepts of QCD, then it discusses completely unrelated things such as spin, electric charge, etc., and then goes back to QCD to end explaining the concept which were introduced. Doesn't sound like a good structure to me. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 02:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking of a way of mentioning the CKM matrix, without stating either falsehoods or things that will be totally incomprehensible to the average encyclopedia reader. I failed. Any ideas, anyone?
(This is one of the very few times I'm nationalistic.) But surely Nicola Cabibboshould be mentioned somewhere in the History section, shouldn't he?
Comments: mostly copy-and-paste from my opposition at this article's last FAC, slightly updated.
Curious omission: not even a hint of the group theory basis of the quark model? Doesn't need to be much, but if it isn't mentioned at all, this article is not comprehensive.
Curious omission: Yang-Mills theories and, more generally, non-Abelian gauge theories not mentioned at all. Doesn't need to be much, but if it isn't mentioned at all, this article is not comprehensive.
Major omission: quark gluon plasma is in the lead, but not in the main article (big no-no in itself). This is a central aspect of modern research on quarks.
Description of the parton model: could use some words on what it means that "the proton had substructure".
"The system of attraction and repulsion between quarks charged with any of the three colors (...) is as follows: a quark charged with one color value will be attracted to an antiquark carrying with the corresponding anticolor, while three quarks all charged with differing colors will similarly be forced together. In any other case, a force of repulsion will come into effect." - that makes it sound more simple than it is. If, say, you have three quarks, each with a different color, and take the symmetric combination, you'll end up with a repulsive force. Also, for a symmetric state with two quarks with two different colors, you get an attractive force.
"Composed of one d and two u quarks, the proton has an overall mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which the three quarks contribute around 10 MeV/c2, the remainder is from the energy of the gluons." - 10 MeV/c^2 sounds very low. I remember coming across higher numbers (quark rest mass plus kinetic energy contributions - which one is meant here? quark rest mass only?). Also, at least one of the sources cited (Veltman p. 46) doesn't say anything about this - why is it cited here? Possibly a different page?
But those are the quarks' rest mass contributions only, then. In that case, the sentence, as it stands, is wrong: The quarks contribute not only their rest mass, but also the mass associated with their kinetic energy. If I remember correctly, the latter contribution is significantly larger than the former. Markus Poessel (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kinetic energy contribution may be difficult to estimate, and impossible to separate from contributions from gluon field. I changed that sentence to reflect this fact. Ruslik (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Gluons are constantly exchanged between quarks through an emission and reception process. These gluon exchange events between quarks are extremely frequent, occurring approximately 1024 times every second." - I'm very skeptical about the number given. After all - and that should be stated here! - the exchange picture is perturbation theory; whatever happens inside a hadron is highly non-perturbative.
I agree with most of your points, but I'm afraid it'd be very difficult to mention group theory and Yang-Mills theories in a way that would be comprehensible to the average reader. IMO such details belong to more technical articles such as Quantum chromodynamics, quark model, etc., which are linked by this article, and the reader can follow the links for more information. I'll try to address the other points. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need to mention it in a way that the average reader understands completely – but, in the appropriate place, a single sentence that says "In mathematical language, ..., and quarks are in the ... representation of that group." would be something that a) makes the article more comprehensive, b) contains wikilinks to important terms that are intimately connected with the way quarks are described in physics, and should definitely be wikilinked from this lemma, and c) can be made brief enough to show the average reader that there is more, but not something that he or she need understand in detail at this point. Markus Poessel (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Unfortunately, I think the paragraph is a bit off. QGP is certainly not a theory; if you want to stress the speculative nature, "conjectured new state of matter" or similar would probably be appropriate. Sourcing with a textbook from 2000 is unfortunate; there were major new results from RHIC in 2005. In this lemma, there's probably not enough room to mention specific experiments (if you mention CERN, you must mention RHIC, and outside the time-frame mentioned the LHC), but there should be a mention of cosmological implications – after all, that's one reason this has generated so much interest. Would you mind if I gave it a try? Markus Poessel (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all; please do. If you could possibly lend your expertise in the other areas that you mentioned were in omission, I'd also be hugely appreciative. I'm no expert, and am frankly overwhelmed by some of your requests. I'd offer that since you were the person to bring some of the matters up, you might know some information on each of the respective omitted topics? If you can't, I completely understand; it'd just make the improvement of the article easier and the overall product better. —Anonymous DissidentTalk14:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[Continuing from my earlier comments:] An interesting and important article with some sophisticated technical content, apparently aimed at explaining quarks to the naive reader. I would like to see it succeed; but I cannot give it my vote in its present state. Generally, I regard the writing as not up to standard. There is uncertainty of tone and of technical level. Here are some specific points, some of which are connected to observations I make above:
In the lead, the reader is pampered with such comforts as "in technical terms", "because of a phenomenon known as", "they are found in two of the primary building blocks of matter – protons and neutrons". But there is little point mixing such pabulum with hard-core assertions like this: "This color confinement is propagated by the quarks' engagement in the strong interaction due to their color charge." In fact, it is better to omit the soft stuff and rely on the links to do the work. Evenness of tone; and a consistent level of difficulty.
