Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2009: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
withdrawn by nominator
withdrawn by nominator
Line 1: Line 1:
== January 2009 ==
== January 2009 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/North American River Otter}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vector space}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vector space}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ursula Franklin/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ursula Franklin/archive1}}

Revision as of 03:17, 26 January 2009

January 2009

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/North American River Otter Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vector space

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:18, 24 January 2009 [1], but was reopened by SandyGeorgia on 13:01, 26 January 2009.

Ursula Franklin

Nominator(s): Bwark (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it recently received GA status and after some further editing, I feel it meets the FA criteria for completeness, quality of writing, etc. Bwark (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would categorize this article broadly as "culture and society" but I realize categories are often narrower than that. For example, I see that the feature article on Harold Innis I worked on over the last year is categorized narrowly as "business, economics and finance." That may be because Innis was a professional economist (economic historian actually). Ursula Franklin is a professional metallurgist and research physicist, but I'd say her main contributions are philosophical or sociological ones and the article reflects that. Hope that helps. Bwark (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have forwarded the e-mail dated July 22, 2008 from the publishing company granting permission for use of the photo of the book cover. Bwark (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. --Sherool (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Permissions has granted an OTRS ticket for this image. Bwark (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just checking out the lead, found this:
  • She is the author of The Real World of Technology based on her 1989 Massey Lectures - which is based...
Please, could you leave a note at my talk page reminding me to come back and fully review this article? Thanks, ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 00:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the grammatical error in the lead that you pointed out. Many thanks. I have also left the requested note on your talk page. Bwark (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Until comments are resolved:

Career:

  • She spent the rest of the war repairing bombed buildings - helping to repair, or designing repairs, what did she do?
I have clarified this by adding "helping to repair" which is more accurate. Bwark (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • she - occurs too many times throughout article, needs varied SS
I have eliminated many of these pesky pronouns, partly be restructuring sentences. Bwark (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • She did post-doctoral studies at the University of Toronto (U of T) and worked for 15 years at the Ontario Research Foundation. - completed p-d studies...
I have replaced "did" with "completed" as suggested. Bwark (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Franklin was also active in the Voice of Women (VOW), now the Canadian Voice of Women for Peace. - it's kind of obvious, but could you briefly explain what this is?
I have added a fuller explanation. Bwark (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ref with 'for more information' needs to be correctly formatted - no, for more info
I eliminated the entire footnote as superfluous. Bwark (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will come back after these are resolved. Ceran→→ 15:10, 18 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:18, 24 January 2009 [2].

All Hope Is Gone

Nominator(s): REZTER TALK ø | blackngold29 | Gary King

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I beleive it meets all the FA criteria and has gone through a GA process and a recent Peer Review. REZTER TALK ø 14:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The following references refer to these sources:
  • http://www.411mania.com/
    • Mudhar, Raju (2007-06-08). "Flick: Our weekly musing on movies". The Toronto Star. p. E02.
    • Keith, Scott (2004). Wrestling's One Ring Circus: The Death of the World Wrestling Federation. Kensington Publishing Corporation. ISBN 9780806526195.
  • http://www.thrashhits.com/2008/08/album-slipknot-all-hope-is-gone/
  • http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/news/article/0,,4758918,00.html
    • This is Artistdirect.
    • Gallo, Phil (2008-08-18). "Artistdirect has Words with U Music, EMI". Daily Variety. p. 2.</ref>
    • "Out & About". Salt Lake Tribune. 2001-07-13. p. E12.
  • http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/
    • A magazine, Metal Hammer
    • "Hammering it home with a metal cover". Printweek. 2008-10-03. p. 71.
    • "Success story of magazine publisher's meteoric rise". Bath Chronicle. 2000-01-25. p. 10–11.
  • http://www.webcitation.org/5aYydJpQI

Gary King (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left the two out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media review - All media have sufficient fair use rationales, verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • It seems to me that the "Sales and impact" section is small in comparison to the other sections. I would recommend making it a subsection of the "Critical reception" section.
    • Well sales and impact don't really relate to how critics review the album.... plus that section will more than likely be expanded as the album grows. REZTER TALK ø 17:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As it stands currently, I believe that section is too small to stand by itself, regardless of whether it'll grow in the future. It's ultimately up to the editors, and I wouldn't oppose this FA nomination solely because of that, but I would strongly recommend making it a sub-section of another section until you are able to expand it. --The Guy complain edits 20:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beginning on April 1, 2008, Slipknot's official website displayed splash teasers to promote All Hope Is Gone. Ten teaser trailers were released." I think these two sentences in the "Promotion" section can be combined, perhaps, "Beginning April 1, 2008, Slipknot's official website displayed ten splash teasers to promote All Hope Is Gone."
  • Remove the word "official" from sentences, example of this; "Beginning on April 1, 2008, Slipknot's official website displayed splash teasers to promote All Hope Is Gone." If it is Slipknot's website, it is official, is it not?
  • Currently, the lead does not reflect these sections: Promotion, Musical themes, Lyrical themes, and Critical reception. The lead also states some information not contained in the article about the band members' side projects. The lead section should be a comprehensive overview of the article as a whole, that is, it should summarize the main points of each section of the article. No information that's in the lead should not be in the article. --The Guy complain edits 05:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. This has the makings of a great album article, but unfortunately the prose has a long way to go. It needs a thorough treatment by an effective copyeditor. The following is a brief sample from just the lead and first section. It is not comprehensive; there are too many issues currently to delineate here.
    • "... the first of any of Slipknot's albums to do so." Why not, "the first Slipknot album to do so"?
    • "... and their first album that was released by a major label to be recorded in their home state of Iowa." Unsure what this means. Are you saying that some albums were on a major label but not recorded in Iowa, and some were recorded in Iowa but not on a major label? I'm not sure why we're interconnecting these.
    • "Before the album's launch, Slipknot released a series of promotional images and audio samples from the album through various websites, including photographs of their new masks on Spinner.com, which received over eight million hits on the first day." This needs to be split up. Also, we need some context for their "new masks" for the uninitiated.
    • "The album has been considered one of the band's most eclectic-sounding albums..." Grammar.
    • You mix "the album <present tense verb>" and "the album <past tense verb>" in places.
    • "Drummer Joey Jordison explains..." No, this should be past tense.
    • "Bassist Paul Gray explained that they decided to do this because Los Angeles ..." Grammar.
    • There's a lot of the band "revealing" things which is an odd word choice considering they're revealing mundane things like going home to visit children. Normally people "reveal" things like inventing time travel.
    • "Complimenting Fortman's ear for tone, Jordison explained that he considers All Hope Is Gone to be the band's best album, sonically." As opposed to.. visually?
    • "Unlike previous releases, all nine band members were involved in the album's writing process, writing over 30 songs." Grammar.
    • "When questioned about the process, vocalist Taylor explained that the process..." Same grammatical problem is cropping up everywhere with repeating nouns: album-album, writing-writing, etc.
    • "Some members of the group separated themselves from the band to write tracks." Meaning what? They left the room? They moved to China?
--Laser brain (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I've just started reading the article and here's some issues I've found that should be addressed:

  • Reorganize the lead slightly. Discuss the production of the album before the chart success (you can pretty much just switch around large chunks of the first and second paragraphs). I'm not sure you have to be so detailed about the formats in the lead; In Rainbows, for instance isn't. Try and summarize more.
  • Remember that in American English the name Slipknot and terms like "the band" or "The group" are singular; I see some instances where the terms are referred to in the plural ("They", "Their", "Were")
  • There's a lot of redundant wording. Examples include "When questioned about the process, vocalist Taylor explained that the process did not occur without conflict" and "Because Slipknot's band members appeared unmasked when performing with their side projects, it was rumored that Slipknot would be recording and touring All Hope Is Gone unmasked".
  • The retrieval dates in the citations are inconsistently formatted. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor thing: "eight million hits on its first day" is a bit confusing. For example, what is a "hit?" And on what first day did it receive its eight million hits? On the first day of Christmas? That should be clarified. The entire sentence should be cut in favor of something like, "The page was accessed by eight million people on the first day it was available" (Don't use that, it doesn't have the best grammar, but use it as an example of what should be done). --The Guy complain edits 04:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately, I'm going to have to Oppose this Featured Article nomination. The article certainly has a lot of potential, but right now, it isn't in shape. Its prose is weak, and, overall, it just needs too much work to be done in the time allotted to us for this nomination. Laser Brain has illustrated many examples of the errors in this article, and I concur. These issues can be fixed, but I doubt it will be in a timely matter. So, I oppose this nomination, and advise the nominators to put more effort into the article, compare it to other current music album FA articles, and re-submit it for nomination when it is ready. --The Guy complain edits 04:38, 22 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:26, 24 January 2009 [3].

Jack Kemp

Nominator(s): User:TonyTheTiger
previous FAC (01:36, 16 September 2008)

I think the imaging concerns of the last FAC have been addressed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. I can't tell where this candidate stands. There is no image review, no source review, and mention of ongoing prose issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources checked at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Kemp/archive3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: File:Jack Kemp.jpg is listed for deletion at commons. File:Jackkemp1988brochure.gif and File:Dolekemp1996.gif are fair use but look okay. The purpose of use in File:Dole Kemp Time Magazine cover.jpg confuses me. The other images check out. Wizardman 05:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — I've stated my support for this article several times before and will continue to do so. It is a superior article, well-cited, with appropriate images and clear prose. In answer to the most basic question about FACs, "Is this article among Wikipedia's finest works?", I can answer with a firm "Yes." In terms of quality, clarity, and coverage, it's head-and-shoulders above 99% of the other FACs out there, and the only reason it has had such trouble passing is because biographical articles are held to such a high standard — particularly those concerning living figures, let alone living political figures. I applaud Tony's tenacity in sticking with this article, improving it after every failed FAC, and resubmitting it. In all aspects it is a superior article, and any minor faults pale in comparison to the main body of work, which is superb in all respects. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re the above support statement: While I understand the wish to register strong support for an article, to do so by denigrating other FACs is unwarranted. This article is better than a number of FACs I've seen, better than a few on this page right now, but it is by no means the best, let alone "head and shoulders above 99% of the the other FACs out there". That is taking support too far. A less bombastic summary of the article's merits might persuade others to look at it, and to support it, too. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I intended no offense. My comment is just an opinion, of course, and by no means do I consider myself an absolute expert on what makes an excellent article. However, from my (admittedly limited) point of view, this article has been through a far stricter review process than most FACs, and has been improved every single time. It has vastly more citations than most FACs, and those citations tend to be from very reliable sources. It comprehensively covers the subject, and I merely wanted to say that while every FAC is a Ferarri, this one is a Scuderia. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are two fair-use images regarding Kemp as Dole's running mate. Since "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (see WP:FUC), I think one image (probably the bumper sticker) should go. --Eustress (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose The prose isn't that bad, I suppose, but it still warrants a third-party scan. Something else I have noticed is the inclusion of irrelevant information. Samples of this and other prose things:

  • "Saban suspected Al Davis of spying on the 0–3–1 Bills and made his team practice using false numbers."
  • Fourth paragraph of "Lou Saban era (1962–1965)"—It almost seems like you are focusing more on the team's performance than Kemp's role in the team. Do we really need to know that "The 1964 team relied on a running game of 250-pound (113.4 kg) Gilchrist and 220-pound (99.8 kg) Wray Carlton as well as a defense that set records for rushing yards, rushing TDs, and quarterback sacks."?
  • "career-passing attempts" No hyphen needed, he didn't hold the record in attempts for "career passing".
  • "Kemp led the Bills to a repeat AFL Championship in 1965 without the 1964 AFL leader in rushing attempts, yards, and touchdowns, Gilchrist, who had been traded to the Broncos, and with the 1964 yards per reception leader, Elbert Dubenion, only playing three games."-->Kemp led the Bills to a repeat AFL Championship in 1965 without Gilchrist, the 1964 AFL leader in rushing attempts, yards, and touchdowns, who had been traded to the Broncos, and with the 1964 yards per reception leader, Elbert Dubenion, who played only three games.
  • "He led Buffalo to three straight Eastern Division titles" Who is "he"?
  • "Faces for the Future." Logical punctuation, the period is not part of the title. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, if 1996 Republican Vice President Nominee is in the Infobox. Vice Presidential Nominee is not a government office. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has this issue been debated with other politicians at WP:FAC? For Kemp, it seems that politically he is most prominently described as the former VP nominee, then as Former Secretary and Congressman. His case is different than say John McCain because he was holding no other office during his tenure as nominee and he has held none since. Thus, it is not only his most prominent position, but also his most recent. There is much debate about whether this is considered an office. It seems to be an official office for succession boxes (see the bottom of Kemp's page). It also seems that like Speaker of the House, Majority leader, Whip, and other similar positions granted by the party there is no consistency on whether it is suppose to be in the infobox. Thus, at this point I am confused on whether this is an objection based on my decision to remove something that is not suppose to be removed. Obviously, if you opposed because I included his tenure as Secretary or Congressman your opposition would be discounted. However, in this case, it is not clear to me if you objecting wrongly. I hope to get further advice because if it is suppose to be removed, it can easily be removed, but if it is not we should hash that out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Congressman & HUD Secretary (for example) are government offices, therefore they belong in the Infobox. Presidential & Vice Presidential nominees, are not government offices; they don't belong (in the Infobox). GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep: House Speaker, House & Senate Majority Leaders, House & Senate Minority Leaders are also government offices (as congressional offices). They've been obtained via an election. Could ya imagine going through all the related biography articles & adding Year Senatorial nominee in Infoboxes (for example). GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not follow. It seems to me that Presidential & Vice Presidential nominees, House Speaker, House & Senate Majority Leaders, House & Senate Minority Leaders are all in the same class. I.E., they are all party positions. Presidential and Vice presidential nominees are determined by a series of primary elections which is followed by a party convention where elected/selected delegates vote. The others are earned by elections of elected Congressmen. All are party offices. Do you have any source that says Speaker is a party office and Presidential nominee is not? They are all offices of the political party.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
House Speaker, is a constitutional office. Would you recommend adding [Year] Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives nominee & [Year] Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives nominee to Infoboxes (remember Dems & GOP nominate a Speaker candidate every 2-yrs)? GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by constitutional office. By party office, I mean position elected by members of the party and not the general electorate. Is the office outlined in the constitution?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaker of the House? yep. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about Majority leader and Whip? How about RNC/DNC Chair? I am looking around and I see Bob Dole also includes RNC Chair in his infobox, but does not include Pres Nom. However, his succession boxes group them all as the same type of office.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RNC/DNC Chair, House/Senate floor leaders & whips are positions. Would you agree with adding the candidates for these positions in the Infoboxes? PS: I'd have no problem (personally) with Nominees, being deleted from the succession boxes, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being nominee for Whip is probably a position that is officially held for a few hours or days at most. I imagine they have a meeting. They accept nominations from the floor and then they have a vote. It is likely that the position is held a few hours. Pres/VP nominee are three month offices that describe you forever. In all succession boxes they are grouped with the others at issue here. They are all considered party offices. I would imagine that as party offices go being Pres/PV Nom ranks above the others in terms of lifetime accomplishment. I finally understand your point that the Nominee may be a differentiating factor. I would prefer consensus on whether party political offices are all considered of equal import and notability and whether they all deserve equal treatment in terms of infoboxes. Can you tell me how Order of Precedence handles the various party officials? That may determine where I stand.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain. Some Infoboxes have offices listed chronologically (years office held), others seniority wise. Some of those listed chornologically, are themselves in different order (recent to earliest or earliest to recent). GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the thrust of my argument. Is former Pr/VP nom higher or lower rank in Order of Precedent than former RNC Chair or Majority Whip. It is possible leader/whip are just grouped in with congressmen and Pr/VP nom just grouped in with whatever political accomplishment propelled them to that rank. In this case that does not help. Then we need to determine should all party political offices be considered equal. I have never read a Time article where someone was described as former Majority Whip nominee. I have never seen the position in a succession box. I have never seen it in a Navbox template. I have never seen it mentioned in a WP:LEAD. A Pres/VP nom is in succession boxes, navbox templates and WP:LEAD. I have never heard Majority Whip nominee described as a party office. Pres/VP nom is always refered to thusly. I think Pres/VP nom is in a class by itself as far as noms go. A congressional district nominee who loses is not even necessarily WP:N. We can not say all nominees are equal. We need to rethink why Pres/VP nom ar in succession boxes, navboxes and WP:LEADs. If there is a good reason why, we should evaluate this for its relevance to its propriety in an infobox. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I don't mind seeing Prez & Vice Prez nominees in the content lead. I wouldn't mind seeing Prez & Vice Prez nominees deleted from the nav boxes (aswell as infoboxes). Remember, if ya add Prez/Vice Prez nominees to infoboxes (and nav boxes), then you'd have to add them to all related biography articles. For example: George W. Bush Infobox would require having 2000 Republican Presidential nominee & 2004 Republican Presidential nominee. Can you imagine what the Franklin D. Roosevelt & Richard Nixon Infoboxes would look like? GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need nominee if you won, especially as an incumbent. I am not asking whether you would mind. My question is what do you think is right. For losing candidates should Pr/VP nom be in 1.) LEAD 2.) Party navbox 3.) succession box 4.) infobox. I am not asking whether you mind. We need to consider what is the right thing to do. Do we expunge it from all of these places or some. Do we consider the office the equal of other political party offices?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend: 1) Keep in the LEAD, 2) Delete from Party navbox, 3)Delete from succession box & 4) Delete from infobox. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give similar responses for 1. RNC/DNC chair, 2. Speaker of the House, 3. Maj/Min Leaders, and 4. Maj/Min Whips. Then we need to take this discussion where we can get lots of feedback.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okie Dokie- Keep the following 1] In the Lead: Party chairs, House Speaker, Floor leaders & Floor whips. 2] In the Navbox: Party chairs, House Speaker. 3] In the Succession box: House Speaker & 4] In the Infobox: House Speaker. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what people think at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Political_Party_offices.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm content with that & I'll accept whatever the consensus is. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are currently objecting over something that you yourself have removed from the article. Are you objecting because the article once upon a time included something?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: I'm against having 1996 Republican Vice Presidential nominee in the Infobox of this article. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it has not been in the article and does not look like it is going to be in the article shouldn't you change your bolded declaration to neutral or support?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm the GAC reviewer Tony alluded to above, and I agree that the prose needs work, though I don't think it's irredeemable. I'm going to start polishing it today, though it's a long article and I might not finish before the end of the week. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Picking up where I left off, I'm starting in Post-HUD years.

Still a couple more sections to read before the end, but I'm getting there. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I offer support when all of my comments are addressed, but I'm a little hesitant with this article due to the ongoing prose concerns. Because of them, I'm planning on doing some work myself on this within the next few days. It's long, so it may take a while, but I think this process will lead to a better article. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose - I've copyedited about half the article now (to all but the last two paragraphs of the "Congress" section), and I think the problems go beyond quality of prose to the actual organization of the article. Within given sections (and even within paragraphs), there is often neither a thematic nor a chronological organization. More than a copyedit is needed; I think somebody familiar with the subject matter needs to rewrite sections entirely, which I'm not able to do without reviewing the sources in some depth. As noted by another reviewer earlier, I think there are also some issues with including information that's not directly-relevant to Kemp, as well as with random facts that are presented without context (which would again require somebody with more familiarity with American politics of the 1970s and 1980s than I have to address). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Equally reluctant oppose: If FAs were given on the basis of effort and persistence, this article would be promoted. But it must be judged against the FA criteria. It has been on FAC for a month, and is still being rewritten and reconstructed, which is not what this process is for. Furthermore, it is clear from reviewers' comments that there is still major work necessary. This work needs to be carried out away from FAC; there seems no shortage of editors willing to help, so I am optimstic that the article will get to FA eventually. But at present it is clearly not ready. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 21 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:39, 20 January 2009 [5].