I have eliminated the color confinement mention; it wasn't necessary there at any rate. I don't understand what you mean when you say that the reader is "pampered" by some kind of perceived "softness" in sentence construction. Different concepts ad elements of the text require a varying level and complexity of articulation, and there is a difference between this and unevenness of tone. Anyhow, I have fixed and attended to both of the instances you have pointed out; if you could point out further instances of the issue, please do so. —Anonymous DissidentTalk12:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also manifest in the lead, and throughout the article, is uncertainty with the serial comma. And a spaced en dash is used, though all other sentence-punctuating dashes are unspaced em dashes (see WP:DASH). WP:MOS stresses early on the need for consistency of style. Also on punctuation, note 8 needs a space between . and ". Generally the notes seem pretty clean, though – apart from the redlinked names of publishers. Is it policy to include those? I'd prefer to see them unlinked.
No, not offending space: offending spaced en dashes. Actually, I prefer them, myself. (Read WP:DASH.) But we have to be consistent, so the sentence-punctuating dashes in this article should all be unspaced em dashes. Substitute them, in "...three flavors of quarks – up, down, and strange – to which..."Fixed.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 12:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, no. AD, I invited you to read WP:DASH. Forgive me, but it appears that you have not done so. You have now put in unspaced en dashes, where I and WP:DASH and all publishers allow only spaced en dashes (which you had at the outset) in this role, or em dashes (which are in fact required for consistency in this article: unspaced, in fact). WP:DASH (part of WP:MOS) and I repeat our recommendation: now replace your text quarks–up, down and strange–to which with quarks—up, down and strange–to which. Only trying to help. :)Fixed. –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 04:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Classification section: "In this context, flavor is an arbitrarily chosen term referring to different kinds of particles, and has nothing to do with the everyday experience of flavor." Really? And this soon before the dizzying abstruseness of "meaning that their spin quantum number (a property related to their intrinsic angular momentum) is half-integer". Surely such explanations are aimed at different readerships! And more of the same in the rest. Other things: Is the "u with bar" well executed? Surely there is a more suitable character than this, in which the bar looks like a mere artefact on the screen. In "antiquarks have the same mass, lifetime and spin of their respective quarks" there should be a serial comma for consistency (or none elsewhere), and as should replace of. Such matters contribute to an overall looseness in the prose.
I disagree about the readership notion; spin is explained quite simply, with links to relevant articles. I don't see a problem with this, really, and it was you after all who suggested that we let the links do the work in your first point. The u bar notation is based in a template that houses the scientific notations for all particles, and its use is standard and required in all articles on particle physics. Fixed the of --> as and the missing serial comma. We now have no serials in the article. I think. —Anonymous DissidentTalk12:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two serial commas that I can see: "...strange (s), top (t), and bottom (b)", and "...three flavors of quarks – up, down, and strange – to which...". I don't know why you have just now settled on a no-serial-commas policy. I'm a strong advocate of them, myself. But if you have that policy, apply it to the two cases I have just shown.Fixed.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 12:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
History section: Are readers supposed to think that several and numerous carry different weight, in "several leptons and numerous hadrons"? If so, how might they tease this out? Again, elegant variation theatens to distract readers. Consider this: "The Gell-Mann–Zweig model predicted three quarks, which they named up, down and strange. At the time, the pair of physicists ascribed various properties and values to the three new proposed particles, such as electric charge and spin." (What, for the naive reader, is the difference between a property and a value, here?) Why not simply this instead: "Gell-Mann and Zweig postulated just three flavors of quarks – up, down, and strange – to which they at first ascribed such properties as spin and electric charge." Why do I propose this? Study it! Two points: Dropping "model" (which turns up soon enough) lets the remainder of the sentence use "they". Similarly, we don't need it repeated that there are "three new proposed particles". Three? Yes, we got that. New? Well, newly discovered – we got that too. Proposed? Of course. Particles? Sure, what else could they be? Later whilst turns up: the ugly "formalising" variant of natural English while, used throughout the rest of the article. Not pleasant. Now this: "Following a decade without empirical evidence supporting the flavor's existence, it was created and observed..." Created? What, the flavor? How so?
Fixed; I've replaced the old sentence with the one you proposed. I also fixed the problem with leptons and hadrons in the least awkward manner I could think of. I don't understand what you're asking in your final sentence. —Anonymous DissidentTalk12:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that sentence I was wondering what the text means: "...it was created and observed". I understood observed: a quantum, and therefore the flavor of a quantum, can be observed; a quantum can be "created" in a sense (but it's better to say produced). But quantum does not occur in that sentence! A flavor per se (as a category of quantaquarks that have been theorised about, but not yet observed) is not created – except perhaps for revisionist mystics like Paul Davies, who would have God creating the whole box and dice. I suggest you have this instead: "Following a decade without empirical evidence supporting their existence, charm quantaquarks were finally produced and observed...". See? I genuinely couldn't see what you meant, till I thought again at length. Fixed.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 12:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good, AD. What was I dreaming about, with "quanta"? Fixed in above discussion, now. It was way past my bedtime, here in Australia. More soon.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 22:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for "several leptons and numerous hadrons", there are six leptons, and dozens (maybe hundreds) of baryons. And not all of them were known in 1964. So "several leptons and numerous hadrons" was much better than "a multitude of leptons and hadrons". I don't want to go around researching when exactly the muon was reclassified from a meson to a lepton, or when the tau lepton, the muon neutrino, and the tau neutrino were discovered in order to replace that with the exact number, and anyway that number would be highly irrelevant in that context. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 13:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology: More he, less Gell-Mann, I think. "George Zweig, an independent proposer of the theory,...". Yes, we know that by now. Too much repetition and wordiness.
I am ready to offer more comments once these points have been addressed; and I look forward to being able to support promotion of the article, eventually. No, no more to say.
I've read the lead and the first section after that. I agree with Anonymous Dissident that the article strikes an appropriate balance between scientific rigor and accessibility to readers. I may support if I finish reading it later. Crystal whacker (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I finished reading the article and support its promotion to featured status.
One point to consider: In the last section it is written: "The area of physics that studies strong interactions is called the quantum chromodynamics or QCD.[51]" However, QCD is mentioned earlier in the article. Is there a way to introduce QCD earlier or resolve this redundancy, or should it be introduced in two separate parts of the article as it is now? Crystal whacker (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current in 'current quark mass needs to be clarified in some way (wikilink?).
I think the italics around the phrase make it clear that it's a technical term and there wouldn't be much room for confusion with "quark mass as of now." If you can think of a link, I'd be happy to add it, but I honestly don't think we;'ll have any confusion. —Anonymous DissidentTalk00:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flavour quantum numbers deserves a section of its own, similar to spin and electric charge. Should the Gell-Man-Nishijima formula be mentionned somewhere? List of baryons has something on it that could prove usefull.
I'm not sure. I think we've given good coverage to them and mentioning more of the basics (that's all we'd need because this is an article on quarks) throughout the article, so a dedicated section might not be needed. We already discuss how they're formed in color charge and confinement/gluons. It'd just be redundant. —Anonymous DissidentTalk12:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some more issues
I know I said I was going to support, but I've recently notice potential issues about factual accuracy and completeness of coverage.
Charm quark says they (charm quarks) were theorized by Glashow, Illious, and Maini in 1970. This article (quark) says they were theorized by Glashow and Bjorken in 1964. One of the two articles has to be wrong. Which is it?
The down quark and up quark pages said they were discovered in 1967, not 1968 as quark says (I changed the down quark based on the quark article, so it now says 1968). However the articles used as refs to back the claim of 1968 are from 1969. So which way is it?
Yuval Ne'eman proposed a SU(3) scheme to classify hadrons in 1961/62, similar to/the same as Gell-Man's SU(2) in 1962. Both event take place before 1964, which is the "birth" of the quark model/eightfold way/aces. What is Ne'eman's role in the quark thing? How is the 1961/62 version of things from Ne'eman and Gell-Man different from the Eightfold way?
From my understanding, Ne'eman has little to with quarks. He independtly proposed the Eightfold way from Gell-Mann in the same year. The Eightfold way eventually led to the postulation of quarks. I don't really understand what your question is; you seem to be implying that there is something historically wrong with the eightfold way being proposed before quarks, but the eightfold way concerns octets of mesons and baryons, so I don't see where the problem is. In regard to your last question: from what I know, the two proposed a notion that was almost identical. —Anonymous DissidentTalk09:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: No other reviewers seem prepared to !vote on this. Writing as an "outsider" (I am a microbiologist and perhaps therefore an average reader); I find this article fascinating, engaging and very well-written. It has taught me very much. It seems to me that the discussions above pertain to criterion 4, mainly wrt summary style, and this is so difficult to get right. This is a damn good article. Period. I would be pleased to see this on the Main Page. There is room for improvement in all articles, including those that are featured. No doubt, such improvements will be made to this one—but I see no reasons, based on the Featured Article Criteria, to withhold the bronze star. Graham ColmTalk22:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I supported this article two months ago, and I should admit that it has become much better since then. I copy-edited it slightly. There is, of course, a room for improvement, but think the article is very close to FA level. Ruslik (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.Neutral. [Changed because some specific concerns have been addressed. Only neutral, I'm afraid, because I do not think the article quite meets the high standard of writing demanded in a featured article, and therefore does not succeed in delivering its content as efficiently as it might. I will not, however, oppose its promotion on that ground. I'll have no more to say here.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 20:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)][reply]
This is the third time in this review that I've come across a reference that doesn't contain the information it's meant to provide, which I think is very, very worrying. I'm going to make spot-checks on some of the other references, but for now I'm going back to Oppose - this indicates serious problems with the way references have been added to this lemma. Markus Poessel (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: I'm commenting on the licensing of the images only. I am unable to comment on the accuracy of the self-made images.
I have a question about File:Charmed-dia-w.png. I am confused because it is marked as PD US Gov, and I read the permissions exchange linked in the Source. It acknowledges the image is PD, but asks for no proprietary use for the image. I am unclear why someone would ask such a thing of a public domain image. I have asked for further clarification on that image in particular.
"These partons were later identified as up and down quarks when the other flavors were beginning to surface.[23]" where the reference is L.M. Lederman, D. Teresi (2006). The God Particle. Mariner Books. p. 208. ISBN0618711686. The book is online at Google Books, and there is nothing on p. 208 to support this particular sentence, as far as I can see. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Various theories have been offered to explain this very large mass. The Standard Model posits that elementary particles derive their masses from the Higgs mechanism, related to the unobserved Higgs boson. Physicists hope that, in the next years, the detection of the Higgs boson in particle accelerators—such as the Large Hadron Collider—and the study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field might help answer the question.[28]" where 28 is this press release. As far as I can see, the press release says nothing about the LHC, and about explaining the interaction of Higgs and top quark. It's all about the upper limit on the Higgs mass from measurements of the top quark mass.