Jada Pinkett Smith

Nominator(s): – Ms. Sarita Confer

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have completely rewritten and revised it and feel that it's ready to undergo the FAC process. The article underwent a peer review in December 2008 and passed the GA process in the same month. I thank everyone for their time. – Ms. Sarita Confer 01:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The research here looks solid, and the article is well-organized. However, the quality of the writing isn't quite at a Featured-ready level yet. I recommend finding a copyeditor to have a thorough look at the prose. For example:
  • Together, the couple have founded the Will and Jada Smith Family Foundation, a charity organization which has donated funds to various charities and taken part in charity events. Describe the types of charities they work with, and and try to avoid using the word "charity" three times in one sentence.
  • Banfield-Jones became pregnant with Pinkett Smith when she was in high school and after a few months of marriage, Pinkett Smith's parents divorced. Better: "Banfield-Jones became pregnant when she was in high school. She married the father, but they divorced after several months." (Also indicate whether she was born before of after the divorce.)
  • "portrayed the role" is better written as "played the role" or just "portrayed". The first section is titled "Early work, 1991–1995", but it says: "She began her acting career in 1990..." These are some isolated examples; as I say, the article could use a thorough copyedit by someone who hasn't worked on it.
  • Also: Some of the quotes about movies in which she has appeared are about the movie, not so much her acting. Better to use quotes specifically about her for this article.
Good luck with this. I like Ms. Pinkett Smith (especially in the Matrix films), and I look forward to seeing this piece as an FA. Scartol • Tok 17:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestions. I believe I've addressed the examples of your concerns and will work on locating a copyeditor to have a thorough review of the article. – Ms. Sarita Confer 21:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

  • File:Pinkett-Smith.jpg - This image looks suspiciously professional. I hope that a professional released their image under GFDL - I really do, but I am here to be skeptical. This image is missing the source and perhaps the author. Could you contact the uploader and ask about the origin of this image?
  • File:Jada Pinkett Smith Niobe.jpg - WP:NFC requires that screenshots be accompanied by "critical commentary", but I didn't see any critical commentary about Niobe in the article. Why would the reader's understanding of Smith be "significantly" (WP:NFCC #8) increased by this image? In my opinion, unless some commentary on the visual representation of this character can be found and added to the article, this image should be removed from the article.

Hopefully, we can resolve these issues quickly. Awadewit (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All image issues have been resolved. I've struck the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other sites, to determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dr pda. The article is not bad, but the prose is not yet of FA quality, and there are also a large number of sentences and paragraphs which do not cite any sources.

  • Some examples of prose problems (note that this is not an exhaustive list)
    • when she held a guest appearance in the short-lived sitcom—made a guest appearance would be more normal
    • She has held several roles in various movies, which span many different genres, and is probably best known for her roles in—did she play multiple roles in a single movie? How were the movies various? This sentence would possibly read better as She has appeared in more than 20 movies in a range of genres, but is probably best known for her roles in...
    • Watch out for close repetitions, e.g. Married to actor/rapper Will Smith since 1997, Pinkett Smith has two children with Will, or a character that was based on Pinkett Smith's own style and character.
    • She married the father, but they divorced after several months.[4] Her mother continued to raise Pinkett Smith in Baltimore with the help of Pinkett Smith's grandmother—The first 'she' is Pinkett Smith's mother, thus logically 'her mother' refers to Pinkett Smith's grandmother, not her mother. Also continued to raise is possibly doubtful here, unless you're trying to imply Pinkett Smith's father helped raise her until the divorce, then Pinkett Smith's mother continued to raise her.
    • Banfield...encouraged her by enrolling her in piano, tap dance, and ballet lessons while Banfield-Jones escorted Pinkett Smith to various auditions, rehearsals, and performances around town.—do you mean that at the same time as Banfield is enrolling Pinkett Smith in a class, Banfield-Jones is taking her to auditions etc?
    • garnishing 501 signatures—a petition would usually garner signatures :)
    • Pinkett Smith is referred to by her surname throughout, but her husband Will by his first name. This seems inconsistent, especially since Banfield-Jones and Banfield is considered sufficient to distinguish Pinkett Smith's mother and grandmother.
  • You may find it useful to read User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a
  • A few MOS points: according to WP:MOSQUOTE block quotations are used for long quotations more than four lines or one paragraph long; those in the article are not this long. Second, according to MOS:CONVERSIONS the size of their house and property should be expressed in metric units (i.e square metres and hectares) as well as US units. You may find the template {{convert}} useful for this. Finally there are a number of phrases like actor/comedian. WP:SLASH recommends against using this construction.
    • I've fixed all of the noted MOS issues here—the quote in the Ventures section seems a tad long to keep within the prose, but I went ahead and moved it out of the blockquote formatting. I began to copyedit a couple of sentences here and there, but I'll try to take a full look through it soon. Jamie☆S93 17:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As JamieS93 has pointed out, she has taken care of all the MOS issues. I don't know why the quotes were changed from the cquote template to the block quote. I suppose it's the same thing? Either way, thank you JamieS93 for taking care of these. – Ms. Sarita Confer 18:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let everyone know, I am extremely ill at the moment and probably won't be able to work on this for a couple days. I just wanted to keep people updated and let you all know that I have not abandoned the FAC. – Ms. Sarita Confer 16:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another update: I have contacted a copyeditor (JamieS93) who has been kind enough to go through the article. She has been working diligently for the past couple of days, focusing mainly on MOS issues. – Ms. Sarita Confer 17:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update from Dr pda: The prose has improved, but there are still issues (I'm not sure if the copyediting's finished yet). Also I count five or six places where the final sentence of a paragraph has no reference. A further five or six paragraphs plus the filmography have no references at all. Current reference 16 (SF Chronicle) only supports the immediately preceding quote, not the rest of the paragraph. Dr pda (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — Is there a consensus on the genre of Wicked Wisdom? I ask this because referring to it as a "metal rock band" and eventually a "heavy metal rock band" down the line seems kind of clumsy to me. Is the band considered to be heavy metal music, hard rock, nu metal, or what? Aside from that, I feel that the lead is a bit too drawn out for the amount of text that is there. I suggest that the lead should either be expanded, if it should be at three sentences at all, or else condensed down for two sentences. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:36, 20 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:46, 20 January 2009 [6].

Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy

Nominator(s): Andrewlp1991 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...it's a well-sourced article that documents the heavy cultural impact of a half-second accident that occurred on national TV in 2004 and affected future broadcast law in the US for times to come. Also, I'd like to try getting this as the TFA on Feb. 1, 2009 - coincidentially this year's Super Bowl!

As for the FA criteria, so far it's been stable and of course well-sourced and very comprehensive. Since 2007 I've researched this incident for editing this article, especially with excellent source The Decency Wars by Frederick S. Lane. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded on January 15. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review — issues as follows:
    • File:Janet Jackson & Justin Timberlake's wardrobe malfunction.jpg requires a stronger fair use rationale other than "to illustrate the incident, which was notable", made light by its boilerplate nature (same rationale for Janet Jackson article). Something along the line of why this image is particularly associative with the event (is this the most circulated picture in the media, why is this scene particularly poignant of the incident) should be made.
      • I am asking another editor for his opinion on the rewritten rationale. Jappalang (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jappalang asked me to look at this rationale. First, I think that the statement "the most searched for news item in internet history" requires a citation on the image description page. Second, assuming this is the case, were viewers searching for this image or this image? Can we find a source which specifies? I have this feeling that internet searchers were looking for the "nipple shot", but it would be best to have a source to support that feeling. If that is the case, we have to decide if we want to put that shot on the article or not. In my opinion, we should include the more graphic photograph, because that is what caused the controversy. However, this is clearly an area where we need to have a careful discussion. Awadewit (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Fcc complaints and fines 2001-2004.JPG requires sources for the number of complaints and amount of fines.
No other image issues. Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have not spent a long time reading the article, but I see some major problems with the article content.

  • The article has no international perspective (well, a tiny bit on Canada) and is systemically biased in it's coverage and perception. The article needs to explain the reaction in liberal European and other continents, where most people were rather confused by Americans overreaction.
  • The affect on Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake needs expanding. It brings up many issues about race and gender in America. Also, there is some contradiction which needs straightening out. The article says that Jackson's first album after the Superbowl was a critical disappointment, yet it was nominated for 3 Grammys. The article says that the album had good sales, while this is true, they were definitely lower than the album she released before Nibblegate—All For You. All three of her studio albums since the Superbowl have performed progressively worse in terms of sales (irrelevant of critical reception). If you honestly believe "critical reception" is relevant to the affect on career section (I don't see the linkage myself), you should write it in terms of the content of the album reviews. For example, reviews of Damita Jo, largely commented on the Superbowl incident instead of the music. That would be an interesting point to add. Note, Discipline (Janet Jackson album), it a GA article, take any info you like from there.
    • I could go on, but there is no need. I suggest this article goes through the GA process and peer review. — Realist2 19:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding "worldwide view": Are there any reliable sources that document how "some people" in Europe/elsewhere taunted those oversensitive Americans?
      • Yes there are, I'm not sure about "taunting Americans", unless you've heard about that. I'm talking of the reaction as being..."wtf O.0", confusion etc. It got coverage in the UK for example, journalists tried to explain the cultural divide in the US to UK citizens and characterized it as an overreaction. I'm not sure there was any "anti-American" sentiment in it.
    • Sales of Damita Jo: If it's true, I guess there'd be news reports documenting that it sold lower than All For You. Or we could just present the facts, such as the RIAA certifications of All For You and Damita Jo.
      • I'm sure you can find a reliable source for the worldwide sales of All for You (approximately 7 million) and Damita Jo (approximately 3-4 million). Just present the two sales figures. Certifications could be added, but that's not the best option, since that would be America only presumably.
    • "Issues about race and gender in America"...The section in question quotes an interview of Timberlake in which he asserts that those issues are relevant. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There are some football fans who are purists and don't like the Super Bowl halftime shows. I'm one of them, and was not paying attention to my TV at the time of the incident. Another genius move by yours truly. :-) As for the article, I don't believe it's ready to be here, and I almost want to suggest withdrawal and resubmission in the future. Here are some examples of issues with the page.

  • Many problems with the references, including several unformatted references. All refs need publisher and last access date, and dates of publication are also expected here.
  • The first sentence of the lead is a borderline run-on and needs to be split up.
  • "for exactly 9/16 of a second". I don't believe slashes are encouraged in prose.
  • "by the Federal Communications Commission, as well as". Instead of "as well as", just have "and". Simple writing is usually the most effective here.
  • Please delink January 2006. What good does that link do?
  • "with CBS becoming...and MTV becoming" is an example of a "noun-plus-ing" structure, a hard-to-find writing glitch. This whole sentence seems badly outdated anyway.
  • Remove the second MTV link in the lead. Repetitive links aren't needed.
  • Something could be said about how the incident overshadowed the game, which was considered one of the best Super Bowls ever. The wording would need to be carefully done, but a sentence on that wouldn't hurt.
  • Put the one book reference after the notes.
  • "tears off part of Janet Jackson's wardrobe" in the photo caption should be changed, because the deed looks like it was done by then. Therefore, present tense shouldn't be used.

Sorry, but I agree with Realist that this isn't ready yet. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Minor comment I think there should be more templates at the bottom. BUC (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a well written and comprehensive article about a very interesting subject. I made one minor copyedit after reading the entire article but I have some comments:
1)Are there any other worldwide reactions than Canada?
2)I could not figure out what these sentences were trying to say: "South Park took aim at the hysteria in its eighth season premiere, "Good Times With Weapons", on March 17 of that year when Eric Cartman sneaked across a stage in the nude and later blamed the incident on a "wardrobe malfunction." The townspeople are angered by Cartman's display, rather than feeling concern for a horribly mutilated and disoriented character (Butters) who is also present on stage, referring to the acceptance of violence and the taboo against sexual references.[28] "

NancyHeise talk 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. MoS review needed, several issues (particularly in the citations), incomplete citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish to withdraw and surrender because I have now a better idea that a FAC has to be just perfect, perfect, and nothing less! Given Giants2008's comment above I think a better day for this to be Today's FA would be Sept. 22, when the FCC fined CBS over Jackson's you-know-what. I'll have to do some more research as I asserted earlier before it could even reach GA status!--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:21, 18 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Maralia 23:35, 18 January 2009 [7].

Electron

Nominator(s): RJH (talk)

This is listed as a wikipedia vital article. As it is an extensive subject that touches physics, chemistry, electronics and many other fields, information above the basic physical properties of the electron are written in the summary style; these will rely on other wikipedia topics to be better developed. For the most part the current article discusses the widely-accepted particle physics theory of the electron as given by quantum electrodynamics and the standard model. Still, I hope the material is approachable by readers who don't have a background in college-level physics.

After an extensive re-write, this article has undergone a peer review and is listed as a good article. I believe it satisfies the feature article criteria, so I'm nominating it as a candidate. Please take a look and let me know if there issues I can address. Thank you.RJH (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - As the GA reviewer, I had like, three problems with the article. The prose is brilliant as ever, and I think the article, if anything is confusing, that it might be over-technical for the general reader. Ceran→→ 23:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your review and the support.—RJH (talk)
  • Support The article is very well referenced and what I did read was interesting and informative. It is slightly complicated for the general reader, but it is explained clearly and the sections are not too long. The layout is nice and overall it is an excellent article, and I love it when vital articles are improved. Reywas92Talk 23:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review — just some slight issues as follow:
    • File:Asymmetricwave2.png — lacking in references
      • This illustration was generated by a member of the Physics WikiProject in order to illustrate a point in the text. I've requested information on the software package used to generate the plot and, if appropriate, I'll add that as an additional reference on the image page. Otherwise I may have to remove it.—RJH (talk)
    • File:Lightning over Oradea Romania 2.jpg — should it not be "Mircea Madau" as the releaser of the public domain license instead of his or her username "Nelumadau"?
    • File:Lorentz factor.svg — not a big issue, but putting the equation of the Lorentz factor as a function of velocity in the source parameter would be helpful.
All images are fine (above issues are just niggles, not opposable in the sense of whether the images are correctly licensed or attributed). Diagrams about theories and workings of devices are basic and need not expertise to verify, or come with appropriate references. Jappalang (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. It needs a little work.
  • References: What is this pp. 72? And pp. 6–39 to 6–40? The latter may mean something, but it is non-standard if it does. The reference section has several doubled periods – for example in Numerous (1986). Soukhanov, Anne H.. ed.. Word Mysteries & Histories, which appears to be an anomalous reference in any case. All such doubles should be fixed. Otherwise, references look clean enough.
    • I fixed the first. The second is the page numbering scheme used by CRC (I used "to" to avoid the ambiguity of an ndash). A few of the double-periods are an annoying artifact of the cite template and I'll ask them to fix it. I repaired the others by expanding abbr.—RJH (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is a besetting difficulty with these templates. Double periods have to be tracked down and adjusted manually. I still don't understand pp. 6–39 to 6–40. What does it mean? Whatever it means, it will not do as it stands. If the source uses an en dash like that, it is destined for trouble! Perhaps, in that case, we must have recourse to [sic], and to single uses of p.: p. 6–39 to p. 6–40 [sic].–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 22:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Response by Physchim62 moved to where this point is taken up again, below.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 11:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Overall, the rest of the prose seems to need a little tightening of the same sort; but a lead in particular should always be well polished and to the point. This is especially so for such a technically difficult topic, where the reader can so easily be put off by obscurities, or by detail that only the specialist considers essential. I may may have more to say later.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 12:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I've made many of the modifications you have suggested, but not all.—RJH (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, RJH. The lead reads more smoothly with those few adjustments. Of course I was not committed to the exact details that I proposed, and I like the compromises you have hit upon. I'll examine the rest of the article more closely, and come back with some more. Looking good!
Great, I look forward to your additional comments. There is always room for improvement.—RJH (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise a hard space with all page numbers and the like: pp.&nbsp;77–88.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 22:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "pp." is introduced via the 'cite' templates, which reads the "pages=" variable and formats it accordingly. I'll add another request to the folks who maintain that template.—RJH (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment does the first sentence need to be cited? It's not like anyone is going to challenge that. Sceptre (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just playing it safe and covering all the bases; there are plenty of editors who will argue every little detail. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be honest, that's the fundamental characteristics of a particle. You learn that in high-school (Britain, 11-16) science. Good idea to cite it in the article proper, not so much in the lead section. Sceptre (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well thank goodness that all of our readers have been through the British school system then. ;-) I think what I'll do is just let the Weinberg (2003) reference do the work. The citation you find objectionable has been deleted.—RJH (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. The overall idea and general layout are good, and most of the prose is excellent. I agree with the nominator that the article must rely on summary style to a large extent – people write whole books about the electron at roughly this level of presentation!
However, the article seems to get mixed up with the question of "what should be discussed where", leaving little bits of the explanation scattered throughout the text. AWB counted 53 multiple wikilinks for me, which I think is a symptom of the lack of an overall plan for the material (beyond that given by the section headers).
Sigh. At first glance that seems a bit harsh. I did have a certain philosophy that I tried to follow in laying out the article; perhaps I didn't succeed as well as I'd hoped. Multiple wikilinks are allowed. I did check through the wikilinks at one point and culled out most of the excess. Hopefully the duplicate links are in the nature of: a link in the lead and a link down in the meat of the article. A few may be alternate name links to the same material.—RJH (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To take one example, wave–particle duality is discussed at three or four points, none of them really convincingly. The Quantum mechanics section starts "As with all particles, electrons can act as waves." – if the reader already knows that all particles exhibit wave–particle duality, they are unlikely to need any further explanation, but it is a bit rough on the high-school student.
The remainder of the paragraph provides an explanation. The term "wave–particle duality" is also wikilinked to the appropriate article, which can be used for further enlightenment. How is this unclear?—RJH (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The number of references in the infobox and the lead should be reduced as far as possible. It looks strange, to say the least, to find the article references starting at number 15. All of the important points in the lead and most of the numerical values in the infobox are discussed elsewhere in the article and could be referenced there. They is no need to reference both the NIST site and the CODATA paper (see {{CODATA2006}}) for the values: I would suggest just linking to the CODATA paper to save space (and because it gives more discussion than the NIST site).
The NIST and CODATA references have been consolidated to a single cite. I cleaned up the remainder consistent with WP:LEADCITE. The artifact of starting the cite tags with the "[15]" is a function of how wikipedia referencing operates and is not a deliberate act by the editors. There's not much I can do about that.—RJH (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the Observation section, I was suprised to see no mention of the hydrogen spectrum as a methods of "observing" the behaviour of a single electron, both for historical and practical reasons. I'm not sure that the Lund images add anything to the discussion, but the authors themselves have to admit that "The filmed sequence shows the energy distribution of the electron and is therefore not a film in the usual sense." [8] Their paper in Phys. Rev. Lett. describes it as "imaging the electron momentum distribution resulting from a single ionization event", which is hardly the same as "filming an electron"!
The spectral lines of hydrogen were already discussed in the history. It seemed logical to focus on observations of unbound electrons, rather than atoms. (The latter is already discussed on the atom article.) I tweaked the text regarding the Lund image very slightly.—RJH (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of the Applications section doesn't appear to say anything useful at all, and should be put out of its misery with the Delete key. "Virtually every developed technology depends upon electrons." Yes, well, virtually every undeveloped technology as well! In fact, virtually everything depends on electrons, if you look at it that way! Or depends on energy, or depends on photons, or depends on number theory, or depends on the will of an unknowable supreme deity, depending on your PoV and the article you're trying to write!
I removed it, as it is more or less evident from prior information on the page.—RJH (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are several minor problems with the formatting of physical quantities. Commas should not be used to separate thousands if you're also using a full point as a decimal separator. Neither should centered dots be used to express the product of two units if there is a point as the decimal separator in the numerical part. In both cases, thinspaces are unambiguous and so preferred. I saw several cases (not universal) of hyphens instead of minus signs in negative exponants. When e is used as the symbol for elementary charge, it is in italics, but when e is used as a symbol for the electron it is in upright font (the infobox was the error I noted).
Alas, I'm weary of fighting the battle over how numbers should be formatted. The comma is the result of the 'val' template, and the format is in compliance with Wikipedia:NUMBERS#Large_numbers. The hyphen is equivalent to the HTML &minus; tag. I fixed the charge entry in the infobox; thanks for pointing it out.—RJH (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In brief, I think the article is almost there, but still needs a fairly extensive copyedit by a scientifically-knowledgeable editor: not to imply that the nominator isn't scientifically-knowledgeable (!), merely to emphasize that I see more problems that WP:MOS formatting. Physchim62 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been examined by multiple scientifically-knowledgeable editors. I posted notices to the Physics, Chemistry and Electronics WikiProjects asking for more input; hopefully that will be forthcoming. Thank you for the feedback.—RJH (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With any long-standing article, editors who are familiar with it tend to subconsciously "skip" passages, and so are not really the best-placed to do a copy edit. Leaving aside (for a moment) matters of style and of opinion as to what should be included where, I found the following scientific points which seem at best dubious to me, and which have probably (unless I'm the one in the wrong, of course) been overlooked by many pairs of eyes. Physchim62 (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • A number of your book refs are lacking page numbers. I noticed current refs 5, 7, 14, 15. Please double check ALL your book refs and make sure they give pages numbers.
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references. I noted CERN, but there may be others.
  • As for the pp. 6-39 to 6-40, I'm guessing that the pages are numbered 6-39, 6-40, 6-41...so that would be the correct method of listing the pages. Some scientific/math books number by chapter then page within the chapter.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
dragging this back to my concerns Okay, I think something got lost in the shuffle over the page numbers. I did have two concerns that I listed above, but the third comment was merely to point out how some scientific works are paginated. Has anything been done on the two other concerns? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth: First, I was wondering if the character used in pp. 6–39 to 6–40 was in fact an en dash (which would be an imprudent choice by the original publishers; might it be a hyphen?). Second, regardless of exactly which character it is, the imperative is to inform our readers accurately. I think my suggestion p. 6–39 to p. 6–40 [sic] achieves this. I still advocate this solution (perhaps without the [sic], in fact).
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 02:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Moved from above to here:] Why won't it do as it stands? It is clear and presumably accurate. Some technical books do use this style of page numbering, especially those published by CRC Press. FTI, it is to avoid having to reset every page in the book if material is added or deleted early on for a new edition. I would certainly object to any use of sic: we should not be implying that this is an error, nor hat the source "is destined for trouble". Physchim62 (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, it won't do as it stands because here at Wikipedia it looks like a mistake. That's how I took it, and I've been around for a while (at WP, and in general). It wasn't clear to me, so it probably will not be clear to others. (This and the next point illustrate something valuable in FAC's exposing specialist articles to review from editors outside the specialty.) Even if that style is familiar to some physicists, it is not familiar to others: and this is a general encyclopedia in which all sorts of technical matters are given exposition in a way that is friendly to non-specialists. For another thing, the present form with to is already a compromise, so the idea of compromising is not itself novel. I simply say it is not the best compromise. Don't include [sic], if that bothers you, though I should point out that it couldn't reasonably be taken to imply an error in the source. The form p. 6–39 to p. 6–40 is harder to misunderstand than what it would replace. Finally, that the source is destined for trouble is borne out by the very wrangle we are currently engaged in! It should have been foreseen that citations nearly always involve an en dash for ranges of pages (or a hyphen, in some practices). It was therefore imprudent to incorporate an en dash as a part of the labelling of every page.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 11:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would notation like the following resolve your concern? "pp. §6-39 to §6-40" —RJH (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No RJH, that would not be appropriate. I have taken the trouble to examine the source itself, and it turns out not to use en dashes as the candidate article suggests it does. Indications on each page use bold, and a shorter hyphen than those in the text: 8-2. Nothing like an en dash. The index shows page numbers like this, with a standard en dash to mark a range:

Ampere's law 6.7, 6.9–6.10

I now suggest that we follow CRC's own practice, which is quite clear:

6.39–6.40

–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 21:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Noetica's critrion is both warped and pernicious. The index of the book uses point separators because it was written (in 1980) with the intention that people would hold the book in their hands and so immediately undertand the significance of the points. I doubt very much that Noetica would have let pass pp. 6.39–6.40 at a first view, because this would "look[ed] like a mistake on Wikipedia" in his/her eyes. I certainly don't grant this editor the sole judgment as to what looks right and what looks wrong on Wikipedia. Nor do I see that the proposed solution would help users to find the reference in the cited work. How is the reader supposed to translate a point into a hyphen? Isn't the current solution les ambiguous for the normal user, even if it isn't an exact transcription of CAS style? What credit should we give to the comments of people who are so obviously more concerned with the pettiest points of style over the general aim of substance and utility? Physchim62 (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only serious issue I can see with this article is with criterion 4. (I'm used to fixing the non-serious issues I see – as I did, rather than just pointing them out.) According to this the article has 46.9 KB of proses, twice the median feature article (23.3 KB according to this). But, given the difficulty of handling this in an article about a topic which is relevant to so many different subjects, I nevertheless support.
  • (As for the page numbers, one will figure out what pp. 6-39 to 6-40 (or pp. 6-39 – 6-40) means as soon as they open the book, and if they don't have access to the book they wouldn't give a damn about the page numbers anyway.) -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I see that there's a circular bing-bang going on about the formatting of pagination et al. in the refs. Why are you using a template? Those things were made for utter newbies who've never dealt with ref lists before. It's less work to do it manually, and you maintain control over it all. My advice is to get rid of the template.

No, my strong preference is to use templates. Manual reference inserts are a nuisance to clean up. Reference templates are much easier to maintain.—RJH (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we fix the micro things when they come up, please? Noetica is a notable expert in English-language style who has taught me a great deal. I believe that on his shelves are just about every important style guide for the language, and it shows, I must say. I'm sure he's waiting to proceed to other matters that will improve the article.

It's fixed.—RJH (talk)

While we're on micro stuff (which needs to be got right along with the facts and the macro strategy/tone etc), you may be making errors concerning en dashes and hyphens here (-ly plus hyphen, I noticed). Feel free to run through these exercises to test your knowledge of these important aspects of punctuation.

I think the nomination has good prospects, and I appreciate the expertise of the authors. It is already an important contribution, but let's make the text entirely professional. I'll return soon to review it. In the meantime, it does need copy-editing, so I wonder whether you know how to locate one or two word-nerds who are vaguely in this area. Tony (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A search for ly- in the article produced no result. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 16:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coupla things at the top:
    • "... made of ... make up ..."
    • I think it gets a little too technical in the second para: is there some brilliant way up your sleeve of engaging more with intelligent non-experts in the lead, and pushing down just the most daunting technicalities into the body of the article?
      • Maybe, but I can't find a less technical translation of that. BTW, apart of "identical particles", "generation", "lepton", "weak interactions" and "quantum state", all those words are taught in high schools, and some of them in junior high schools, too. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually tried that at one point, but got overridden by the physics experts. I think we can probably safely dump the stuff about the value of the spin and provide an explanation of quantum state. The rest seems relatively benign. Would that be acceptible?—RJH (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The properties of the electron are determined by observing its interaction with other particles." I'm confused: is this Heisenberg thingy, the stuff about "observation changes the observed"? If so, it needs to be better explained, coz I just don't get it as is. If not, please reword.
      • It means "the way you determine the properties of the electron is the observation of its interaction with other particles." Which is true of everything: you can see a chair because it scatters off light from a lamp/the sun into your eyes ("interacts with photons" in fancier terms). While it's true that other particles interact back with the electron or the chair (essentially, Newton's third law; this is neglegible in the case of the chair but not in that of the electron), I think this is irrelevant here. How would you reword that? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, be technical further down by all means, but the spin/h such will frighten off most otherwise willing folk. Tony (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jakob Scholbach Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC) The article looks fairly reasonable, but, with cursory reading, I do have a number of concerns that should be fixed.[reply]

  • It is not clear why "The concept of a least possible amount of electrical charge was theorized on several occasions, beginning in 1838 by British natural philosopher Richard Laming;" is mentioned so early or at all. Unless you already know what an electron is and that charges comes in discrete packages, this leads you astray.
    • I guess I'm a little baffled about why you're unclear here. The first sentence defines an electron. The second shows when it became understood that charges come in small packets. How does this lead you astray? Most reviewers seem to like the discovery to be in the first paragraph. That's my preference too. Please clarify.
      • OK, not clear was perhaps the wrong word. Let me put it differently: the lead is not written smoothly, in the sense that things that belong together are not together: the 1st sentence gives a definition of electrons. The 2nd and 3rd give historical information. The 4th gives, again, fundamental physical information. The historical stuff in between hinders a smooth reading of the physical stuff. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each electron carries a negative elementary charge" is repetetive (with the very first sentence). Also, "Each" sounds a bit awkward, I would omit that.
    • "Elementary charge" is different from "electrical charge".
      • Do you agree that every highlighted word in the following sentences is repetitive?: "Each electron carries a negative elementary charge" and "The electron is an elementary subatomic particle that carries a negative electrical charge" , "Electrons have no known substructure". Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "proton" and "antiparticle" should be wikilinked.
  • The use of references in the lead is inconsistent. I think, either you source every claim, or none. (The latter is OK, since everything you write here should come up in the body, so can be sourced there).
    • The lead follows WP:CITELEAD. I didn't write the policy, I just follow it.—RJH (talk)\
      • Well, I think, you don't follow it. It says "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". The fact that Stoney introduced the name electron is not terribly challengeable, I feel. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Etymology section
    • It's a bit awkward to start with that, I feel. Also the section is really short. Perhaps merge that into the history section?
      • The etymologists seem to like to have the definition there. It seems fine to me.—RJH (talk)
    • "which in turn came" should be "comes"
      • I used "came" to preserve tense.
        • Hm. Now it reads "Both electric and electricity are derived from the Latin ēlectrum, which came from the Greek word ēlektron (ήλεκτρον) for amber." -- I still don't see the reason for past tense. An etymological derivation is something that is valid today, I think. (Not that this is terribly important...) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "with the latter now used to designate a subatomic particle, such as a proton or neutron" I doubt that. "-on" is simply the ancient Greek ending of words with neutral gender.
  • History
    • Is there no better illustration of the Crookes' experiment? The image just shows that the rays can be shielded, but not the deflection.
      • It's in the infobox. The illustration demonstrates the current flow.—RJH (talk)
        • The text says "Furthermore, by applying a magnetic field, he was able to deflect the rays" -- I thought an illustration of this would be good. (AFAIK the shielding depicted in the current picture is less informative than the bending of the rays, right?) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, oil drops, ..." has a comma too much.
  • In general, the wording is occasionally not so good. I'm not a native speaker, but it seems odd to me that you put "the"'s very often, e.g. "During the period 1838–51, the British natural philosopher" or "in 1874, the Irish physicist". Another example of awkward wording: "A body has an electric charge when that ...".
  • Formation section
  • Applications: this looks a bit unstructured, for example, the electron microscopes appear both in Industry and Laboratory, but it's not clear why. I would do a separate section for electron microscopes. I feel that the applications in general are underrepresented, for example compared to the lenghty history section.
    • I deleted the electron microscope entry in industry. The sectioning complies with WP:Layout. What would you add that is specifically related to applications of only electrons, as opposed to atoms? (The latter would cover virtually every application.)—RJH (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not a connoisseur of these matters, but I think you should sketch how an electron microscope or the surface imaging techniques work. Also, are LEED and RHEED primarily industry-used techniques? It looks like they belong to laboratory. But actually I think the applications section might benefit from a restructuring: ordering the applications by the specific feature of electrons they use could make it all more coherent. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Possibly. I'm going to let these article comments alone for a while and then come back to them when I have a calmer perspective and more free time. Thank you for your observations.—RJH (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes section: you might want to use two columns for that.
    • Actually I dislike two columns because the formulae (or some cite fields) tend to overlap the other column.—RJH (talk)
  • External links: I think they should only be included if they offer something the article does not have: according to that the Weissstein link should go, the PDG one is also not quite clear to me. The last external link lacks an accessdate. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for "-on", that part of that sentence is clearly about modern English, what it means in ancient Greek is irrelevant. The rest of your points sound valid. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 18:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I doubt that "electron" (in English) derives from "electric" + "-on", rather I think, "electron" (Eng) derives from "elektron" (Greek), but I'm not an etymologist, so I give you the benefit of the doubt. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I'm going to have to go with the sources.—RJH (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's no big deal. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can't ask Stoney what his intent was, but I think it is not perceived like that. For example, the plural is "electrons" not "electra" (compare with "phenomena", "automata", "criteria", etc.). Also, that suffix is now used in names which have nothing to do with Greek, e.g. "boson", "fermion", "gluon", etc. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a second reading of the lead section, I think that the lead has to be rewritten completely. Before that's done (and the above points are covered), I oppose this article being featured. The lead contains quite an amount of technical terms. I don't assume they can (or should) be completely avoided, but more of an effort should be made toward that direction. For example "The electron is an elementary subatomic particle". The reader will wonder: What does elementary mean? You give the answer a bit later ("Electrons have no known substructure"). Another example: "Interaction among the electrons of two or more atoms is the main cause of chemical bonding. " somehow belongs to "The attractive Coulomb force between an electron and a proton is what causes electrons to be bound into atoms." Finally the formation aspects and applications are not at all mentioned in the lead! My rule of thumb: every longer subsection should be represented by about one sentence. Vice versa, every sentence of the lead should condense a considerable amount of information, or else be a very important single fact. "The mass of an electron is approximately 1⁄1836 of a proton." does not satisfy, IMO, either of the two. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me the primary issue with the technical terms is due to the sentences on spin and the quantum state. I'll see if I can simplify a little.


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

The article was not promoted by User:Raul654 17:15, 17 January 2009 [9].

California State Route 78

Nominator(s): Rschen7754 (T C)

This was the first Wikipedia article that I ever created, back in March 2005 when I was a freshman in high school. Since then, I have applied what I have learned as my Wikipedia editing skills and writing skills have improved. I was finally able to access a map archive and was able to write a comprehensive history of the route, as well as write a more solid route description. I believe that this article now meets all of the FA criteria, and I am ready to try my first FAC. Rschen7754 (T C) 23:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead


Route Description
  • SR 78 is known as Ronald Packard Parkway from Interstate 5 in Oceanside to Interstate 15 in Escondido,[3] and Ben Hulse Highway from SR 86 near Brawley to Interstate 10 near Blythe. - is there a link to "SR 86" and "Blythe"?
  • SR 78 is part of the California Freeway and Expressway System,[7] although only the metropolitan section of SR 78 is a freeway. - why isn't this in the lead? Most freeway articles have this in the lead.
    • This is the new standard for CA road articles (it never was the standard for freeway articles). Most of the articles have not been updated yet. Furthermore, I don't see why this should be cited as grounds for oppose at FA. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not only why I opposed it, its because of the other prose problems.--Truco 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The section of SR 78 from the western junction of SR 79 to the western junction with SR 86 is legally eligible for the State Scenic Highway System;[8] however, only the section in Anza Borrego Desert State Park has officially been designated as being part of the system.[9] - SR 86 is first linked here, when it should be linked in the previous sentences. If that is done, remove the link in this sentence.
  • SR 78 is a freeway from its western terminus in Oceanside to its junction with Broadway in Escondido. - freeway should be linked earlier, not here.
  • The first paragraph makes the prose confusing because the second paragraph begins to formally introduce the highway. I would move the first paragraph later down in the description, which will help the reader understand the description more.
  • The freeway then turns southeast, continuing into San Marcos near California State University San Marcos and entering Escondido, where SR 78 has an interchange with I-15. - it would flow better IMO if a comma was added before and after the University's name.
    • The freeway then turns southeast, continuing into San Marcos near, California State University San Marcos, and entering Escondido, where SR 78 has an interchange with I-15. ??? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, I mean before "near" and after" the university name.--Truco 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Following this, SR 78 becomes a curvy road, heading south to enter the community of Ramona as Pine Street. - "curvy road" sounds really wordy, can another word be used?
  • SR 78 then leaves Ramona as Julian Road, which continues on a curvy mountain road through Witch Creek to Santa Ysabel where it meets SR 79. - SR 79 is WP:OVERLINK (overlinked) linked above already. Also, the word "curvy" is also wordy here, same thing applies here like I stated above.
  • SR 78 and 79 run concurrently accross the headwater of the San Diego River and through the hamlet of Wynola, briefly entering Cleveland National Forest before reaching Julian as Washington Street. - typo on "across"
  • SR 78 and 79 turn right onto Main Street and travel through downtown Julian before SR 79 diverges south towards Cuyamaca and SR 78 heads northeast as winding Banner Road through Whispering Pines. - is "winding" needed?
  • As it nears the Colorado River and the Arizona border, SR 78 briefly passes through Cibola National Wildlife Refuge before nearing the community of Palo Verde, where the river turns away from the highway and SR 78 enters Riverside County.[ - the word "near(ing)" is overused, use other words like "approach"
  • SR 78 then continues north for a few more miles to its terminus at I-10 a few miles west of Blythe. - "a few miles" is WP:WEASEL, the exact number of miles needs to be determined.
  • There are a couple red links, a little too much IMO, either remove them or create stub versions of those articles.


Early History
  • Well before the designation of SR 78, a road known as the Brawley-Westmorland-Julian-Oceanside Highway connected Oceanside, Escondido, Ramona, Julian, Westmorland, and Brawley as early as around 1900. - no need for "Well" and remove the "around" because the sentence says the same thing without it.
  • This road roughly followed the current routing of SR 78 from Escondido to just east of Brawley,[13] although it traveled along a different routing from Westmorland into Brawley. - "to just east" is bad wording, how about ..Escondido to eastern Brawley or something along those lines
  • East of the Sand Hills, there was a road from Glamis passing by Smith Well into Palo Verde which roughly follows the routing of SR 78. - comma before "which"


Construction
  • During the 1940s, US 395 ran concurrently along the portion of SR 78 from Vista to Escondido before continuing along Santa Fe Avenue to Bonsall and Fallbrook before meeting its alignment during the 1970s. - the two "before"'s make the sentence a run on, either split it or fix the punctuation to make it a complete sentence
  • Finally, in 1971, the entire routing of SR 78 as it is today began to appear on highway maps. - comma before "as" and after "today"
Following initial construction
  • On July 1, 1999, a standoff took place between Janet Lucero, an armed woman, and the California Highway Patrol after the former allegedly threatened another driver with a gun. - "the former", what does this mean?


Future
  • Plans call for adding more lanes to Interstate 5 and SR 78 as well as for the construction of a new ramp from SR 78 westbound to I-5 southbound and from I-5 southbound to SR 78 eastbound. - comma before "as"
  • In the past, there was a direct ramp from SR 78 westbound to I-5 southbound which avoided this traffic signal; however, it has since been replaced by a park and ride. - comma before "which"
  • After a rain during the desert monsoon season, these washes can be left with several inches of water, sand, and rock debris. - "After a rain" makes no sense, do you mean After it rains..?


Major intersections


References

Oppose on criterion 3 File:California State Route 78.svg - We need a reliable source for the information in this map per WP:IUP. You can email the creator and obtain the information. Awadewit (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not going to look through the whole thing, but it appears all the early history is sourced to maps. That's not a problem sourcewise, but it means some things may be missing that would appear in news accounts or local histories. --NE2 18:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I got all the articles that the newspaper index had. That being said, the index may not go back to the early 1900's (and one might have to sit in the library all day going through newspaper after newspaper on microfilm). I'm not even sure if the microfilm archives go back all the way to 1867 - I can check... --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should try to get a copy of [14]. --NE2 23:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can try next time I get to the library; however, I'm not sure that it would add much to the article (date 1969, and I have a few other articles from that era). --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, you have articles about the west end from that era, but this is a long road. It seems to me that there's nothing about why the road was built, which should be available. --NE2 23:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 13 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:08, 17 January 2009 [15].

Balto (film)

Nominator(s): Elbutler (talk)

Thi article basically passes WP:FAC criteria, it cites and references stuff, the plot isn't too long/short, it links to other pages, there aren't ny edit-wars, the page isn't biased, and the lead section covers the whole page. Elbutler (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose big fat needs references banner at the top, only two inline citations. Strongly suggest a Peer Review. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 14 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:08, 17 January 2009 [16].

Typhoon Rammasun (2008)

Nominator(s): Jason Rees (talk)

Typhoon Rammasun was one of two Super Typhoons that formed during the 2008 Pacific typhoon season. Rammasun is also tied with Intense Tropical Cyclone Hondo as the second strongest storm during 2008 in terms of central pressure. Thus it was felt that this was one of the more important articles of the 2008 Pacific typhoon season to improve and give an FAC to. Jason Rees (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

These issues should be easy to resolve. All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jason Rees (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cyclonebiskit

Comments

  • Lead
    • You may want to include a sentence in the MH stating that Rammasun was tied with Hondo as the second strongest storm in 2008. (use the RSMC BT for Hondo reference)
    • Rammasun formed on May 5 as a tropical disturbance, the next day the Joint Typhoon Warning Center issued a tropical cyclone formation alert, on the developing disturbance. the comma after tropical cyclone formation alert isn't needed
    • On May 7 both the JTWC and the Japan Meteorological Agency designated the disturbance as a tropical depression whilst PAGASA named the depression Butchoy. Whist -> while
    • The next day the JMA and the JTWC reported that Rammasun had reached its peak winds of 195 km/h (120 mph) and 250 km/h (155 mph) which made Rammasun a Category 4 super typhoon on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. - add "respectively" after (155 mph) and put a comma after it
    • Rammasun caused a total of $8,600,000 worth of damage in both the Philippines and Japan. put $8.6 million instead of $8,600,000
    • You should probably mention the 40 injuries at the end of the lead
  • Preparations and impact

Just a few minor things, mainly with the lead, everything else looks good. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jason Rees (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, til comments resolved - Seems pretty good, but prose could use some tune-up.
  • the next day the Joint Typhoon Warning Center issued a tropical cyclone formation alert on the developing disturbance. - Comma after next day, reads better
  • In the same section, you should mention in there that the acronyms refer to the above agencies. ie. PAGASA
  • Rammasun caused a total of $8.6 million worth of damage - Mention currency in lead, too
  • Although there were no reported deaths from the typhoon, there were 40 people sustained injuries. - Replace it with - that sustained...
  • Move the naming section up.
  • which made it a Category 4 super typhoon. - Replace it with making it a....
I hope I can support this article. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 00:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All Done Jason Rees (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I gladly support. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 01:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  • Typhoon Rammasun (International designation: 0802, JTWC designation: 03W, PAGASA name: Butchoy) was recognized as the second tropical storm and the second typhoon of the 2008 Pacific typhoon season by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) and the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA). - This sentence is a bit of a mess. There are abbreviations, redlinks, parenthesis; try to break it up.
Um Julian there arent any redlinks in the lead of Typhoon Rammasun, but done.Jason Rees (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rammasun formed on May 5 as a tropical disturbance, the next day the Joint Typhoon Warning Center issued a tropical cyclone formation alert on the developing disturbance. - Replace the comma with a semicolon or a full stop.
DoneJason Rees (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On May 7 both the JTWC and the Japan Meteorological Agency designated the disturbance as a tropical depression while PAGASA named the depression Butchoy. - Needs a comma.
DoneJason Rees (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Within Japan an estimated 10 hectares (24.7 acres) of farmland was damaged. - "Was" → "were".
DoneJason Rees (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although there were no reported deaths from the typhoon, there were 40 people that sustained injuries. - Why not just "there were 40 injuries"?
SortedJason Rees (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early on May 6, the JTWC upgraded the disturbances chances of forming in to a tropical cyclone within 24 hours to "fair", as the low level circulation center had consolidated further. - This sentence doesn't add much to the article, but in any event, "in to" should be one word.
DoneJason Rees (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tropical cyclone formation alert was then issued later that day, by the JTWC who upgraded the disturbance's chances of becoming a tropical cyclone by the next day as good. - "As" → "to".
DoneJason Rees (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This came after the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) had designated the disturbance as a tropical depression. - This is very awkwardly worded.
DoneJason Rees (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this time the depression was located to the east of Mindanao in the Philippines. - Rather vague. How far east?
DoneJason Rees (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The storm history seems to drag on; it comprises primarily of boring statistics by the tracking agencies. Isn't there any meteorological information that would be interesting?
I dont think so but ill double check Guam Stuff when it loads.Jason Rees (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • .[22][23]. - Strange punctuation.
DoneJason Rees (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Along with moderate to heavy rain, winds gusted up to 85 km/h (50 km/h) as the storm moved out to sea. - How could a storm move out to sea if it's already at sea?
SortedJason Rees (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Rammassun had become extratropical a strong storm from the "tail" of the former typhoon struck the Philippines. - What kind of storm?
DoneJason Rees (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The winds brought by the storm caused severe damage to some buildings and numerous amounts of trees some weighing tonnes were uprooted. - Run-on sentence, but do we really need to know how much the trees weighed?
DoneJason Rees (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jason Rees (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references. Example only - current ref 22 (Nothern Bald Ibis... RSPB).
  • Why are there so many see also links? Why is the Atlantic season listed and the Indian one, when this one never went near those oceans?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Articles should be judged on their quality, not on whether or not anybody was killed. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is not a voting process, my opinion can always be ignored, but my opinion is that at some point importance has to matter. Otherwise we'll be having featured articles about tropical depressions and bus stops, and the whole thing will become meaningless. I just can't see having featured articles about the countless Pacific storms that whip up in the open water and recurve without ever touching land, unless there is something particularly notable about them. Looie496 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your point. We already have FAs on tropical depressions. Additionally, why does it matter if we have a bunch of storm FAs? IMO, it's better to have an FA than a stub, regardless of the subject's interest and notability. Regards, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-mortem and disappointed strong oppose. Overall writing is bad, and I honestly don't think the article is a good example of how a typhoon article should look. Significant rewriting is needed.
    • The Infobox is wrong. The formation date is when the JMA first classified it as a depression. The met. history only says that a disturbance formed on the 5th, nothing that it was a depression.
    • The first paragraph of the lede is far too long-winded. It tells me nothing, just its place within the season (without even telling me the month). Here's a tidbit - every item linked in the first paragraph is wikilinked twice, which is clearly an example of over-linking. Compare the first paragraph of the lede to any of the other featured typhoon articles, and you'll see it's underwhelming and overall not helpful. I am personally not a fan of "was recognized as the second typhoon of the 2008 Pacific typhoon season". It immediately introduces an awkward element into the writing, by saying "was recognized". As the JMA is the official agency, it doesn't matter who recognizes it as what, in terms of what it really is. Because JMA said so, Rammasun was definitively the 2nd typhoon of the season. But then you introduce the JTWC element. First, it's unsourced that it was the third JTWC storm. Second, it mentions super typhoon (and tropical storm, for that matter), without explaining them. Super typhoon is an unofficial term, but you never explain in the article what it even is.
    • The second paragraph of the lede starts out poorly. As I said before, it is wrong to say Rammasun formed on May 5th. If you're referring to when the JTWC first mentioned it, then it was not a tropical cyclone then. The first sentence is also not a complete sentence; either it's missing a semi-colon, a verb, or a conjunction. More importantly, is it necessary to go into such origins of the precursor (like mentioning the unofficial TCFA)? Why not just start when it actually became a tropical cyclone? That leads to a broader concern that the second paragraph goes into too much detail (such as on JTWC), or at the very least that there is very little flow. The whole met. history portion of the lede is very bland writing, basically just one sentence on each event in its duration. You don't mention anything about the location (anywhere in the lede, mind you, prior to the impact). BTW, all units need to be linked in their first usage in prose, which you haven't done yet. The paragraph is also vague about its impact in the Philippines. The impact section, while almost equally as vague, still says that the impact in the Philippines came from a "tail", whereas the lede doesn't say anything about the typhoon going anywhere near the archipelago.
    • Moving on (since I don't want to spend all night on this) - the meteorological history has original research/false information. The first reference doesn't say a LPA formed on May 4. It just says that convection persisted, on May 5. Either a reference is missing, or it is original research. Furthermore, that leads me to wonder - where did it come from? Did an area of convection just magically appear? Next, the JTWC did not "[upgrade] the area of low pressure to a tropical disturbance" - they didn't upgrade anything, and the source surely doesn't even mention a low pressure area. Also, is it really that important to say that the JTWC "assessed the disturbances chances of forming in to a significant tropical cyclone within 24 hours as poor". First, that's a really long-winded way of saying that the agency didn't think it be likely to develop, but more importantly, most disturbances aren't thought to be likely contenders to develop! You're putting too much emphasis on what the JTWC assessed the system as. Remember, JTWC isn't official: what's more important is what happened, not what was said about what was happening. When a TCFA was issued (BTW, ref #3 is broken), what happened meteorologically with the actual storm? Surely, since the JMA is official, it should be mentioned somewhere in the first paragraph.
    • In the beginning of the second MH paragraph, I notice a cite web error. You say for ref's #4 and #5 that the warning was on 07-06-2008. I have no idea what that means, but it brings up two points. One, the storm was in May, so there's no way it could either be "07" or "06", and more importantly, all of the refs in the article need a publish date. "790 kms, (490 miles)" - fix that, it's wrong and doesn't follow the MoS. Watch out for poor transitions - "The JTWC then designated the depression as Tropical Depression 02W." First of all, that's false, as the lede says it was the 3rd cyclone of the season (meaning you didn't check the article very closely). Second, it's a pretty major jump to be classified as a tropical cyclone. That brings back my earlier point of not having enough actual information. The entire second paragraph is about what the agencies said. What did the actual cyclone do? Where did it go, and why?
    • The third paragraph has the same problem, of not having nearly enough meteorological information. It is just wind speeds and designations. I won't go into a significant review of the particular paragraph, since it needs more details (when did the eye form, what allowed it to strengthen so much, what was its closest approach to land, where did it peak), but I'll point out two main problems. You act like the SSHS is officially used in the WPAC, which it isn't - I don't even think the JTWC uses SSHS. Second, your mention of Hondo is weird, as it has no context. Where was Hondo? What measures strongest? You should specify in terms of pressure", as in terms of winds, Jangmi was stronger.
    • Same as above, more met. details are needed in the 4th paragraph. What caused it to weaken? What caused it to turn to the northeast? Again, there should be less focus on JTWC. How close did it pass to Japan? What happened after it became extratropical? I have a problem with the last sentence of the MH - "they downgraded it to an extratropical low". The source indicates the winds stayed the same, so it wasn't a downgrade by any means, just ET.
    • The "Naming, preparations and impact" section is lackluster. Generally, naming should be the last paragraph of the last section, not first. I do like how you mentioned it was one of 10 names by Thailand. The paragraph is probably the best in the article.
    • The second paragraph should probably be merged with the other Philippine info. BTW, there needs to be more explanation about the Philippine impact. Was that storm related to Rammasun? Was it monsoon-induced rainfall, as the preps paragraph mentioned, or was it an entirely different storm? If it was different, then it probably shouldn't be in the article. I don't like how there are only two sources for the Philippine impact, and both are within a week of the storm. Surely someone should know later on what happened there.
    • The Japanese impact is fine, though it'd be nice if there was more.
  • So that's my oppose. Good luck addressing all of that, or if you don't want to, then I would suggest withdrawing it. After this edit, I will return to retirement (I felt a need to comment here, though). I'll check back periodically to see much, if any, progress occurred. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:42, 15 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:08, 17 January 2009 [17].

Turn Left (Doctor Who)

Nominator(s): Sceptre (talk)

Another Doctor Who series 4 article up for featured status. It's not as long as my Silmaril, The Stolen Earth, but at 33KB, I believe it is long enough for a 45 minute episode to be promoted to FA. I think I've sorted out all of the FA criteria, but I would accept suggestions for prose. Sceptre (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There seems to be a disproportionate amount of emphasis on the internment camp scene in the episode, as opposed to the main plot of the bug on Donna's back and Rose's return and warnings. Certainly it's an important scene, but not at the expense of the overall plot. Perhaps it'd be better to frame it within the overall dystopian atmosphere of the episode? It might also make more sense for the infobox image to be something relating to the episode's main plot, such as a shot of Donna in the UNIT time machine with the bug on her back, or of the stretcher with the Doctor's hand clutching the sonic screwdriver. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • From a standpoint of WP:NFC, it's hard to justify a different image since both can be explained with words easily - a bug on someone's back, or the sonic screwdriver in the hands of the covered Doctor's corpse - and otherwise have no commentary outside of the episode itself to use. (Ok, maybe the bug in relationship to the previous DW episode that used the model, but again, it's still easily described by text). On the other hand, the image that Spectre's used here is one that was part of a powerfully emotional scene as stated by external sources. It may not be the most representative scenes, but it is much easier to assume this is a good rationale for the use of NFC than either of the other two examples. --MASEM 19:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah. Production-wise, it was an important scene; it was supposed to show to the audience really how fucked up the alternate world was. And the reviews I was able to find (mid-season reviews tend to be a bit more difficult, in my experience, to look for, and four or five are enough) all picked up on how powerful the scene was. And while it isn't really an important scene plot-wise, the plot is only one third of an episode article :) Sceptre (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclear on the use of WP:ITALICS in the "Writing" section? Please ask User:Brighterorange to run his script to correct the WP:DASHes in the citations. Also, citation formatting is inconsistent, some retrieved on, others Retrieved on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The italics are kind of a loan from my Wikiquote editing; they're supposed to indicate stage directions. Done the dashes issue in the citations. Sceptre (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article needs to be thoroughly copyedited and the "Broadcast and reception" section needs to be reorganized.

  • The prose is, in general, too wordy (see the "Filming" section in particular) and there are numerous grammar errors throughout the article. A good copyeditor could fix these problems in two hours or so.
  • The larger problem is the structure of the "Broadcast and reception" section. The "Analysis" section is sourced entirely to Walker. Information should be drawn from the reviews for the analysis in addition to Walker, particularly since they mention some of the same themes and symbolic allusions. As it stands, the article repeats itself in the "Critical reception" section - there are ideas there that should be in the "Analysis" section. You need to select the elements of the reviews that are analytical and place those in the "Analysis" section and those elements that are evaluative and place those in the "Critical reception" section.

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 00:32, 17 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:08, 17 January 2009 [18].

Syracuse University

Nominator(s): OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been substantially rewritten and referenced with proper citations. It follows the outline of a similar article Georgetown University which is an FA. It meets the standards of many articles about private and public universities in the US. It meets all of the criteria of WP:Featured article criteria. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images - is this the reason for your username? If it is, remind me to rib you about how absurd an androgynous orange puffball is for a mascot :P Anyhow, this is going to take a while but File:Otto.png needs a FUR for this page as well as its main page. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hence my name. I'm going to have do an ANI for a personal attack against Otto. Oh, no wait, I hate that mascot. Back in my day (I'm older than dirt), we had much better mascots. This one is truly lame. But please, a dumb mascot is no reason to oppose this article. LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A dumb mascot isn't a reason, them rejecting my application after I wrote the best goddamned essay ever is :P Anyhow, images:
Ah hah!!!! So you're filled with anger and hatred against the Cuse??? :D OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Syracuse University Seal.png - the seal is no longer used on the main Syracuse site, which they have redesigned; thus the URL is outdated. Under the 'replaceable' field, it says: "No, Fair Use doesn't apply" - huh?
  • File:Otto.png and File:SyracuseOrange.png - the syracuse orange typeface isn't really an issue as it's PD, but wouldn't it make more sense to have less fair use images by removing Otto from the infobox? He's got his own page where such an image can be found, and I would expect the content which justifies the image per NFCC is found in that article.