You haven't read it, then. Please see "Physics: The mass of the top quark (pp638-642; N&V)", the second section. It does mention the LHC, and how the Higgs boson may be related to the top quark mass. —Anonymous DissidentTalk15:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've most certainly read that section. Where does it say anything about answering the question of why the top quark mass is so large? As I wrote above: It's all about the upper limit on the higgs mass from measurements of the top quark mass, as far as I can see. Here is a nice little summary on how top quark mass and higgs mass are related. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"For example, the mass of the top quark is related to the mass of the long-hypothesized but still undetected Higgs boson. Properties of the (equally hypothetical) field associated with this particle would help explain why matter is, not to put too fine a point on it, 'massive.' In principle, the top quark is point-like and should have no mass; yet, through its interactions with the Higgs field, the physical mass of the top quark appears to be about that of a gold nucleus." - that is a valid and appropriate reference to "Various theories have been offered to explain this very large mass. The Standard Model posits that elementary particles derive their masses from the Higgs mechanism, related to the unobserved Higgs boson. Physicists hope that, in the next years, the detection of the Higgs boson in particle accelerators—such as the Large Hadron Collider—and the study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field might help answer the question.[28]" —Anonymous DissidentTalk00:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. What you quote simply describes the Higgs mechanism, which is how all quarks get their mass. It does not tell us anything about why the top quark mass is so much heavier than expected – it does not "answer the question" of why the mass has the value it does have, as the statement claims. Also, what is the "study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field" the statement is talking about? Is it anything other than measuring the top quark's mass more precisely than before? If yes, then the article basically says that measuring the top quark's mass more precisely might help answer the question of why the top quark's mass is so large. How is that supposed to work? Markus Poessel (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who said the ref has to provide an answer? All that needs to be referenced is that elementary particles are affected by the Higgs mechanism, and, as you yourself stated, it does. This was the statement, and the source backs up and parallels the statement. That's what a reference is. —Anonymous DissidentTalk15:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is meant to provide support for the assertion that "Physicists hope that, in the next years, the detection of the Higgs boson in particle accelerators—such as the Large Hadron Collider—and the study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field might help answer the question." - the question being, as stated earlier, why the top quark is so heavy. The reference given does not say anything about physicists hoping to answer, by detecting the Higgs boson and studying the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field, the question of why the top quark is so heavy. That's not what a reference is supposed to be. Markus Poessel (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference says ".In principle, the top quark is point-like and should have no mass; yet, through its interactions with the Higgs field, the physical mass of the top quark appears to be about that of a gold nucleus." then followed by "Further improvements in precision are to be expected from the Tevatron at Fermilab, and from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN (the European nuclear research laboratory at Geneva) when it becomes operational after 2007." I don't know what more you could ask for as a ref for the statement that the interaction of the top quark with the higgs fields is the proposed reason why the top quark is so heavy, and that physicist are looking forward to the LHC experiments to probe the interaction of the top and the higgs so they can understand it.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More on references.
The current ref. 1 is "Fundamental Particles". Oxford Physics. http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/documents/pUS/dIS/fundam.htm. Retrieved on 2008-06-29. "Oxford Physics" is a bit grand - if you look at the author information, it was written by an undergraduate and a sixth-form student. Yes, it was written for the public webpages of the Oxford Physics Department, and they probably looked some or all of it over, but it's still an inappropriate source. If this statement needs a reference at all, it should be one of the text-books used elsewhere in the article.
Current ref. 4 is to HyperPhysics - why, when there is the online Review of Particle Properties, which has the same information, much more authoritative?
It's a simple ref right at the beginning that goes straight to the point. Quarks are fundamental fermions that compose baryons (groups of 3), such as protons and neutrons, and mesons (groups of q-antiq), and talks about confinment. And it covers their names.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref. 8 apparently gives the same information as ref 4. (six flavors). Better to have both point to the same reference, and the natural choice is the Review of Particle Properties.
Current ref. 3 is meant to support the statements 1) top and bottom sometimes known as truth and beauty, and 2) Color confinement; all we know from quarks is from studying hadrons. The page reference is to page 169, which does mention in passing truth/topness and beauty/bottomness, but nothing about color confinement or the necessary of inferring quark properties from hadrons.
Current ref 5. is an article from an institutional newsletter/journal ("Beamline"). The article itself is about the top quark discovery. Seeing how much literature is out there on the history of physics, this is not a very suitable reference for the quark model being proposed by Gell-Mann and Zweig in 1964.
A page or section number would be helpful for the current ref 10, J. Barrow (1997) [1994]. "The Singularity and Other Problems". The Origin of the Universe (Reprint ed.). Basic Books. ISBN978-0465053148 - it's not very helpful if readers have to search the whole book to find the information they're after.
"The Singularity and Other Problems" is a (relatively short) chapter, the book being The Origin of the Universe. I only have the Italian translation of the book. The TOC of the book is available online for preview on (IIRC) Amazon and it is where I took the English title of the chapter (which, incidentally, had been translated verbatim in Italian), but that chapter wasn't on preview, so I couldn't add page numbers. (If someone has either the original language edition of that book or another source which says the same thing, please add page numbers and/or the other source.) --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref. 12, P. Rowlands (2008). Zero to Infinity. World Scientific. p. 406. ISBN9812709142: Reference for statement that antiparticles have the same mass, life-time, spin. That particular page is part of the limited preview on Google Books, and has no statements about antiparticles whatsoever, as far as I can see.
Current ref. 17: A. Pickering (1984). Constructing Quarks. University of Chicago Press. p. 84. ISBN0226667995. Reference is to p. 84, but should probably better be to section 4.4, where the question is discussed of the reality is discussed in more detail
Current ref. 18: B.J. Bjorken, S.L. Glashow (1964). "Elementary Particles and SU(4)". Physics Letters 11 (3): 255. doi:10.1016/0031-9163(64)90433-0 is the reference for a fourth flavour of quark being proposed. I might have overlooked it, but I don't find the word "quark" in the article. My impression is that Bjorken and Glashow at that time did not think the constituent quarks were all that relevant. It's all about the symmetry groups, not about partons.