Just a note, if you actually remove the above as improperly free, please do something about the images on Commons rather than just removing them from the article (people seem to do that, but that just causes more issues down the road :P) I'll see about actually reading it sometime later. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on those, but I have no experience or interest in dealing with the images at commons. I just uploaded my first image last week, and I wasn't even sure I did it right. IMHO, I'd delete every single freaking image. I'd rather read than look at pictures, but hey, that's my feelings. AND, I think you were talking about the Dome Ranger. Now that's one annoying mascot. For a University that has a top level athletics program AND one of the top communications schools in the country, you'd think they could get this right. I'm starting the Down with Otto movement!!!!! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the TV or radio logos are needed in the article. The Maxwell School image needs to be deleted on Commons and not speedy deletion here on enwiki. You can make a list of images here (or my talk page) to be deleted on Commons, and as an Commons admin, I can take care of them. --Aude (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See, I don't know anything about this. LOL. I'm trying. And yeah, I never liked the logos there. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took most of Mr. Fuch's suggestions (in the process, learning a thing or two about licensing of images), and removed suspect images. I also dumped that silly WERW and WAER logos. Not really necessary. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks much better, but File:Carnegie2a.jpg should be removed per the PD-US reason above, and what I meant about the seal is that the front page the image description page links to (syracuse.edu) no longer contains the logo, so another source for the image should be found. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - The only two big things I see are that the "Campus" and "Student life" sections are somewhat lacking in references. Also, the article says, "The Syracuse Center of Excellence in Environmental and Energy Systems is scheduled for completion in 2006." Was it completed? Also mentioned under #Downtown is the "Connective Corridor", which looks like according to [19] may be completed now. Otherwise the article is very well done. --B (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have questions regarding some of the images' licenses - most notably CitrisTV's logo. I highly doubt that it is actually licensed in CC2.0. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 21:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Oppose 1a, 1b, 2b.
    • Information is haphazardly spread among various sections.
      • Alumni call outs appear in sections outside of the alumni section: fraternities, media,
        • I'm going to pushback here. Since I'm going to guess that about 50% of ESPN is made up of Newhouse grads,[citation needed] I think mentioning the number of notable alumni who make up sports programming in the US is important to the article. If you can suggest a way to do this gracefully, I'm certainly not going to stand in the way of improvement. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article neglects major topics.
      • Where is the information on the organization/administration? How many schools? Who's the president? Board of trustees? Accreditation? Endowment? What is the relationship between the faculty and administration? Addressing Utica College and SUNY-ESF would likewise be better addressed in a standalone organization section rather than in academics.
      • Important academic topics are slighted. What are the largest/most popular programs? What's the academic calendar? Chapters of notable honor societies? Is there a core curriculum required of all undergraduates? The emphasis in the introductory paragraph on admissions rather than general description is inappropriate: use the Carnegie classifications first and foremost and then mention admission information later. There's no discussion of the composition of the student body: graduate/undergraduate size, racial demographics, geographic origin, average admission scores, freshmen retention rate, graduation rates, etc. No mention of financial aid, number of student qualifying for Pell grants, or graduating student debt.
      • Ranking section delves into too much detail on some departmental/subdepartmental topics (digital librarianship? trial advocacy?) while neglecting university-level rankings like ARWU, Forbes, Center for Measuring University Performance, etc. I would recommend using Template:Infobox US university ranking I likewise think that emphasizing positive (e.g. Top 10) rankings while neglecting lower-ranked programs is non-neutral and gives undue weight. Rankings likewise appear scattered in other sections, such as US News appearing in the intro academics paragraph rather than the rankings paragraph.
      • History section neglects to mention anything on racial integration, vietnam era protests, and adaption to decling government support in 1980s/90s, modernization steps during the boomer echo/admissions frenzy (new student life attractions)
      • The faculty section is almost completely unreferences and has no central theme other than listing a few who's who. Information on national academy membership, notable national/international prizes would be helpful. I think merging faculty with whats left of research (after spinning library out) would also be useful. Relationships/partnerships with local, state, federal govt
      • The museum/library information needs its own dedicated section since I don't think are entirely appropriate in the "research" section.
    • Lack of references in the student life and campus sections. I would emphasize and contextualize the National register of historic places much more as this is substantially more interesting than the content currently there. Campus also provides no geographic context on relationship with Syracuse, size of campus, distance from NYC, modes of transportation.
    • The alumni section has instances puffery and peacockery and weasel words: "one of the most-influential", "pioneering", "one of the richest"
  • I think these issues can be addressed in due course and there may yet be others still, but the article shouldn't be promoted. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Current ref 1 (Syracuse Univeristy Chronology....) needs a publisher.
  • Same for current ref 9 (Eastern College Athlecit...)
  • http://govt-comm.syr.edu/community/unimethodist.html deadlinks
  • Current ref 10 (Gapin, WF...) is lacking a page number
  • Current ref 11 (Greene, John Edward...) is lacking a page number
  • Current ref 12 (Gorney, J. ...) is lacking a page number
  • Current ref 13 (Baron, Karrie...) is lacking a page number
  • Current ref 14 (Syracuse Univeristy History ..) is lacking a publisehr
  • Current ref 19 (Deppa...) is lacking a page number
  • Current ref 20, (Yen...) is this a magazine/newspaper article? It's lacking a publication if so.
  • Current ref 24 (Office of Admissions..) is lacking a publisher
  • Make sure all your magazines/newspaper titles are in italics. Use the work field to get this done.
  • Current ref 38 (Syracuse University Faculty..) is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 43 (Syracuse University Research..) is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 50 (Syracuse Univerity Map...) is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 53 (Welcome to Syracuse..) is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 57 (Student Association...) is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 58 (The History of Syracuse Univeristy Fraternity ...) is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 59 (BIG EAST...) is lacking a publisher. Also, should BIG EAST be in all caps?
  • Current ref 60 (SU Athletics..) is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 62 (Pages int he History of Elmira..) is lacking a publisher
  • I also note the large number of references that are from Syracuse University itself. I merely point this out for other reviewers to take into account.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Marlin, I took care of the publishers. The rest are up to the article editors. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm fixing some of them. I can put in page numbers, but we've never been able to figure out a good way to add page numbers with the citation method used. I personally dislike Harvard citations, because they are not easy to use, but it's the only one that allows page numbers. Any ideas? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: NRHP reference needed I refined the discussion of the 4 NRHP-listed properties and districts and added one reference, which, oddly, Orangemarlin promptly deleted, with an edit summary indicating difficulty reading in a Mac environment and a request to use CiteT or something like that. I think the NRHP information can and should be supported by references. The specific reference i added was this: <ref name="nrhptextComstock">{{cite web|author=Robert Mann and Alice Jean Stuart|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Syracuse University-Comstock Tract Buildings |url=http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=6341 |date=1980|accessdate=2008-01-25}} and [http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=62 ''Accompanying 19 photos, exteriors and interiors, from 1978'']</ref> The specific reference appears also in the Comstock Tract Buildings article. While its formatting might possibly be improved, it is in the format used in hundreds if not thousands of articles on NRHP sites. A difficulty in composing the reference is that the document being referenced appears in two separate PDF file parts. The current format is the best solution that i know of. Assistance in converting it to be acceptable for this article would be appreciated. It is an appropriate reference to include, and actually is quite informative. doncram (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Well, I deleted the reference (not what you wrote), because I'm a stickler about them (although Ealdgyth is giving me heartburn). It didn't work on my computer, on which I write websites, publish my blog, and do a lot of web design with no problems for Mac or PC computers. It seems to use an odd implementation of javascript, according to my error log. I've edited thousands of articles and to be truthful, I've never run into this problem. I have no clue what NRHP is, but it doesn't work here on two different Macs. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll cut you a deal, OM, I'll do the italics and the publishers, if you'll pick up the page numbers, which I can't do anyway. Yeah, most of that list is picky stuff, but I like to make sure folks know that it's supposed to be done, rather than just doing it for them. I've found that if I do it for them, the next FAC they nominate .. I end up doing it there too.. and .. welll, I've got my own articles to edit also. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dm for asking a helpful clarifying question. I was guessing, perhaps incorrectly, that Orangemarlin was objecting to the format of the footnote that showed in the Syracuse University article (and does show as footnote No. 2 in the Comstock article), as I was just recently discussing that general format for National Register documents with another editor (pdfpdf) in another context. Currently, i note that the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) website is down. (OPRHP website is now working, Thursday) I'll testify that the website usually works, and it should be accepted as a valid link rather than revising the reference to link to no website. Since the NYS website was up until a short time ago, it is also possible that Orangemarlin has some other problem on his Macs. The NYS website supports Microsoft Internet Explorer; it works less well with Firefox (which i use, nonetheless); it may not support whatever is the Mac browser that Orangemarlin uses. Anyhow, a reference or two is needed for this material for this article being at FAC. doncram (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had no problem with the format of the citation. I still can't get this thing to run on both Mac browsers (Safari and Firefox). Here's the error I get:

Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a000d'

Type mismatch: 'Rst'

/hpimaging/hp_view.asp, line 24

It just doesn't work on a Mac, because of Microsoft's sorry implementation of, well, anything. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe the NYS website is not the greatest, i.e. that its Java interface programming is not up to world-class standards for a website. However, the website probably does serve the NYS agency adequately for its specialized purposes, and I think here it is better to provide a link that works for most browsers than to provide no link to the informative document about the Comstock buildings. So I added back the reference, as well as another general reference to the U.S. National Register Information System (NRIS). I'd be happy to have discussion--probably best elsewhere, at my talk page and/or at wt:NRHP--about refining the standard footnote to NYS NRHP sources to provide some notice/apology that the source doesn't work well with Apple browsers and with Firefox. doncram (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - It's bad enough that the moral leader of FAC (Sandy) is a member of Red Sox Nation, but now we have Marlins fans here? Yikes. I will, however, put away my dismay long enough to review the Athletics section, which I like to do for university articles.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:08, 17 January 2009 [20].

History of the National Hockey League (1967–1992)

Nominator(s): Resolute, Maxim

This is the third article in the series, as the articles covering 1917–1942 and 1942–1967 are already featured. It has already had a peer review, and is currently a good article. I've added Maxim as a co-nominator, as he helped write the article, and we look forward to all feedback. Do your worst! ;o) Resolute 19:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • First paragraph in the lead section - there is repetition with the phrase "were formed into". Try varying the wording more. This repetition with the word "formed" also occurs in the first paragraph of the background section.
  • Suggest wikilinking to farm system in the background section.
  • "The Flyers finished atop the West Division, recording 73 points ..." - when? please provide a year/season here. (1967-68 season?)
  • End of the two league era - "Word got out that the Canadiens, owned by Molson Brewery, and the Canucks, where Molson was served" - should this be Vancouver, instead of Canucks, in order for the sentence to make sense?
  • Per commons:COM:FOP (for Canada), the Gretzky statue photo should be okay, since it's permanently situated in a public place.
  • The references are all good and reliable, though the NHL - International Timeline and Asia Hockey League links are broken.

--Aude (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, well that's annoying on the NHL removing a lot of their old articles. At any rate, I've replaced the second cite, and it looks like Maxim is catching the other points raised. Resolute 21:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the rest. Res poked me about taking a look but I partially forgot and I partially had very little time. I'm still poking around and I'll polish the prose a bit more later. Maxim(talk) 21:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "(one team had ceased operations in 1978)" – which team? Why not just name the team, like "(this team had ceased operations in 1978)"
  • Perhaps "The NHL eventually became involved" for a sense of a timeline, otherwise it seems so sudden that they just so happened to immediately become involved
  • "Canada won the eight-game series with four wins to three withand one tie."
  • "including a current league record 215" – to show that it still stands; I didn't realize it still stood until the "also" in the following sentence
  • "by a meresingle point" – as "mere" makes it seem like someone thinks it was close, somewhat POV and would be better replaced

That's all I got from now from the lead. Gary King (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed those, but I'm trying to find a good copyeditor to look over the article. Maxim(talk) 02:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

  • File:Orr.jpg - Each article needs a separate fair use rationale (WP:NFCC #10). Please write a fair use rationale specifically for this article on the image description page.
  • File:Paul Henderson 1972.jpg - According to WP:IUP, the source link should point to the HTML page that contains the image, not directly to the JPG.

Both of these images are supposedly "iconic" moments in hockey history. Since I know nothing about hockey, they do not obviously appear iconic to me. Remember that fair use rationales are not written for hockey fans, they are written for lawyers (who may or may not be hockey fans!). I think that the fair use rationales would be greatly strengthened by a citation regarding the iconic nature of these photos. These issues should be easy to resolve and I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let Res take care of these—I'm really not keen on having fair use images in an article with a few free images already. I may see some use for the Orr pic (it's more, or less, the most famous hockey image ever IMO), as Orr, the best offensive defenceman ever, he revolutionized the game with his style, is flying through the air after scoring the Stanley Cup-winning goal. Maxim(talk) 01:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I agree, however being that these are probably two of the most famous hockey photographs of all time, and both directly relate to the topic, I felt they were important in this article. Across the four articles there are 31 images, only three of which are non-free, which I think is quite fair. And aside from these three - Henderson and Orr's goals in this article, and Plante donning his mask in the previous article, I cannot think of any other event of such significance that we would need a non-free image to adequately convey the historical significance of the moment.
I have rewritten both FURs, fixing the source link on the Henderson goal, and adding multiple sources to each, which I hope will address Awadewit's concerns regarding the veracity of my claim regarding the status of each image. Cheers! Resolute 05:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources for File:Orr.jpg demonstrate that this is an iconic photo and there is a clear mention of it in the text. Here are my thoughts on File:Paul Henderson 1972.jpg. It is clear from the sources provided that this is a famous goal. WP:NFC dictates that images of iconic status be accompanied by critical commentary. I suppose I'm not totally sure what "critical commentary" in this context might be, but there is a whole paragraph on this goal and a quote box related to this moment, so that seems sufficient to me (however, I do feel that the image falls into a "gray area" that could be debated - perhaps the quote box is enough to show the emotion, for example). All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. In my opinion, these FURs meet the requirements of WP:NFCC. I have therefore struck my oppose. Awadewit (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your feedback is most appreciated. FU considerations can easily trip one up, so it is good to ensure that their use meets policy. Resolute 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I took the liberty of fixing two newspaper refs. With {{citation}} you use the newspaper field to give the newspaper name, this makes the ref format properly) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - When is the fourth volume coming? Overexpansion, multiple lockouts, pros in the Olympics and my beloved Rangers breaking the Curse of 1940. What could be better? That's one that I can't wait for. Until then, I'll have to be content with offering my thoughts here.

  • Dollar values need non-breaking spaces, like this: $2.75 million. Click the edit button to see the formatting involved. In the lead, Bobby Hull's contract value needs one; the body should also be checked.
  • Winnipeg Jets isn't linked in the lead, unlike the other teams. Any reason for that?
    • It's linked, second para.
  • "Wayne Gretzky, who scored 200-points or more four times". Don't believe the hyphen is needed.
  • Background : "as each team selected a total of 20 players from the existing franchises." This is slightly wordy; these three words can be removed to make it tighter.
  • Link the full team name of the Montreal Canadiens in the second paragraph, by their manager's plan. Consider doing the same for the Boston Bruins in Expansion years, by their Stanley Cup win.

Overall, I find it quite well-written. This is all for now, but I plan on reading through more in the future. Be forewarned that six articles I'm reviewing are among the bottom 11 on the FAC page, meaning that they have top priority for me at this point. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. The last article in the series is a GA—it needs a polish and when this one hopefully passes, or when the FAC is almost closed, it'll go to FAC, too. PS, Res and I will be really, really happy if you gave a review before the FAC. ;-) Maxim(talk) 22:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Masterton was rushed to hospital with massive head injuries..." Perhaps make it "a" hospital.
  • Watch for tricky "noun-plus-ing" sentence structures like this: "with the league eventually mandating their use by new players entering the league...".
  • Third paragraph of Bobby Orr: everything starts as either He or Orr. Some variation would be nice for "compelling prose" purposes.
  • Summit Series: "charging the startled police officers with their sticks allowing them to free Eagleson." Somewhat awkward part of a sentence.
  • "The Soviets were met with a relentless Canadian attack in the final seven minutes, outshot 14–5 during that stretch." Add "and" before outshot?
  • Link Alexander Yakolev. That name links to a dab, where it can be found.
  • Legacy: Comma after "and split Rendez-vous '87".
  • Twenty-one teams: "The team averaged only 9,800 fans". Make clear that this refers to attendance.
  • Another noun-plus-ing: "with the Islanders sweeping the Oilers". And remove the comma afterward.
  • "won by the Calgary". Giants2008 (17-14) 00:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good catches on all, and all fixed except the first. I think it sounds better as is. Searched the article for other instances of noun-plusing but did not find any. Resolute 17:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Opppose Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The article is quite interesting. However, the writing needs a polish; hopefully, I can return to make more comments and copy-edit the article some. For now, a review of the lead and first section will have to suffice.

  • Multiple-page citations need "pp."
  • "The six existing teams were grouped into the newly created East Division, while the expansion teams—the Los Angeles Kings, Minnesota North Stars, Oakland Seals, Philadelphia Flyers, Pittsburgh Penguins and St. Louis Blues—were grouped into the West Division." "while"-->and, seems to be additional info.
  • "San Jose Sharks were added as an expansion franchise in 1991." No need to use the passive here, "were added"-->joined.
  • "The NHL eventually became involved in international play" What does "eventually" really tell us?
  • "starting with the Summit Series in 1972 which pitted the top Canadian players of the NHL against the top players in the Soviet Union. " Comma after "1972", "in"-->of.
  • "including a current league record 215 in 1985–86." Hyphenate "league record"
  • "when William M. Jennings, of the New York Rangers" Comma not needed.
  • "They formed the newly created West Division, while the existing teams were grouped into the East Division. " Same as above, change "while"-->and.
  • "Canadiens manager Sam Pollock's plan of allowing each team to protect eleven players to start, then add an additional player to their protected list for each player selected in the draft was ultimately agreed to as a compromise solution." The ideas are poorly integrated here, try this: "Canadiens manager Sam Pollock's came up with the compromise solution: allow each team to protect eleven players to start, then add an additional player to their protected list for each player selected in the draft was ultimately agreed to as a compromise solution."
  • "The old system where franchises sponsored junior teams and players was abandoned by 1969 as all junior aged players were made eligible for the entry draft."-->The old system, in which franchises sponsored junior teams and players, was abandoned by 1969 as all junior-aged players were made eligible for the entry draft. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good suggestions all, and all fixed. I did change up your suggestion on Sam Pollock's expansion draft idea, as your suggestion has a redundant use of "compromise solution". Looking forward to further feedback. Resolute 21:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my stance to "weak oppose"; some sections need significant polishing, especially in the bottom. These are examples from the "Rules and innovations" section.

  • "The 1982–83 North Stars and Capitals both finished with 16 ties in 80 games while 17 of 21 teams tied ten or more games." "while"-->and.
  • "As a result, the NHL reintroduced overtime for the 1983–84 season." Was it a result of the Stars' 20 ties the season before or a result of the general trend toward tie games?
  • "Before it was discontinued as a result of World War II"-->Before its discontinuation for (during?) World War II...
  • "The modern overtime format was set as a five-minute, sudden death period, with the game ending when either team scored."-->The modern overtime format was set as a five-minute, sudden death period; the game ended when either team scored.
  • "The doubling of the league in 1967"-->The league's doubling in 1967
  • "The playoffs were expanded to 12 teams as each division winner was granted a bye in the first round of the playoffs." "as" is ambiguous here, "as"-->, and each...
  • "to select two players of French-Canadian heritage, before any other players were selected and counting as Montreal's first two choices."-->to select two players of French-Canadian heritage, before any other players were selected. These players counted as Montreal's first two choices.
  • "Imlach admitted the made the player up," Doesn't make sense.
  • "The league reformated the Amateur Draft into the NHL Entry Draft in 1979, simultaneously lowering the draft age to 19."-->The league reformated the Amateur Draft into the NHL Entry Draft in 1979 and simultaneously lowered the draft age to 19.
  • "The public draft has grown, such that it is now held annually in NHL arenas, and televised internationally." Neither comma is necessary, especially the second one. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed those. I've been trying to find a copyeditor; Risker, who usually copyedits my articles, seems to be busy with arb stuff, and I'm having a tough time finding a good copyeditor. However, judging by your comments and suggestions, you'd make a very competent copyeditor. Considering you helped me copyedited a section already, would you mind/have the time (I know reviewers are stretched, but doesn't hurt to ask) to copyedit the rest? ;-) Maxim(talk) 21:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will do what I can. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fastest 50 goals in NHL history" Some readers will not understand what you mean by "fastest".
  • Watch the journalistic language: "The Kings were the hottest ticket in town".
  • "'An award such as this takes a lot of teamwork and help and both teams here today definitely have a part of the 1,851,'" Logical punctuaton, are you sure that the comma is part of the quote?
  • Confusing wording and a typo: "as from the season in which they first signed European players, they won tree of the six remaining WHA championships"
  • "The league reformatted the Amateur Draft into the NHL Entry Draft in 1979"—I think that there is a typo but wanted to double-check.

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:53, 16 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:28, 16 January 2009 [21].

Bride of Frankenstein

Nominator(s): Otto4711 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's a classic of the horror genre and widely regarded as director James Whale's masterpiece. I believe that the improvments I've made to the article since it was listed as a Good Article have brought it to Featured Article level. My thanks to User:Ched Davis and User:Finetooth for peer reviewing the article. Otto4711 (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that only one FAC should be nominated per user at a time until their earlier nomination has had its issues resolved. FAC has a rather sizeable backlog right now, and is stretched for reviewer resources. I recommend that you withdraw and wait until your other nomination progresses. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 16 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:48, 16 January 2009 [22].