Current ref 23, here, is just a text-only timeline, no indication of any publication, apparently part of lecture notes by an astronomer. Surely, there must be a reliable alternative source. Also, I see no indication that the text on that page supports the statement for which it is listed as a reference: "These partons were later identified as up and down quarks when the other flavors were beginning to surface. Their discovery also validated the existence of the strange quark, because it was necessary to the model Gell-Mann and Zweig had proposed." It doesn't use the word parton, it just lists the Stanford experiment without pointing to later identification of the particles observed, and it certainly doesn't say anything about the strange quark being indirectly validated.
The 1968 section matches with "There partons were later identified as as up and down quarks" and the "without mentioning the name quark" means they were using the name "parton". If you really want to be picky about it, I suppose it is a bit of a strech, but the five refs of this paragraphs do cover all the paragraph, even if they aren't rigoursly aligned statement by statement.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref. 26, M. Kobayashi, T. Maskawa (1973). "CP-Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction". Progress of Theoretical Physics 49 (2): 652–657. doi:10.1143/PTP.49.652. http://ptp.ipap.jp/link?PTP/49/652/pdf, doesn't appear to say anything about naming the two additional quarks top and bottom.
Moved ref to relevant part, and placed a [citation needed] tag for the names.
"The building blocks of the atomic nucleus—the proton and the neutron—are baryons" - I agree it's a small step from "proton and neutron are made of three quarks", which is what the reference says, to "... are baryons", but still: if there's a reference for such a straightforward sentence at all, why not one that actually talks about baryons (this reference doesn't mention the word)?
Current reference 33, E.V. Shuryak (2004). The QCD Vacuum, Hadrons and Superdense Matter. World Scientific. pp. 59. ISBN9812385746, does mention pentaquarks, but not tetraquarks, as far as I can see.
Current reference 34 (Povh et al.) should have a page or a section number. Otherwise it's not very helpful.
Ref. 37 (Demtröder): The limited review available on Google books has p. 39-40 all about the mass of the electron, not about atomic nuclei, protons and neutrons.
Current ref 38: F. Close (2006). The New Cosmic Onion. CRC Press. p. 82. ISBN1584887982. Cited in support of the spin of quarks, and the fact they are fermions. Page cited is about quark spins combining to form hadron spins. Quark spin itself is one page earlier; I don't see anything about fermions.
Current ref. 40, "Quarks". Antonine Education. http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/Physics_AS/Module_1/Topic_5/quarks.htm. Retrieved on 2008-07-10 - how is this a reliable source? What is worse, it's given as a reference to how quark spins combine to give hadron spins. I found no such information on the page. In fact, I didn't find a single mention of "spin".
Current ref 52, M. Veltman (2003). Facts and Mysteries in Elementary Particle Physics. World Scientific. p. 46. ISBN981238149X. - again going by the preview available on Google Books: On the page cited, nothing I can see about the different contribution to hadron mass, which accounts for two of three uses of this reference. The third use is close, although on Google, the color changes are on p. 47.
Current ref. 62 , Papenfuss/Luest/Schleich, is a collection of contributions by many authors. Quoting it in support of a very specific statement without giving a page or section number is rather pointless.
"Therefore, although the color of each quark is always changing, a bound hadron will constantly retain a set of colors that will preserve the force of attraction, therefore forever disallowing quarks to exist in isolation" - current ref. 67, S. Webb (2004). Out of this World. Springer. p. 91. ISBN0387029303. As far as I can see, nothing about confinement or about the statement about bound hadrons retaining a set of colors on that particular page.
Ref. 69, J.T.V. Tran (1996). '96 Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories. Atlantica Séguier Frontières. p. 60. ISBN2863322052. is not cited properly. This is a contribution by Michael Doser, titled "Status of Glueballs", in the proceedings. Tran isn't the author of the contribution, he/she's the editor of the proceedings.
Ref. 72: National Research Council (U.S.). Elementary-Particle Physics Panel (1986). Elementary-particle Physics. National Academies Press. p. 62. ISBN0309035767. Reference doesn't say anything about colloquial usage. Also, "the sea" is not a quote from there (although "a neutral sea of gluons" and "a sea of low-energy virtual quark-antiquark pairs" does occur on that page).
Ref. 73 (Perkins) doesn't say anything about CERN experiments. Any reference for the quark stars etc. in the second part of the paragraph?
Some other statements I came across while checking on references:
"Gell-Mann and Zweig postulated just three flavors of quarks—up, down and strange—to which they at first ascribed such properties as spin and electric charge." - why only "at first"? Surely quarks still have these properties?
Section "Weak interaction": The second paragraph doesn't make clear the connection to the first paragraph. We're talking about W bosons in both cases, after all.