Sacrifice (2008)

Nominator(s): WillC

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria. It is not extremely well written in my opinion but I have a high standard that not even I can please. It is reliably sourced compared to the wrestling project's other FAs and my recently promoted one, Lockdown (2008), which I followed when I began working on this one again. Any comments will be addressed as quickly as I can as if they are to the utmost importance. This event is not a significant one in the history of pro wrestling but some interesting things happened at the event that I feel some would enjoy learning about. I also feel that all articles should be of a good or featured stature, in this case, I believe it should be of featured, which is one reason I'm nominating it.WillC 05:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs) - per FA Cr 1, 2, and 4

Lead
  • I told you to hold off its nomination, it has a lot of prose issues. I will take this review section by section, because a quick glance, it fails 1,2,and 4.
  • The main event was a standard match involving three competitors fighting for the TNA World Heavyweight Championship, in which the champion, Samoa Joe, defeated Kaz and Scott Steiner. - the lead should not have Out of universe writing because it clutters the lead. Remove the OOU writing.
  • As per the Lockdown's FAC. An unfamilar person reading this article will not know what a 3-Way Dance is and it will turn them off from reading. Look it up, that is what Giant said.--WillC 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kurt Angle, originally scheduled for the match, was removed after he announced that he has sustained a legitimate neck injury as the broadcast began. He was replaced by Kaz who had won a new speciality in TNA, titled The TerrorDome. --->Before the PPV began, Kurt Angle, originally scheduled to participate in the match, was removed after announcing that he had sustained a legitimate neck injury. It could also be stated that In one of the prime matches of the undercard, Kaz defeated nine other wrestlers in The TerrorDome to become Angle's replacement, in addition to winning an opportunity to challenge for the TNA X Division Championship.
  • The finals of The Deuces Wild Tag Team Tournament to crown the new TNA World Tag Team Champions were held at Sacrifice; The Latin American Xchange (Homicide and Hernandez) (LAX) defeated Team 3D (Brother Ray and Brother Devon) to win the tournament and the championship. - 1)It needs to be elaborated whether this was the undercard or what? 2)LAX should not have an acronym because their acronym isn't used later in the lead.
  • The event's undercard featured different varieties of matches. - now I have no idea whether the "Deuces Tourny" was an undercard or not, but if it was, it needs to be before the sentence about the tournament.
  • It was and wasn't. The Finals were not, but the semifinals and such was.
  • The debut of The TerrorDome to become number one contender to the TNA X Division Championship, and to replace Angle in the main event, was scheduled on the undercard; the only way to win this match was to escape The TerrorDome structure through a small hole in the center of the ceiling. Kaz defeated nine other opponents to win the match. - if my suggestion is take above, this is not needed, it clutter the lead
  • TNA promoted a TNA Knockouts Makeover Battle Royal to become number one contender to the TNA Women's Knockout Championship also on the card. ---> A TNA Knockouts Makeover Battle Royal was also promoted, in which the winner would become the number one contender to the TNA Women's Knockout Championship.
  • Gail Kim and Roxxi Laveaux won step one of the match as the last two participants remaining after the others were eliminated by being tossed over the top rope and down to the floor. ---> This could be connected in the previous sentence with a semi-colon, as...; Gail Kim won the match. There is too much plot in the lead, which clutters the lead.
  • When the event was released on DVD, it reached a peak position of number thirteen on Billboard's DVD Sales Chart. - per WP:MOSNUM, thirteen should be in number format
  • The professional wrestling section of the Canadian Online Explorer website rated the entire event a 7 out of 10, the same rating the 2007 event received. - 7 out of 10 what? Points/Stars? Aren't there any other critics, this is the only critic I see in all TNA leads.--Truco 21:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks better, but this sentence The main event was a standard match involving three competitors fighting for the TNA World Heavyweight Championship, in which the champion, Samoa Joe, defeated Kaz and Scott Steiner. - should just say "Triple Threat match" because the lead can be out of universe since the terms are explained in the article later, the lead is just a summary of the article. Other sports articles aren't like this, I think Giant was treating TNA and WWE articles differently because the leads of my promoted FA's are in-universe due to my reasoning above. Also, I believe my suggestion about the sentence on Kurt Angle's neck injury is better worded than the current revision, grammatically wise.--Truco 22:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Background Match#1 - since this article has many prose issues, I may (or may not) review the whole article due to that, but I'll try to review each match
  • The main event at Sacrifice featured a standard wrestling match involving three participants—titled a 3-Way Dance—between the then-champion, Samoa Joe (Joe Seanoa), Kurt Angle, and Scott Steiner (Scott Rechsteiner), TNA began to develop this storyline prior to their April PPV event, Lockdown (which took place on April 13). - 1)Link to this match? (The lead/BG links are different) 2)Needs a full stop after Scott Steiner's name; either replace it with a semi-colon or a period. 3)What championship was being defended here?
  • Sorry, the copyeditor placed those together. They were two different sentences. Linking the match is overlinking. It was just linked in the lead so it is too close.--WillC 02:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the lead is like a separate article, it has nothing to do with the article itself, its just a summary, which is why it has to be linked in the latter. I don't know who told you it was wrong, follow the other wrestling FA's.--Truco 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is the same in Lockdown. I was told by FA reviewers and a few GA reviewers.--WillC 03:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • These reviewers are really treating WWE/TNA articles differently, because in the FAC reviews of WWE articles, they say the opposite thing. I would change it, and if a reviewer agrees tell them it is used by FAs of WWE, like OTE (which was recently promoted). If many disagree, you shall remove it then.--Truco 03:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steiner announced on the April 3 episode of TNA's primary television program, TNA Impact!, that he would be activating a contracted title shot (won at the Turning Point event in December 2007[4]) against the winner of the championship bout at Lockdown between Joe and Angle. - No need to say TNA's acronym in the name of the TV show.
  • On the April 17 episode of Impact!, Steiner kept his word and used his title shot to challenge Joe to a World Heavyweight Championship at Sacrifice. - no need to say "kept his word", it is already established that he was going to use the title shot. In addition, wouldn't it be a "World Heavyweight Championship match"?
  • Afterwards, Angle interrupted and was scripted to announced that he had a clause in his contract that stated he got a rematch if he lost a title. - terrible wording --> Afterwards, Angle was scripted to interrupt the segment, and announced that he had a clause in his contract with TNA, which gave Angle a rematch if he lost a TNA title.
  • He said that he was activating that clause for the next week's Impact! (April 24). - following week's not "next week's"
  • On the April 24 episode of Impact!, Joe successfully retained the World Heavyweight Championship against Angle after Steiner intervened in the match by hitting Angle in the head with a lead pipe (the referee had undertaken an unconscious role and Joe was not paying attention). - this nature of interference requires the sentence to state it was scripted/narrative. In addition, no need to state that the referee was unconscious or that Joe gave a hell about it (to much WP:PLOT that is irrelevant to the feud)
  • If you saw the match it would make more sense. I didn't even have it like that. I really to need to pay attention what was changed by people and what wasn't.
  • Due to Steiner's interference, authority figure Jim Cornette replaced the scheduled championship match between Joe and Steiner with a 3-Way Dance involving Joe, Steiner, and Angle immediately after the title match. - more terrible wording --> After the match, authority figure Jim Cornette replaced the scheduled championship match between Joe and Steiner with a 3-Way Dance that would involve Joe, Steiner, and Angle.
  • This type of wording is leading me to a quick-fail vote, there is serious prose issues here that could have been avoided with a peer review, and more copyedits.--Truco 02:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Image review:

  • Free images are fine, taken by the uploaders themselves, EXIF provided, or come with OTRS attached.
  • Non-free image File:TNA Sacrifice 2008.jpg requires tidying and strenthening up in the "Purpose of use" field. That field is for supplying a reason why the image and not others are used. Some of the listed elements currently in there belong in other fields.

This should be an easy case to resolve. Jappalang (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sole image concern has been resolved. Jappalang (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Figure Four Wrestling site is run by Dave Meltzer and Bryan Alvarez, both of whom are acknowledged as experts in their field. Alvarez is co-author of The Death of WCW, published by ECW Press, and has been quoted in several other wrestling books (including Hardcore History: The Extremely Unauthorized Story of the ECW, published by Sports Publishing LLC, and The Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame: The Heels, published by ECW Press). Meltzer has also written books (Tributes: Remembering Some of the World's Greatest Wrestlers, published by Winding Stair Press, and Tributes II: Remembering More of the Worlds Greatest Wrestlers, published by Sports Publishing LLC, Top 100 Pro Wrestlers of All Time, published by Stewart House). He is quoted in many books and documentaries (Hitman Hart: Wrestling with Shadows and Beyond the Mat, as well as Mysteries of Wrestling, published by ECW Press; Ric Flair's autobiography, To Be the Man; Mick Foley's autobiography; and countless others). Alvarez has been running Figure Four since 1995, and he merged the magazine with Meltzer's Wrestling Observer, which has been around since 1987. If you need any more information to verify their reliability, just ask (or do a search for their names, which should turn up many hits). Pro Wrestling History is only sourcng minor issues, such as match times, attendance, and the tournament bracket which is already sourced throughout the article.--WillC 00:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose - First off, if you believe an article "is not extremely well written", why are you nominating it here? Reviewers aren't here to make FA-quality prose, but I'm sure you knew that. Here are some thoughts on the article, which needs work.

  • "The main event was a standard match involving three competitors—titled a 3-Way Dance—fighting for the TNA World Heavyweight Championship, in which...". I don't like the way the sentence flows. Read it out loud and you'll see what I mean.
  • "In one of the prime matches of the undercard". What does "prime match" mean? Also, it could just be "In one of the undercard's prime matches".
  • "in addition to winning an opportunity to" → "and win an opportunity to". Remove comma before this part.
  • Remove duplicate Sacrifice link.
  • The first sentence of the third paragraph is just repeating information from the second paragraph. I don't see the point.
  • From the body: "TNA debuted a new specialty match at Sacrifice, The TerrorDome, to become the number one contender to the TNA X Division Championship." Needs rewording. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll fix these sometime in the future. Answer to the first question is: I never think any article has good prose. I wasn't sure about this one anyway. I've been acting weird the past few days so that might be why I wrote that.--WillC 19:33, 16 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Gary King 16:39, 15 January 2009 [23].

History of the Han Dynasty

Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk

WARNING! The Surgeon General of the United States has found that smoking two packs of this article a day may cause one to love Chinese history and suffer temporary loss of sight, bowl discomfort, triple lung growth, Psychokinesis, and kidney failure. In all seriousness, I've worked my tail end off since June compiling notes for this article (now completed), and four other branch articles for the Han Dynasty (i.e. society and culture, government, economy, and science and technology) which will be completed over the course of this year, hopefully by the summer.Pericles of AthensTalk 12:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear; I was meticulous in making sure that each link was directed to an appropriate article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She's actually checking the external links, I believe :) Gary King (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Very nice job on a long and important article. One problem that I see, however, is that there are a ton of images on the right side. They push all the other images down (especially for larger monitors) so readers cannot tell which paragraph each image is associated with. Either stagger the images left and right per MOS:IMAGE or remove some. I'm sure you can also see that the images are pushing all the section edit links down, which can be resolved by either staggering the images or using the {{FixBunching}} template. Gary King (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to announce that I believe I have fixed the problem with the pictures; in the end, only one picture (a very good one, unfortunately) had to be removed, while half the pictures in the article are now on the left-hand side.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, but there are still layout problems. I think the biggest issue is that there are too many images. It's nice that they are all free, but perhaps pretend that they are fair use images and then only keep the ones that you really need, because images, especially the taller ones, are still pushing down other images and edit links.
  • The image in "Regency and downfall of the Lü clan" is pushing the other one down. Images are pushed down on the right side all the way up until just before "War against the Xiongnu".
  • Images on the right starting from "Economic reforms" are pushed down, up until just before "Wang Mang's usurpation".
  • Images are pushed down on the right starting from "Natural disaster and civil war" up to just before "Court, kinsmen, and consort clans"
There are still way more on the right that are pushed down. Gary King (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, how wide is your monitor? Is it an 18 inch? Mine is 13½ inches and the images look perfectly fine (certainly not pushing images down that far, my God!). I don't mind resizing some of the images (especially the taller ones) in order to accomodate Wiki visitors and editors who have much wider screens like you seem to have, but to purge the article of good pics for this reason alone is perhaps a bit much.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check on a recent edit of mine where I downsized the two pictures in the "Regency and downfall of the Lü clan" section; does that look much better on your monitor?--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22" monitor. The images are still getting shoved down a great deal. It also makes sense to link to a Commons page in the External links section for readers to see more images that are not in this article. Gary King (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22 inch! Man, no wonder the article looks like hell on your screen. Lol. According to Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size, the pictures should be set at the "thumb" default anyway; if you noticed, most images in the article are 200px. I will downsize ALL the images in the article (except for the lead pic and two others) and then tell me here if you see any improvements. I hope we can make a compromise on this.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the downsizing is done; how does she look?--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still not good. The image in "Regency and downfall of the Lü clan" is pushing down the others, along with the one in "Economic reforms", and the one in "Natural disaster and civil war". And the ones in "Foreign relations and war of middle Eastern Han". Gary King (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, because anything over 100 KB is obviously unacceptable.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No single-editor article should ever be nominated for featured-article status the day it is created. Period. I don't care what the rules are here, it isn't proper and isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special for the nitpickers who will insist on a rule:
  • Cannot possibly meet stability criteria for the reasons stated above, in anything but a trivial (mathematics) sense.
Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, there's been no time allowed for edit warring, but it sounds as if you are rejecting the article on nothing more than the hypothetical (i.e. potential edit warring in the future), instead of judging it for perhaps more important criteria like prose content, NPOV, reliability of sources, etc.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this comment is actionable. Please read the FA criteria, specifically criterion 1e: "it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." If you believe that the article's newness makes it deficient in some content area, please state which criteria. (prose, citations, comprehensiveness, style, etc.) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been there a day. We have no idea whatsoever what it does "day to day". We cannot possibly know.
It's newness alone is sufficient to preclude any serious consideration whatsoever. I've pointed out one criterion it cannot possibly meet. Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I really would like to support this article, but I share the same concern with Gene Nygaard. It would have been nice to have more eyes go through the article. With the length of the article as it is and the lack of reviewers interested in this type of topic, it is a difficult article to evaluate in the relatively short FAC process. Although there is no obligation and it is not required in the criteria, I would request that the nominator have others take a look at the article either in a Wikiproject, PR, or GA. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, RelHistBuff. I wonder, though, if a Peer Review process is even warranted while the article is simultaneously in the FAC process. I'll check on that.--Pericles of AthensTalk 11:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the all-fired rush? Leave peer review alone for now. That isn't appropriate at this stage either. It hasn't even had the time to be called to the attention of members of various WikiProjects that might be interested. Nobody has had time to read it, let alone consider it in detail. The original author claims to have slaved away at this for the last seven months. I'd say, give everybody else equal time to check out what the various cited references or other sources have to say, to nit-pick over details, or whatever. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're so concerned with that, then please, why don't you nitpick over the details if you see a problem. Could you point out which specific statements in the article you have a problem with? Otherwise, your objection to the article has been noted. There's no need to beat up on another editor on two different pages.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it has been averaging about a hundred edits per day throughout its entire existence. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read Template:FAC-instructions: An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. This nomination must be withdrawn if the Peer Review is intended to be open. Gary King (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how this FAC would fail one criteria (stability) anyway, then so be it: this FAC should be withdrawn. I'd rather have a peer-review process look into any potential errors or things needing to be fixed in the article; I'm sure that I have missed a few things in running through the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright; good luck on a future FAC. I will withdraw this nomination now. Leave the {{FAC}} template on the article's talk page and let the bot archive it. Gary King (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gary.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you pointed that out that wording to me, Gary. If it doesn't belong in either, then I don't care in the least whether it could be in both or not--that is totally irrelevant. What you've cited couldn't change my mind at all, because it doesn't deal with what I was saying. And if this has been withdrawn, isn't there some "archived discussion" template to put on it? Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I just need to be more explicit on the second point, too. Wikipedia:Peer review "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". It is not for day-old articles either. Do you get it now? Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please be less defensive? I was telling Pericles that this article cannot be in both processes at the same time. Gary King (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wait a second, how in the world does this fall under the stability criterion? I don't see any edit wars. I don't see any underlying conflicts or hostility. And this is by no means a current event. If you're going to oppose it because it's only been around for a day, that's perfectly rational and valid reason. But it's flat-out misleading to tag that under the stability criterion.
Furthermore, I don't hold the article's age against it automatically. If the content was poorly written, unsourced or POV, then yeah, I'd say, "Look PericlesofAthens, why don't you let the rest of us take a whack at it before nominating it." But there's no evidence that any of those problems are present. Since I like judging the quality of the content instead of the unorthodox practices of the nominator (who has been working tirelessly on this in userspace for quite some time now and has shown himself in the past to be a fantastic article writer), I'm in favor of letting the nomination stand as-is.
Finally, I'd like to note that no article is ever nominated fully formed. In that spirit, we should not be so hesitant about taking on articles that could still have a few kinks to work out. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement is stability; it is not lack of instability. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any evidence of instability either, except for the usual polishing that comes with the FAC process. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what? That's not relevant to the criteria. Or, rather, while instability would show that it doesn't fit the criterion, the lack of instability in the first few hours of its existence (it was nominated here 0.0 days after it was created) isn't sufficient to show that it is stable. Don't you understand the difference? Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:41, 16 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:19, 14 January 2009 [24].

British Bangladeshi

Nominator(s): Mohsin (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because,it meets the criteria, it is well written, every section or sentence is backed up by reliable sources, and is understandable throughout. I have worked really hard on this article, by adding every type of information to this topic, and believe it is a really good article. Mohsin (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the sources and they do go the link. Mohsin (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now - sorry, the article is comprehensive and generally well-researched but their many problems with the prose—redundancy and repetition are a big problem. I also have concerns over WP:NPOV particularly in the section on youth gangs. I have in my notes a list of 25 examples of poor writing, but I am reluctant to record them here because experience has taught me that these alone will be addressed. This article needs a fresh pair of eyes. I do not like saying all this but this FAC is premature. Please do not give-up on your efforts, there is a lot of great stuff here, but the article needs more work to bring it up to FA standards. Graham Colm Talk 13:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: I have agreed to copyedit the article Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Graham Colm Talk 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am not withdrawing my opposition. Brian Boulton has worked wonders with the prose, but other problems remain. I am particularly concerned over the reliability of the sources, as highlighted by Ealdgyth, the images used and WP:NPOV. Some of the images seem to be purely decorative and do not add any information. I like to see illustrations in articles, but I have learnt that by deleting one decorative image, another important one gains strength and impact. Please scrutinise each image and ask what information it conveys. Please be careful about neutrality; sometimes one has "to write for the enemy". And, please take the issues raised about sources very seriously; experience has shown that unless Ealdgyth's concerns are addressed an article's chances of promotion to FA will be compromised. Graham Colm Talk 23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have complete my copyedits. I have no doubt left a trail of typos, for which I apologise and hope they will be picked up. My copyedits do not mean that I think the article is now at FA standard; on the contrary, there are many issues to be resolved with reviewers. Hopefully I have eliminated most of the prose problems identified by Nancy and Graham, so that they will be able to read the text more easily.

The particular issues to which I would draw attention are:-

  • Overloading of the article with images
Done. Removed excess images. Mohsin (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the demographic analysis seems based on the 2001 UK census when the British Bangladeshi population was under 300,000, Evidently it is over 500,000 now, so how valid is the analysis based on out-of-date figures?
Done. Updated population stats with ONS and estimated stat. (No other updated info available, due to being an minority ethnic group, which statistics are found in census every 10yrs). Mohsin (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been in the article a tendency to overlink. Straightforward English words do not require linking. Terms such as Sylheti do not need to be linked at each mention. I have delinked a large number of terms, but I think there is more to be done.
  • There is also repetition in the article. I have dealt with some of this, but further checks need to be made.
  • Some facts seem to be misplaced in the article, e.g. the reference to Monica Ali's book, and the reference to a political party in the Religion section.
Done. Removed misplaced references in sections, and ref to a political party is the correct source.
  • There are instances of over-referencing and under-referencing. It is not necessary to support simple facts with long strings of citation. At the same time there are sections, e.g. those dealing with youth gangs, that cold be more fully cited.
  • POV: I have removed some obvious POV wording from the article, but this aspect needs checking again
  • There are confusions in the article. For example, the very last paragraph, which depicts Bangladeshi villages as being full of hundreds of luxury homes, is frankly incredible.
Done. Changed the wording, to many rather than hundreds. (seen across many villages, backed by sources.) Mohsin (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, I believe that the article could be brought to featured standard, but probably through a long process involving peer review. Frankly, I am surprised that the article, in its pre-copyedit form, was given GA status; had this review been more rigorously carried out, many of the faults could have been identified and corrected then. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Fixed sources by adding the date published, the publisher and date accessed, a few left i think. Mohsin (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use the link checker tool and double check all your links, several are turning up dead.
  • Current ref 104 (Lloy J...) is just a link to a wikipedia article. Do you mean to reference the book itself? If so, you need page numbers.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the nominator responding ? (No article edits since the nom was initiated.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Im just quite busy at the moment, will try to respond to the comments (done above 1ce), thanks. Mohsin (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done Fixed the book source, added ISBN and page number. Mohsin (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can resolve the issues of reliable sources, the nomination shouldn't remain at FAC; WP:V is policy and featured articles must be reliably sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll try to remove them or replace them if I can. Mohsin (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have removed and replaced the unreliabe stated above, except 'zmo.de' - because it is from a German research institute. Mohsin (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, what did you replace them with? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the unreliable sources were over referenced so no need to worry. However I have added three sources, which is the Banglapedia source[25] at the Political section, source for Akram Khan at Notables[26], and info about Whitechapel at Business section[27]. Mohsin (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what makes http://www.kallaway.co.uk/akram-khan-biography.htm a reliable source? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated with a source from BSkyB. Mohsin (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to forgive me, not only am I a Yank, I review a LOT of FACs, so I have no clue what BSkyB is supposed to be. Can you clue me in? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
British Sky Broadcasting owned by Murdoch. It's Fox in UK. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And still need to get some newspaper titles in italics and there are still a few website refs that are lacking last access dates. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it possible to get some sources for the following statements:
As a response to conditions faced by their first generation elders during the 1970s, younger Bangladeshis started to form gangs, developing a sense of dominating their territory. One consequence of this was that Bangladeshi gangs began fighting each other.In the past, Bangladeshi gangs have fostered criminal elements, including low level drug use and credit card fraud. However, for many the focus has changed to fighting over their territories. They use a variety of weapons, such as samurai swords, machetes, kitchen knives and meat cleavers, although guns are rarely used.Islamic fundamentalism has also played a part in the youth culture, illustrated by the efforts of one Brick Lane gang to oust out the white prostitutes from the area.
They seems violating NPOV issues.--NAHID 20:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are cited, from the London Review of Books, the Evening Standard[28] and Times Online[29]. Mohsin (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference query I looked at footnote 13, which is something from the London Review of Books. Is that an extract from the book, because it reads in an odd way and isn't the tone of a book review usually and doesn't seem to be dissecting the book as book reviews would do. Which would be a problem becuase the book is actually a novel. Also why is Monica Ali's book on the references, it's a novel. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I think the article is POV in various places, although not always the same POV. The gangs section is one. The history section seems a bit POV the other way with perhaps too much emphasis on the difficulties of being an immigrant and sympathising when this applies to everyone who moves to a different country with a different language. The other concern is that the history section appears to be purely London-specific when your infobox seems to indicate that 50% of BBs live outside London. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the first Bangladeshi immigrants settled in London, in particular in the area of Brick Lane as cited. The population started to disperse to other regions soon many years later but however there are no sources available only the history in London, and the proportion of 50% in a single region is quite high, in comparison to other ethnic groups. Mohsin (talk) 17:49, 13 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:25, 13 January 2009 [30].

Sale, Greater Manchester

Nominator(s): User:Nev1
previous FAC (20:16, 16 August 2008)

I'm nominating this article for FA because I believe it meets the criteria. Since its last FAC was closed on 16 August, the article has undergone significant copy-editing, addressing the main concern last time that the prose was not up to standard. Thanks in advance to anyone who spends their time reviewing the article. Nev1 (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just found a nice toy to check dead external links, "Drinking water quality report" and "James Prescott Joule (1818 - 1889): A Manchester Son And The Father Of The International Unit Of Energy" are dead now, should be removed or replaced. --Stefan talk 18:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Current ref 68 (KS13...) is lacking a publisher
Fair enough, how about this independent source stating the site allows "allows Jewish organisations and community groups to distribute press releases free online"; while it doesn't say it's "leading", hopefully the fact the information comes from Jewish organisations themselves should mean its accurate (at least for the purposes of saying under whose aegis a synagogue is under). Nev1 (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean towards reliable enough for what it's sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Youngs reference, I think you have the wrong volume number, and there is no issue number. EHR's been published for well over a hundred years, so any article published in 1991 would NOT have been from volume OR issue 2 (They number their issues sequentially, btw). Please double check your bibliographical information. Do you mean this work? If so, it's got nothing to do with the English Historical Review, it's published by the Royal Historical Society.
  • The Nevell, Mike book, that ISBN is showing the publisher as Tempus, not the History Press. Double check your source or your ISBN
  • Ah, didn't realise Amazon could be quite so unreliable, but in this case they seem to have got it right (I just checked the book). Also, the publisher's website lists the book with ISBN matching that in the article. Although ironically they misspelt the surname, even though it's quite clear in the cover image. Nev1 (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 File:Greater Manchester outline map with UK.png - This image needs a description, author, date, and source (a verifiable source per WP:IUP). All other images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would've been my fault, sorry! I am the author of the file and have upgraded the details at Wikimedia Commons. I turst that suffices. --Jza84 |  Talk  04:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I've struck the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 04:05, 6 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:25, 13 January 2009 [32].

Flag of Singapore

Nominator(s): User:Zscout370 (Return Fire)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because after a several year effort with myself, User:Jacklee and User:Hildanknight, we feel this article shows the best work that a group of Singaporean (and one ang moh like myself) could create. We had several copy edits done after the article became a Good Article and still in the process of polishing the article before National Day of August 9, 2009. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "a pentagon of five stars." – remove the period from the non-sentence
  • "Civil and state flag." – same
  • "featureds only one crown"
  • "and the national anthem Majulah Singapura." – "and the national anthem "Majulah Singapura" ("Onward Singapore")." perhaps?
  • "spoke oftalked about the creation of the national flag" – more straightforward
  • "red symbolises "universal brotherhood and equality of man", and white, "pervading and everlasting purity and virtue"." – notice the commas I added. An alternative would be to add "symbolises" or a synonym after "white"
  • "For the manufacture of flags" – Although this is grammatically correct, perhaps change to "For the manufacturing of flags" for less awkwardness
  • "National Day (which falls on 9 August)." – "National Day, on 9 August."
  • "flown – under certain conditions – " – spaced en dashes here, but unspaced em dashes are used earlier. Use only one style.
  • "Until 2004, the flag" – "Previously, the flag" – and then – "That same year, these" – "In 2004, these"
  • "flown – under certain conditions – year-round" – en dashes aren't even necessary. "flown under certain conditions year-round"
  • "No person must treat the national flag with disrespect" – something like "The Singaporean government dictates that no person must treat the national flag with disrespect", or something along those lines; the following phrases will have to fit, also
  • also, "No person must treat the national flag with disrespect" – shouldn't "must" be something like "is allowed to"?

Okay, that's it up to "In general". I'll get to the rest later. Gary King (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gary for looking at this. If there is something I would like to contest, it is your second point. I understand from FOTW that Singapore's flag is 110000, so that means it is used as the Civil and the State flag. The code is at http://flagspot.net/flags/xf-fis.html#fiavcode. Everything else, I'm fixing now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By "same", I mean that the period should be removed. Gary King (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's template based, so I need to change the infobox. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the period. Gary King (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

  • According to WP:IUP, "A good source for an image from a book is to provide all information about the book (Author, Title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information)". Could we get the rest of the information for National Symbols Kit? Awadewit (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, these issues are easy to resolve. I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 03:30, 6 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:25, 13 January 2009 [33].

Tragic Kingdom

Nominator(s): Tezkag72 and Escape Artist SwyerTalkContributions

I'm nominating this article for featured article because Escape Artist Swyer and I worked a long time to get it to GA status, then had it peer reviewed. When all concerns were addressed, we put it up at FAC. Unfortunately, it was not promoted, most likely because of a lack of "support" votes due to there having been so many FACs listed at the time. We have decided that the best thing to do is to nominate it again, since the number of FACs has thinned out a bit. Tezkag72 14:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Currently the lead is completely insufficient IMHO. For example, the lead is 3 paragraphs long, the middle paragraph is completely dedicated to information unrelated to this album. In essence, the middle paragraph is a "background" section, yet the actually "background" section isn't that big. The lead places too much detail on the background details, which aren't even a sizable portion of the article body. I haven't moved beyond the lead yet, but that really does need sorting. The lead needs to be a summary of the article, each section of the article. — Realist2 16:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about now? I shortened it and now it focuses more on after the album's release. Tezkag72 17:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tour information should come at the end of the lead, like it does in the article body. The second paragraph is disjointed, first it discusses critical reception, then commercial reception, then Grammy awards (a critical aspect). I still feel the lead should be 3 paragraphs for an article of this size, but it's OK. I hope you didn't think I was saying the lead was too long, sorry if that was the impression. It wasn't too long, rather, it wasn't in proportion to the article body. I'm watchlisting the page BTW. — Realist2 17:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment's by Realist2 (Section 2)

  • The third single was "Don't Speak", a ballad about the breakup of Stefani and Kanal's relationship. It peaked at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay,[20] but the song was not eligible to chart on the Billboard Hot 100 because no commercial single was released, which was a requirement at the time.[21] However, the song performed well on other Billboard charts[17][22][23]... - I think you should start off saying that it couldn't appear on the Billboard Hot 100, then go onto the "other Billboard charts", where you can mention the airplay chart info. It could be much tighter. The airplay chart is "[another] Billboard chart" after all. — Realist2 18:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 File:DontSpeak.ogg - There is no specific purpose of use for this clip. Note that the FUR for "No Doubt" and "Tragic Kingdom" are exactly the same. Please explain why the reader must hear this particular part of this particular song in relation to this article. The caption and the paragraph in the article about the song don't comment on the song's musical aspects at all (there is no critical commentary on the clip), so at this point I would suggest that this clip be deleted. Awadewit (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was the most popular song from the album, and the text explains this. I'll look criterion 3 over, but it would be a shame to remove the only sound sample. Tezkag72 15:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say anything more about the piece, though? Note that at WP:NFC, it states "Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder." - Does a reputable source say this piece is "iconic" in any way or representative of the band? (I agree it would be a shame not to have a clip, but we have to have a real reason to include one. Sadly, few bands have released music into the PD!) Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess not. All the opposing so far for this seems to be stemming from the sound files. Would it be better if I just removed it? Would that help this article pass? That's my biggest concern. Tezkag72 16:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, you should remove it, yes, especially if you have no sources that comment on the song itself. Awadewit (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are; there just aren't any there that show its notability compared to other songs on the album. Tezkag72 16:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm afraid it has to go. I feel your pain. Awadewit (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. What about the rest of the article? Tezkag72 19:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the oppose. I'm only reviewing the media content. Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 15:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) While there are probably a couple rough spots in the prose, the writing is generally good. I copy-edited the lead; feel free to revert or alter any of my changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The structure needs work. I'd strongly recommened turning "Production" into its own section and moving the detail about singles into the "Release" section (as well as trimming it extensively; a lot of stuff should be reserved for the articles on the individual singles themselves). See Loveless (album), In Rainbows, and Blood Sugar Sex Magik for examples of well-written FA album articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best to just trim it down to the main singles chart listings (Hot 100, UK Singles chart), and leave the airplay charts to the articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also precious little about the music. Excluding the singles subsection, the music section is woefully short. can this be expanded? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now here's a thought—should I put the info about the songs' composition (that I took out of the "singles" section) into the "music"? Tezkag72 03:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because it's about the writing and themes. There were a lot of songs about Gwen's relationship and breakup with Kanal and about being treated differently because she's female. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 13:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lief's a tad hectic at the mo but I can write up a bit about themes (with quotations, lyrics, etc) in, say, two or three days time. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 21:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm developing it as well. Not ready yet. Tezkag72 02:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This was a great read! It's not ready for FA, though. The prose is rough and there is a frequent lack of clarity typically found when someone too close to the subject has done most of the writing and editing. A thorough copyedit is needed by an outside party with a eye toward clarity. Recommend withdrawing as I don't think this can be done quickly. Some examples just from the lead and Background - I'll be happy to revisit after the copyedit.
    • The second paragraph of the lead doesn't mention the album name and the "It sold ..." could use it. As written, sounds like "it" is No Doubt.
    • "No Doubt embarked on a tour to promote the album, which was designed..." Unclear - the tour or the album was designed?
    • "The album sold 30,000 copies; in the words of the program director of KROQ, a California radio station on which it was one of the band's driving ambitions to be played: 'It would take an act of God for this band to get on the radio.'" I don't really understand why these two statements are together. Why couldn't a band who sold 30,000 records get on the radio? Maybe they couldn't get on KROQ, but surely they were getting radio play somewhere.
    • In the Background section, you introduce Eric Stefani without telling us who he is or his significance. Don't make us follow the link to find out.
    • Tony Kanal's motivations for ending his relationship with Gwen Stefani are trivial to this article.
    • Wikilinking "recording studio" once is a bit much, twice is way too much.
    • Please no easter egg links (independently) that you have to click or hover over to see where it goes.
    • "... over three times as many as No Doubt." No, we don't need to point that out.
    • "Their independence attracted Interscope's attention and ensured that they would fund a third album." I'm not clear how their independence could perform either of these tasks.
--Laser brain (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There are still ongoing questions. Please don't close it. Like, you never gave me a chance to respond to Laser_brain's comments. Tezkag72 04:23, 13 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:25, 13 January 2009 [34].

Ralph Bakshi

Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24 (talk)

I am renominating this article because its previous FAC had received very little attention in spite of it only requiring minor improvements which were quickly made following inquiry. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

You might find this dispatch on non-free images helpful, particularly the section at the end about writing purposes of use. I look forward to resolving these issues quickly. Awadewit (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone working on these issues? Awadewit (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No edits to the article or the FAC for a week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the nominator is frustrated. This is his fifth nomination, and really the article is in great shape. There are just some minor things here and there that could be improved. I really think we should do whatever we can do make this article meet the FAC requirements.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still no response from the nominator: is anyone working on the image and sourcing issues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Hi Ibaranoff24. You should contact Variety or figure some way of finding out exactly the article title of "'Article unknown', Variety, (December 19, 1973). As cited by Karl F. Cohen in Forbidden Animation: Censored Cartoons and Blacklisted Animators in America." Then read the entire article. It could be of no real additional importance, but you never know. Maybe has some interesting stuff to say.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, in the lede I would explain what a "cel polisher" or a "cel painter" is: Bakshi started his career as a cel polisher at the Terrytoons studio, working his way up from cel painter to inker, then animator, and eventually he began to direct animated television shows for the studio. Sure there is the wikilink, but it just has to be explained. I have no idea how he started his career if I don't know that cel is celluloid, and whatever does working with celluloid mean?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would write something like: Bakshi started his career as a cel polisher—a now uncommon material thingy that was used for animation and film production up until the late 20th century—at the Terrytoons studio, working his way up from cel painter to inker, then animator, and eventually he began to direct animated television shows for the studio. Just put something quickly in there within emdashes to explain it. It will make the reader a little more comfortable about this weird thing they don't know about.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and made a copyedit. Change accordingly.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm worried that I may have messed up the lede. I changed it to: Bakshi started his career at the Terrytoons studio as a cel polisher and then a cel painter—jobs which involved delineating objects on celluloid, a material that was used for animation and film production up until the late 20th century. He worked his way up to inker, then animator, and eventually began to direct animated television shows for the studio. I'm now thinking that inker, means cel inker? But you can see what I'm trying to do. Give a little explanation about what working with cel means.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is an outstanding article on an important figure and easily worthy of FA status. The only improvement I could find to make was to add a single wiki-link. I am expecting that the image copyright issues raised by a previous comment will be easily resolved. The use of a single frame of an animated film in an article on the animator should be classic fair use, and can easily be justified as being needed to give the reader a visual impression of the animation style used for the film. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:50, 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:25, 13 January 2009 [35].

Siege of Lal Masjid

Nominator(s): Mercenary2k (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because its well researched and fairly stable and well cited and netural and deserves to be FA. Mercenary2k (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Prose and Mos issues. Needs a through copyedit. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With the exception of the map the images currently used in the article have serious issues. Two will probably get deleted soon, and File:Pic17.jpg needs to have an actual non-free use rationale written ASAP (as opposed to the current "rationale" that is just a plea not to delete it "at the time beeing") to avoid the same fate. --Sherool (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- based solely on the opening paragraph, and particularly the first sentence. Imagine I know nothing about it, nothing. Now, open the article with the one sentence that will set me into what this article is about. The rest of the paragraph doesn't do that either. A confrontation when? Between whom? Well, it's in Pakistan, so we've narrowed it down to some 50+ years, but .... The rest of the paragraph doesn't help. Two guys who ran a mosque were continuing to do some fighting about something unmentioned against the government, somehow a school was also in the center of the siege, did they run the school, too? the brothers committed crimes, and somehow all these confusing things led to a siege by unknown, unmentioned forces, against this mosque and school... Or maybe something else happened. It would be really useful if you wrote an opening sentence and paragraph as if this was the only thing anybody read, they would come away knowing who did what to whom when, where, and why. Then flesh out the necessary details in the rest of the lead to set the entire article. That's my opinion. --KP Botany (talk) 07:11, 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:25, 13 January 2009 [36].

Bohemian Rhapsody

Nominator(s): TopGearFreak 20:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
previous FAC

I'm nominating this article for FA status because it recently became a GA (which I also nominated) and now after a peer review, I think it's ready. I am open to comments which will help it grow. TopGearFreak 20:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the prose is very poor. I suggest withdrawing this and getting an uninvolved editor to copy-edit the whole article. Graham Colm Talk 20:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I see no indication that WP:FAC instructions were followed:

Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

  • File:QueenBohemianRhapsody Mama.ogg - This fair use rationale does not list a specific purpose of use. Why does the reader need to hear this particular clip?
  • File:QueenBohemianRhapsodySolo.ogg - The purpose of use in this fair use rationale is too vague. Please describe what it is about the band's style specifically that is illustrated by this clip.
  • File:Bohemian vid.jpg - The band members are already depicted in the album cover. This image thus violates WP:NFCC #3a - minimal usage, which states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."

These issues should be relatively easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 01:03, 13 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:26, 12 January 2009 [37].

Sunderland A.F.C.

Nominator(s): Sunderland06 (talk)

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]
If you highlight the issues I did not resolve, I will get straight onto them. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're now in italics. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:42, 29 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]

Comments -

Thanks for finding these, now replaced. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While Bert Kassies probably knows more about UEFA than UEFA themselves, his site isn't affiliated with UEFA. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:45, 19 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 - Talk 20:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability of sources should be established per the information in the link given (above) by Ealdgyth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 22 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.
    • Every club has a programme, I don't think there's any need to mention it. Done - Removed. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Sunderland Association Football Club is a professional association football club based in Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, England, which competes in the Premier League. Sunderland have won six First Division titles, in 1892, 1893, 1895, 1902, 1913, and most recently in 1936 (see Years in English football).

Instead of this:

Sunderland Association Football Club is a professional association football club based in Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, England, which competes in the Premier League. Sunderland have won six First Division titles, in 1892, 1893, 1895, 1902, 1913, and most recently in 1936.

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.

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]

Sorry for not replying, I resolved the issues and just forgot to reply above. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:27, 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
  • Nicknames: Change the semi-colon in the second sentence to a colon, perhaps? Done Giants2008 (17-14) 16:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was previously done, but was commented again in Graham Colm's concerns. So I'm not sure which version should remain. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is no big deal. I am happy to let the nominator decide. Graham Colm Talk 21:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose- 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.
  • relax financial troubles - "relieve" ? Done - Changed to relieve.
  • 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 Colm Talk 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 Colm Talk 22:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked this part around. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:20, 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 Colm Talk 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to support. Graham Colm Talk 18:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComments as follows:
Resolved issues. Jappalang (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • "thanks to a goal scored by Ian Porterfield"
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?
[41] and [42] 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?
I have changed "involved" to "embroiled". Graham Colm Talk
Further league championship titles
  • "come to The Double."
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.
Added "is" Graham Colm Talk
  • "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 Colm Talk
  • "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.[43] 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]
Received word that it is fine.[44] Jappalang (talk) 23:02, 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.
Removed "other".
The issue is not with "other" (which would be correct), but "some", which connotates an imprecise quantity and could be a weasel in disguise. Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added in "several".
  • "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.
After finding this, I am of the belief that the editor left out some words. I have corrected the sentence to the form I mentioned. Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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.
Merged.
The list (table) is still there. Is there any defense to why it (a full listing of managers) should be in this article when another article (List of Sunderland A.F.C. managers) is readily available for reading? Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Format seems fine, since that section is a short list of current members. Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Friendship Trophy
  • Like I said, this could be integrated much earlier.
I integrated it into the history part.