Query: I've never understood why this article can't begin with a clear definition of a quark, such as here or here. Two subsequent sentences in the lead start with "because", and this article still lacks a clear and cohesive lead. Quarks are not rocket science: an older person who studied physics before quarks were observed should be able to read the lead and understand what changed when they were discovered and why it mattered. The lead isn't doing it; perhaps the authors don't remember how exciting the discoveries in the mid-90s were, or understand the context that should be established in the lead for older readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb and I have tried to address this. I think that the third sentence is way too soon to mention such technical terms as "color confinement", considering that most people reading the lead word-by-word are likely to have never heard of quarks before. (People who already know what a quark is are likely to just skim the lead through and go to the TOC.) Now, such people would know almost exactly what the heck we're talking about by the end of the third sentence, provided they know what "subatomic particle", "matter", "proton", "neutron", and "atomic nucleus" mean. I think that the second sentence ("In technical terms, quarks ...") could be moved below, too, but I'm not sure about where to place it. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 12:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning Support Sandy beat me to it, dammit. I've been meaning to return to this article for three or four days. My main reservations two days ago (left unposted) were first that I didn't walk away from the lede knowing what a quark really was in relation to other subatomic particles and second that I wanted to see closure on all the objections by Markus to the refs. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR)20:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fractional electric charge is one of the most peculiar features of quarks, do you people think it might be mentioned in the lead somehow? --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator - I have been meaning to set to work on some of the concerns mentioned, but I have been extremely busy, and unable to even edit let alone attend to the FAC. I hope to be back in a few days; until then, I hope you all understand and can bear with me. —Anonymous DissidentTalk12:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—The mathematical notation and wording in the "Cabibbo angle and CKM matrix" section seems much too technical for the large majority of readers. I'm not clear what value this provides to an overview article. This by itself is sufficient to prevent me from supporting the article, without re-reading the remainder. Please see Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible.—RJH (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is practically unanimous consensus that the CKM matrix should be mentioned, but I didn't do that in the first place, because I tried to find a way to state what it is without using terms which only readers fluent in linear algebra and its application to QM can understand, such as "eigenstate", and without lying, but I failed. Is there a channeler around here who can ask Dick how he would explain that? --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 22:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think even Feynman could explain the CKM matrix in less than three or four paragraphs. I mean you can simply say something like "The CKM matrix is a way to keep track of how often the quarks decays into other quarks" (and it is said), but then you'd still haven't covered a thing about the CKM matrix and its importance. I would find it rather frustrating that this article fails its FAC because it is complete in coverage. There is no FAC criteria saying that articles should be dumbed down to the point that it becomes pablum. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well sorry we have to disagree on this, but my answer is no. Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible is a MoS criteria. I also think the notation fails WP:Explain jargon. Removing (or explaining) mathematics that only makes sense to a university upperclassman in physics is hardly dumbing it down. Your argument is hyperbole, and my objection remains unresolved. If you are going to include mathematics of that nature in the article, then you must make an effort to render it comprehensible to the majority of readers. "If you can't explain something to a first year student, then you haven't really understood it." ;-) —RJH (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." (Yes, that guy managed to explain how the principle of stationary action is a consequence of interference between wave functions in a way that even my mother would likely understand, so maybe he did understand it to some extent.) Well, we might start drawing a pair of Cartesian axes, labeled |d> and |s>, and another pair rotated by 13°, labeled |d'> and |s'>, showing that |d'> equals 0.974 times |d> plus 0.226 times |s>... Maybe I'm getting somewhere. But I don't know how far WP:NOR allows me to go with an intuitive explanation like that. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 18:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In google books I seem to be able to find a number of works that explain the Cabibbo angle in a clearer manner. For example, just by writing the equation this way: , the math already seemed clearer, at least to me.—RJH (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how that clarifies anything. or is exactly the same thing, with the later having the advanage of being the conventional way of writing things. As for google books, got links?.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—I was ready to support, but started to find too great a density of issues in the prose to do so. It requires another copy-edit by someone fresh to the text.
"Quarks (and antiquarks) are the only known particles whose electric charge is a fractional multiple of the elementary charge, although this can never be directly observed, as hadrons all have integer charge." The "as" causality has lost me, and it's still the lead. Can you be a little kinder to non-experts just here? Why does hadron integer charge preclude the observation of the elementary charge of a quark? (In addition, consider removing "all"; does "this" refer to "elementary charge" or "fractional multiple of the elementary charge"?
As for using the symbols, there is little point in using them in prose, but in places such as uud and in the indices of matrix entries they're useful. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"All quarks of the same flavor are identical particles, meaning that all of their properties are the same." "Identical particles" links to a definition that does not specifically mention properties. Here, properties are elevated to the definitional. Why not "All quarks of the same flavor are identical particles with the same properties." Perhaps I'm not getting something here.
"they are subject to the Pauli exclusion principle, stating that no two fermions of the same flavor can ever simultaneously occupy the same state."—"..., which states that ...". What about three fermions? Why not remove "two"? Do you need "ever" as an amplifier?
Fragmented sentence structure: "This contrasts with particles that mediate forces: such particles are bosons, meaning that they have integer spin; the Pauli exclusion principle does not apply to them." Again, the ", meaning that ..." formula is used, possibly misleading us.
Given that "integer spin" is sometimes used as a definition of "boson", it's not misleading. But sometimes "symmetrical wave function" is used as a definition, so it isn't misleading even if the reader interprets "meaning" as "implying". Given that the two definitions are equivalent, there's no point in discussing which one is the right one. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
" This interaction is the reason why quarks attract each other to form hadrons". Do we need both "reason" and "why"?
They introduce redundancies and can be eliminated in favor of stronger, crisper writing. "This interaction is the reason why quarks attract each other to form hadrons" or "This interaction is the reason why quarks attract each other to form hadrons". ("France is the place where he went." "The person who won the election was Obama" -> "Obama won the election", etc.). BuddingJournalist15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"In the same way that the electric force is responsible for atoms attracting each other to form molecules, the strong interaction is responsible for protons and neutrons attracting each other to form atomic nuclei." The old noun + ing urchin, twice. "for the atomic attraction that brings atoms together to form molecules"? etc.
Do you really want to invent names such as "atomic attraction" even if almost no-one uses that name? (2,380 ghits for "atomic attraction", and many of the ones in the first page mean different things.) --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Elementary fermions are grouped into three generations, each one comprising two leptons and two quarks." Spot the redundant word. Tony(talk)06:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like using "bare" adjectives as pronouns very much, but if our goal is to use as few words as possible, I'm removing that one. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC) (It was already removed. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
All that jazz about words and stuff is nice, but could we get to the real problems of this articles. Aka, the two [citation needed] tags, clarifying the contradiction between Gell-Man and Ne'eman in 1964 vs. Gell-Man and Zweig in 1964, writing in non-klingon, and addressing the ref issues? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too am very keen on seeing Markus' concerns about the refs fully addressed. You know, Wikipedia is an imperfect process, and even at the FA level we field articles that probably could still be improved in some manner or other. And that's OK. But in general, in academic writing, the refs are sacrosanct, at least IMO. If they don't match the content, or if the content is not fully reflected in the refs, then the article cannot be FA. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR)21:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of withdrawal - I'm sorry to do this, but it's the right thing to do. I will be extremely busy until February because of personal commitments related to my schooling situation. I will literally be unable to edit any day until January 29. I therefore think it only right that I withdraw from this nomination, but it is certainly my intent to fix the problems and concerns brought up here as soon as I am able. I hope everyone understands. —Anonymous DissidentTalk01:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment HB said: "I don't think even Feynman could explain the CKM matrix in less than three or four paragraphs. I mean you can simply say something like 'The CKM matrix is a way to keep track of how often the quarks decays into other quarks' (and it is said), but then you'd still haven't covered a thing about the CKM matrix and its importance."
Hey. People. I greatly fear my voice will be pooh-poohed here. In fact. I would bet on it. But it shouldn't. To paraphrase Feynman (if I followed the logic of the threads correctly): "I think I can safely say that this article doesn't need CKM in it." If it takes three or four paragraphs, then it needs its own article. End of story. Please see Wikipedia:Summary style, esp. the part that says: "The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail." IF CKM isn't an example of a section where readers would want varying amounts of detail, then I don't know what is... So I repeat: This article does not need it or want it and should not have it. End of story. You can put in a few sentences about the importance of CKM and give its definition an oversimplified miss. It is safe and fair to give it a miss, since it needs its own article. Crap, you can even redlink CKM (I haven't looked to see if the article exists yet) and I would Support. Some person might Oppose based on 1b (Comprehensive), but that would be.. what's the word for "following rules in a single-minded manner, to the detriment of any meaningful measure of reality"? So. try to find a few sentences about the importance of CKM. Put in a definition like the one above about "a way to keep track of how often the quarks decays into other quarks" and state explicitly that this is an oversimplification. Fix the references of this article (absolutely required) then PASS it FA then work on the CKM article. I hope I can make you see the light with respect to the fact that any topic which requires so much explication does not belong in this article. It belongs in its own article. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR)01:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or for what matters what comes after? It was very jargon-y before, but things have been reworded to be more accessible to everyone. If you have a way to improve the section, go ahead I'm all ears, but it's completely unacceptable not to have a section on the CKM matrix, its signicance, its accounting of CP violation, and its prediction of the third generation of quarks. Not having it would be like not speaking of speciation on in the evolution article. By comparison, this section is IMO far more accessible to the layfolk than the Enzymatic function section in the Exosome complex article, riddle with unexplained jargon such as "These are all 3'-5' exoribonuclease domains, meaning the enzymes degrade RNA molecules from their 3' end." yet that one got featured too. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I were the author of this article, I would not include CKM subsection too. It introduces too much technical information, which is not interesting for a casual reader, who only wants to know what quark is. Ruslik (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I think this article has a very healthy amount of information, and is organized. I think this is an important historical event that many are uneducated about. Promoting this article to featured status will help get the education of this event out to people born from years 1984 to 2008. Rj1020 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The article uses the two most oft cited books on the disaster so I am fine with references. The pictures and prose are terrific and I like how the article is organized. I felt the lead was excellently done. I can not support at this time but hope to do so if a few small but important items are addressed:
Large sections of article text are uncited and they seem to be easy enough to cite to the two books used as references.
Some areas go into too much technical detail. This article is going to be read by people who are not interested in the minute and boring technicalities of the disaster and I felt the article could be trimmed with some of the explanations for the disaster summarized a little more. However, this is my personal opinion, not an FA criteria so there may be other reviewers who like your style and I would be fine with this article passing FA if others feel differently about this issue.
The sections "Comparisons with other disasters", "In the public consciousness", "Representation in games" and "Commemoration" are unnecessary and do not add anything of value to the article. I suggest that they be completely deleted. The "Commemoration" section might be OK to keep if you had a picture to put with the section otherwise I would reduce it to a sentence and include it in the last section of the article.
Query "The DSSS is a yellow steel object which has been placed next to the wrecked reactor; it is 63 metres (207 ft) tall and has a series of cantilevers which extend through the western buttress wall, and intended to stabilise the sarcophagus." This needs either is if the DSSS "is intended to stabilise the sarcophagus." or are if the cantilevers "are intended to stabilise the sarcophagus." ϢereSpielChequers13:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This is a very interesting article which has clearly been well-researched so it is unfortunate that so many important, and possibly controversial sections lack citations. The article is not ready to be considered for promotion, but I enjoyed reading it. I would be pleased to see a fully prepared version back at FAC in the future. Graham ColmTalk16:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest that the editors of this article read this dispatch on non-free images, as many of the images in this article are non-free. Each fair use rationale must include a very specific purpose of use (most of the images I looked at only had a vague statement that was entirely inadequate). Moreover, the idea is to use a limited number of fair use images in each article - it is important to remember than any printed or distributed version of Wikipedia will not include any fair use images. The use of fair use images in this article needs to be carefully assessed image by image by the editors and free equivalents need to be sought out. Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The lead is too short and doesn't properly summarize the article
The Role in The Simpsons section is overdetailing of minor things, and it only mentions a single post-season 11 episode. It's more of a glorified detailing of what he's done rather than actually being about his role in the show.
On that note, it isn't very well-written. There are too many short sentences and not many transitions.
The sections don't have proper introductions, for example, the "voice" section starts out "It is not easy for Dan Castellaneta ... " without any kind of introduction. On that note, there should be some more about Castellaneta.
The reception section is too small, I'm sure there has to be more out there about him.
In the "Merchandise" section, there are only statements backed up by NoHomers.net, which is a fan site. Is FilmCritic.com a RS either?
No personality section.
The article should follow mentioned titles with (season #, year) as in the FAs Homer Simpson and Bart Simpson
The nominator has ownership issues refuses to discuss things with other users and has reverted many attempts to clean up the page. For example, I got Risker, an excellent and experienced copyeditor to give the page a once-over and he has largely reverted back to "his" version. -- Scorpion042223:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I submitted this article for peer review about a week ago (a peer review which is now closed), and had the following impartial reviewer comment:
...upon review of the criteria at WP:FA? IMHO your article is 98% of the way there. In my book 98% is an A. So congratulations you have an article that needs a bit of work but is class A none the less. --Hfarmer (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
He does not seem to have a problem with the prose. And another reviewer stated that the article had "greatly" improved. Please also note that Scorpion is a biased reviewer, so take none of what he says into consideration.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Tj terrorible1 (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"so take none of what he says into consideration" And that's why this is going to fail. You're dismissing my comments outright without consideration. It's not like I said "opposing due to a lack of pictures of monkeys" or something ridiculous. All of my comments are either policy based, or based on other FAs that I have worked on. -- Scorpion042223:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Role section describes Barney's major appearances. He's had none since "Days of Wine and D'oh'ses", which is why there is no post-season 11 mentions. I don't believe that the Reception section is too small seeing how Barney is a peripheral character. (It's about as big as McClure's.) The same "supposed" NoHomers.net website you are referring to is one that is used in "A Streetcar Named Marge", which is a featured article. And does every character really need a personality section? IMO, there is no further content to be added.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responses Actually, Troy's is twice the size (and to be fair, TM isn't really up to current standards, even the nominator admits this). And, it's not really a "role" section, it's basically just an appearances section. Who cares if NoHomers is being used in another FA (and I have removed it)? That's not the article being discussed here. Yes, every FA should have personality section (yes, many character pages don't, but that's because they were promoted a while back... And they aren't FAs). Many character FAs have a personality or characteristics section: Padmé Amidala, Jabba the Hutt (although they call it "characterization"), Jason Voorhees, Martin Keamy, Nikki and Paulo, Palpatine, Khan Noonien Singh (although they call it "analysis"). -- Scorpion042200:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ResponseTroy McClure does not have a Personality section and yet it's a featured article. Maybe I should get that article to be un-nominated.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 00:49, 30
For the record: I don't see any chance of TM getting a personality section, all of his personality info is included in the role section. If you want to request its FARC, then please go for it, but that article is not relevant to this discussion. Gran210:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - My biggest problem with the article is the lack of reception. I'm sure you can find some analysis in Google Books, try this link. You need too fix the stuff Scorpion0422 pointed out as well. —TheLeftorium08:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Current ref 19 (McCann...) is lacking a page number
Response 1) When I see the criteria for an FA, IMO, this article meets all of them (although, I will admit that the lead can be expanded): It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate (sources are verifiable and reliable), neutral, stable, structured appropriately, and with consistent citations. 2) Is the NoHomers website any less (or any more) accurate than the other one used, "Simpsons Collectors", which, by the way, doesn't even work any more. 3) I have tried finding Analysis on Barney (at GoogleBooks, by the way) and the most I could come up with is a single mention in a book about Irish stereotypes and a mere reference to the character in a book about TV town drunks.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing "Simpsons Collectors" used in the article as a reference. 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. May I also suggest that the nominator not get defensive about comments made, but rather respond to them and attempt to work with the commentators to improve the article. Ealdgyth - Talk15:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The website that I use in this article, "Simpsons Action Figure Information Station", is one, as I pointed out earlier, that was used in "A Streetcar Named Marge", which is an FA, until Scorpion tried to cover up his tracks by deleting it. The website was used as a source in the article the day it became featured. See for yourself.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Cover up his tracks", no I was agreeing with you.
Use in other FAs doesn't necessarily mean it's a reliable source. That FA was promoted in September 2007, sourcing wasn't necessarily checked back then. Ealdgyth - Talk15:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the claim that it's well-written, I disagree. There are a lot of short setences in there, which disrupts the flow of the article. Also, a lot of the sections don't have proper introductions, they just jump into the middle of it. -- Scorpion042217:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mayer-Vietoris_naturality.png){kind=link}