On the whole, a very good read for a football subject, but with the above niggles. Jappalang (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this in the afternoon, thanks for the review, and a also a huge thanks to Graham for his copyedits. Sunderland06 (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
If anyone tries to bring back the flags, please do refer them to MOS:FLAG. Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Colm Talk 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted Oldelpaso, Giants2008 and Tony1, I'll get round to the source tomorrow evening as I'm heading of to sleep. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:26, 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]

I've cleared this up now, cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:30, 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.
No it isn't - it's a typo, probably mine. Graham Colm Talk

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]

About the flags, they are being adding back into the squad list as they do not violate the specific manual of style for squad lists. However, they should still not be used in the infobox, just clearing this up. Sunderland06 (talk) 10:22, 10 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]

I apologise for the lede, it was my fault, really (see my comments above). Jappalang (talk) 03:26, 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.

Not yet of a professional standard. Sorry. Tony (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 me 17:15, 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]

Withdrawing; please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the FAC template in place until the bot goes through. Hope to see you back soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 12 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:28, 10 January 2009 [45].

Minnesota Golden Gophers men's basketball

Nominator(s): matt91486 (talk)

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]

I thought I had fixed those earlier today when I saw them in the tool; I'll check them again, or it might just be delayed. matt91486 (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two dabs are still showing up on the tool. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I looked at the lag time on change over, and it said over 4000 minutes, but I think they will eventually switch over. matt91486 (talk) 03:17, 6 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]

Comments -

  • You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
  • Current ref 48 (NCAA major infractions...) is just a bare link, should be formatted with a title, publisher, and last access date.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Gary King 19:26, 10 January 2009 [46].

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

previous FAC (21:25, 13 May 2008)

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. TJ Spyke 05:45, 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.
  • How about using {{track listing}} for the tracks?
  • A few of the references are dead links.
  • "who cited fantasy" – "which cited fantasy"
  • "Its story focuses" – "The game's story focuses" – it's ambiguous as to what the "it" is referring to: Twilight Princess, or the ESRB?
  • "hundreds of years after " – "hundreds of years after the events of"
  • "The game was hailed by many major publications"
  • There could be a few more useful links, like in "cel-shaded The Wind Waker"

There are a few more issues; this is just to start off with. Gary King (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 would suggest looking at this dispatch on non-free images for help with these images, particularly the section at the bottom on "purposes of use". David Fuchs might also be helpful in selecting good fair use images for this article, as he is familiar with video games and the image-use guidelines. Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:04, 10 January 2009 [47].

2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak

Nominator(s): CrazyC83
previous FAC (01:50, 7 May 2008)

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.

Kablammo (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • (ec)Some comments/oppose
    • 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.
  • I haven't gotten past the meteorological synopsis, but suffice it to say I think the article needs more work. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent date formatting in citations, three different styles used:
^ Monthly Storm Data - National Weather Service, Memphis. Accessed July 25, 2008.
^ NWS Mobile (February 6, 2008). "Super Tuesday Tornado Outbreak". National Weather Service. Retrieved on 2008-04-26.
^ CNN (February 6, 2008). "Voters turn out in droves for Super Tuesday", CNN.com. Retrieved on 26 April 2008.

The article uses Month day, year, but the citations have month day, year; day month year; and ISO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

  • File:Noaa-outbreak-graphic.png - This image is missing a source link, date, and author. Without the source link, we cannot verify the license.
  • File:2-5-08CO.gif - This image is missing a source link, date, and author. Without the source link, we cannot verify the license.
  • File:MS TN 2008 Tornado track map.png - This image seems to have been altered from the original. Do we know who performed the alterations?
  • 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! :)
  • File:Snowfall amounts Wisconsin Feb 5-6.gif - The source link does not work for this image.

These should easy issues to resolve and I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:04, 10 January 2009 [48].

Mayer–Vietoris sequence

Nominator(s): GeometryGirl (talk)
Informed: WikiProject Mathematics

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]

Done. GeometryGirl (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • 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?
Yes, I'm getting the same error message. The whole website is down, and many picture at Commons come from it. GeometryGirl (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try again tomorrow. Awadewit (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can view a Google cache of the source page here. Copyright information from the MFO is here. "Those images labelled with "Copyright: MFO" can be used on the terms of the Creative Commons License Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Germany." BuddingJournalist 20:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - this image is fine. Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
In my opinion, the pictures are very basic. There don't really contain any mathematical content, they only help visualisation. GeometryGirl (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked over the images and agree. They are adequately sourced by the associated text and citations therein. Geometry guy 14:38, 4 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 [49]); 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 [50]), or just the other images. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I see some of this has been addressed on your talk page. RobHar (talk) 20:31, 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]
I've consulted Shoemaker's Holiday, who knows some topology and is a Commons admin, and he does not think we need sources. Awadewit (talk) 05:05, 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
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the languages. Thanks. GeometryGirl (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be helpful to note that the link to Mayer's paper requires a subscription. Geometry guy 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 guy 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jakob Scholbach Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:58, 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 &lowast; (∗).
    • "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)
    • Is "A + B" standard notation for the union? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: [51]. 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, [52], 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?
  1. Mentioning the MV sequence is the long exact sequence associated to the Cech spectral sequence;
  2. Saying that the MV sequence exists in sheaf cohomology in an arbitrary topos;
  3. Saying that the MV sequence exists in both ordinary an extraordinary cohomology theories (in the sense of Eilenberg-Steenrod).
Cheers. RobHar (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
Invariant is still jargon. So I don't think this satisfies Shoemaker Holiday's objection. Ozob (talk) 20:17, 7 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]
Since there seems to be some question about this, could you please list which FA criteria you don't think this article passes? Thanks. RobHar (talk) 18:24, 10 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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:04, 10 January 2009 [53].

Wizards of the Coast

Nominator(s): Drilnoth (talk)

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.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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]

Comments -

References (resolved), Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did this get fixed? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It did. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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've removed the Kotaku, ICV2, Captainprimate, Gamers Temple, and Dice Tower references; I'll work on the others later. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:09, 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]
I have removed both MTGSalvation refs. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - the only one I saw there was Mensa. I thought I fixed this by linking to Mensa International, but it's still showing in the toolbox? BOZ (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard that the toolserver has been having some trouble lately, so maybe it just hasn't updated yet? -Drilnoth (talk) 19:36, 5 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]

Wow, didn't really notice that before... can we keep some of that if toned down or shall it all be shucked? BOZ (talk) 23:10, 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]
Done, by removing quotes. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:59, 6 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]

How's it look now? -Drilnoth (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", "Recent years", what's the connection between Daron Rutter/MTGSalvation and Rancored Elf? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Wizards pioneer the Open Game License? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:10, 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?[56]
  • 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?

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll look into those tomorrow. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've renamed the sections and added a quote regarding why Wizards decided to make a new edition of D&D. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:04, 10 January 2009 [57].

Acid2

Nominator(s): Remember the dot
previous FAC (09:16, 23 August 2008)

References have been strengthened, prose has been improved. I think this article is now ready for the featured article star. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. BuddingJournalist 02:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

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 - Talk 15:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the references you mentioned now include publisher information. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:08, 2 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]

The permission is now under OTRS ticket #2321205. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - now let's get down to the nitty gritty.

Oppose on criterion 3

Unfortunately, a lot of little problems can add up. These should be easy to fix, though. Awadewit (talk) 02:32, 6 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:04, 10 January 2009 [58].

Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)

Nominator(s): Perseus71 (talk)

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.
  • Apart from that I wholeheartedly support--Patton123 20:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the points have been incorporated. That was a good catch. Thanks Patton 123. Perseus71 (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
    • Repetition of "units" in last sentence of first para.
    • Second paragraph: "..through until..." - you can have either one, but not both.
    • Some use of pronouns is necessary in the second paragraph, to avoid over-repetition of "JG 1"
    • 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]
Why not use the books themselves then, rather than using them secondhand through a self-published website? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 4 January 2009 (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 - Talk 16:07, 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]
If you did not physically consult the books for hte information, but are citing them because the website cited them, then no, you shouldn't use those citations. See Wikipedia:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which deals with this sort of issue. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 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 - Talk 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concerned article has mentioned its sources, which are.
  • THE WARPLANES OF THE THIRD REICH by William Green, Doubleday & Company, 1970.
  • WORLD WAR II FIGHTING JETS by Jeffrey Ethell & Alfred Price, AIRLIFE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 1994.
  • WARPLANES OF THE LUFTWAFFE, edited by David Donald, AIRTIME PUBLICATIONS LTD, 1994.
  • Would that satisfy the requirement ? Perseus71 (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 6 January 2009 (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]
See above about reliability of sites. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's just backing up more reliable sources, there is no need for it. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 28 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 - Talk 22:15, 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. Ben MacDui 18:47, 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.
  • "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.

Reorganization

  • 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."
(It would be even easier on the eye without some of the periods after the Roman numerals, but I doubt that is acceptable.)
  • "Major Karl-Heinz Leesmann who died on 25 July" - of that year?
  • "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?
  • "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? Ben MacDui 19:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organization structure

  • 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... Ben MacDui 09:38, 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. Ben MacDui 09:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flight JG 1

  • (Stabschwarm) is repeated and linked again.
  • Oberstleutnant is linked again
  • 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.

Group I./JG 1

  • " 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? Ben MacDui 12:03, 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. Ben MacDui 21:08, 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]

There is some work to be done here! Awadewit (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Sorry, I forgot to sign above post. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:46, 9 January 2009 [59].

Tropical Storm Karina (2008)

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk)

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]
Given these comments and the comments below, I give my support. JonCatalán(Talk) 23:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost certain there was none, but I'll check again to be safe. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't find anything on impact. I checked both English and Spanish sources. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Socorro port closed, Rain, waves, and wind in Oaxaca and Chiapas. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 16:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JC, I've added them to the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks good so far. I've only done a brief look through, but I'll be back later with more comments. VX!~~~ 18:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments on prose.
  • 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.
Moved to a later part of the lead. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
I've changed developed to originated, not sure if that's the best wording though. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the more I think about it, the relation to Gustav probably doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've removed Gustav from the lead. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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?
I haven't seen anything on gusts, and the TCR doesn't say there were recorded gusts either. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it would be best to remove "sustained". –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed sustained. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.

–Juliancolton Happy Holidays 19:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed most of the issues you've noted. A couple notes below some of them if I had an issue or there was a significant change. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 enjoyed reading this article but I need to see more reviews before supporting this FAC. Thanks. Graham Colm Talk 15:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]
I might be because I am English. I guessed it meant "advice notice" or "warning notice" or something similar. Graham Colm Talk 16:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK we get a "severe weather warning" when rain is forecast. :-) Graham. Graham Colm Talk 22:33, 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.
    • Maybe explain what dissipation means?
  • Cheers. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review File: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]
    • Done. Long story short, it is because {{hurricane auto track map}} did not have the ability to name authors until recently. All the pages with the older version of the template are placed in Category:Tropical cyclone tracks needing update, which I started to clean up; however, I got a request to stop, as the track maps will be overwritten with a bot in a future update, which is coming real soon now. So, the only images that are cleaned up are those in which people actually ask for it... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:36, 1 January 2009 (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]
        • The tag has been changed at Commons to try to ameliorate this problem slightly. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • 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]

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:27, 6 January 2009 [60].

Liverpool F.C.

Nominator(s): User:NapHit
previous FAC (00:55, 23 December 2007)

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]

  • Comments:
    • 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.
  • Hope this helps. The last two aren't really needed, but are recomemndations. Sceptre (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the comments I've addressed them all NapHit (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also, I suggest you follow Tony1's prose-writing tips. There are quite a few "however"s in the article, which are sometimes frowned upon. Sceptre (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Current ref 15 (Taylor's interim report...) is lacking a publisher.
added publisher NapHit (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
replaced NapHit (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with book source. NapHit (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've had this discussion before and since then the website has been featured on the club's official website. NapHit (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
replaced with ITV ref NapHit (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the footnotes, such as UEFA, or FIFA.
Spelt out abbreviations NapHit (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
replaced with BBC ref NapHit (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 62 (Through the Wind...) is lacking a publisher.
replaced with BBC ref
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the comments I've addressed them all

Oppose Conditional 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 Colm Talk 21:37, 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.
Not sure if this suffices? can't find a publisher. NapHit (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Cheers for the comments Giants I have addressed your comments. NapHit (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 File:Liverpool 1892-1893.jpg - We need a source for this image. Awadewit (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed image and replaced with another image. NapHit (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New image checks out - struck oppose. Awadewit (talk) 01:25, 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.
  • "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]

Am working on "noun + -ing" and similar today. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC) - Think all have now gone. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all your comments, and Hassocks has performed a wonderful copyedit. NapHit (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just started going through my watchlist, so I will return when I can. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:36, 3 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]

I have addressed these comments and am going through the article to try and cure the inconsistencies. NapHit (talk) 20:01, 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 [61], 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 Colm Talk 20:22, 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 Colm Talk 21:05, 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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:30, 4 January 2009 [62].

Hurricane Hernan (2002)

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone

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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I withdraw so I can work on other stuff. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose.
    • Unit consistency is needed (fix rounding, make sure every unit in the article has a metric unit).
    • Add (inHg) conversions.
    • I think the origins are lacking in detail. There is plenty of more information in the form of tropical weather outlooks and tropical weather discussions.
    • 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 is just a look at the met. history, but I feel the article needs too much work. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:21, 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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:51, 3 January 2009 [64].

Forbidden City

Nominator(s): PalaceGuard008 (Talk)

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.
    • Overlinking: bronze, Britain, France, Switzerland, the United States, Japan. Hall of Supreme Harmony is linked atleast 3 times.
    • "A Starbucks store,[26] which opened in 2000,[27] sparked objections[28] and eventually closed on July 13, 2007." Why are references placed not at the end of a period? A little distracting.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images: All images not checked
    • Prose:
      • "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.
      • The 5th Avenue Theater. "Our Historic Theater - 5th Avenue Theater".
      • The Palace Museum. "太和殿 (Hall of Supreme Harmony)" (in Chinese).
    • The reference style: "p 253, Yu (1984)": Shouldn't it be "Yu (1984), p 253" see Wikipedia:Citing sources--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:06, 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 -

  • In the Notes, it should be Author name, year, THEN page number, not page number first.
  • Current ref 5 (Gugong...) is using a wiki article as a reference. (you'll need a reference for this statement)
  • Books that are in Chinese need to be so noted.
  • What is "National Palace Museum - Tradition & Continuity"? Book? Magazine article?
  • Newspaper titles should be in italics
  • What is "The Palace Museum "Yin, Yang and the Five... "? A book? Magazine article?
  • LIkewise, the Palace Museum "Hall of Supreme Harmony", "Hall of Central Harmony" and "Hall of Preserving Memory"?
  • What is current ref 58 ("Working People's Curltureal Palace" china.org.cn?) Looks like a website but not link provided.
  • Likewise current ref 59 (Zhongshan Park China.org.cn)?
  • What are current refs 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72? (Palace Museum "Collection Highlights...)?
  • What is current ref 73 ("The 5th Avenue Theater" "Our Historic...)
  • Current ref 70 Laufer, Berthold needs a page number
  • Current ref 74 is lacking a publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All books which are in Chinese are noted as such.
The cite web template seems to be malfunctioning. I'm not sure why the URLs are not showing up as links. This will need to be fixed. Hold on. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:51, 27 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.

—Mattisse (Talk) 01:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:51, 3 January 2009 [65].

Luan Da

Nominator(s): Nousernamesleft
previous FAC (15:53, 29 August 2008)

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]

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as before. Mike Christie (talk) 14:51, 21 December 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.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English sources are preferred to Chinese when available No. English sources are only preferred to foreign ones when they are of equal quality. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 20:49, 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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:09, 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]
The one use of Xuhui (for use of personal names and epithets in histories under the Han). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:01, 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).[66] 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]
Then cite both; Wilkinson for the custom, Xuhui for the application. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 22 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.

The whole article is at issue; I've just pointed out examples of the larger problem. Tony (talk) 14:03, 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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:51, 3 January 2009 [68].

Lingbao School

Nominator(s): Zeus1234 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all the criteria set forth. Zeus1234 (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.
  • Books in the list of references should have ISBNs

It looks an interesting and informative article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the fixes you suggested. Thanks for the help!Zeus1234 (talk) 08:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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]

Resolved issues. 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."
Bad form of "noun-plus-ing". See User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises#A common problem—noun plus -ing.

Rituals

  • "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]
I just completed to two fixes to the lede that you suggested. Thank you for the suggestions.Zeus1234 (talk) 02:13, 21 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]
As long as there is a standard, then it would not be an issue. Jappalang (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Morenoodles (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — as follows:

  • 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]
Removed. Jappalang (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Jappalang (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected File:Baopuzi.JPG to conform to what is needed. Please take a look and do likewise for the other two images. 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]
As of this revision, images check out fine. Jappalang (talk) 01:44, 23 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]
Two references is not that major (requirements are for minimal use), so this is pretty fine. Jappalang (talk) 05:00, 24 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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:35, 3 January 2009 [69].

Quark

Nominator(s): User:Anonymous Dissident
previous FAC (00:50, 7 October 2008)

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 DissidentTalk 09:51, 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 DissidentTalk 12:05, 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):

In physics, a[See discussion below] A quark (pronounced /kwɔrk/ or /kwɑrk/) is a type of subatomic particle. Because of color confinement, most quarks only occur bound together in hadrons: composite particles such as protons and neutrons, the components of atomic nuclei.

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.

I might say more when I've read through the rest. Interesting!–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 11:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
There are other meanings, more serious that the cry of a gull (see Quark (disambiguation)); besides that, starting article with "In topic, subject is" is de-facto standard in Wikipedia, and it doesn't harm. It's obvious that we're not talking about a cheese here, but see WP:State the obvious. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:42, 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]
  • Further comments:
  • 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?

Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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 DissidentTalk 01:45, 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 DissidentTalk 02:00, 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 Cabibbo should be mentioned somewhere in the History section, shouldn't he?
Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 00:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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".
  • History section: CP violation should have a one-sentence-explanation or text will not be accessible for your average interested reader
  • "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]
  • "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.
Markus Poessel (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I've made a paragraphical mention of qgp. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:14, 15 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 DissidentTalk 14:49, 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 DissidentTalk 12:01, 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]
Fixed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:38, 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]
Eh. Fixed now. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:33, 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 DissidentTalk 12:20, 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]
Removed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:16, 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 DissidentTalk 12:12, 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]
Replaced with a sentence nearly identical in structure to yours ('quanta' was replaced by 'quarks'). —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:08, 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]
OK AD. That's better. I'll have another look later, and I'll say some more.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 12:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great; I thank you. Cheers, —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 10:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]

I reread every argument made and these needs to be address before I give my support:

  • A mention of the CKM matrix and quark mixing needs to be there. Preferably a section devoted to it. Took care of it.
  • Why in the world is that table full of colors?
  • 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 DissidentTalk 00:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term hadronize (and variations) could be de-jargonified into "form hadrons" or something similar.
  • Should the image about the decay include "rarer" arrows from t to d and b to u? (The labs will take care of this eventually)
I've contacted the graphics labs.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Amry1987 above. There's a place for Cabibbo et al. in the history section (might be a good place to add Wilzcek et al. too).
Section is now present.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:53, 20 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 feel the hadron section could use a short meson section and a short baryon section, with main article links.

Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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 DissidentTalk 12:31, 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 DissidentTalk 09:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, except for triplet and degree of freedom for which I'm not very sure about the best link target. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the remaining disambiguation links. Wronkiew (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, in light of the comments I made above. Markus Poessel (talk) 14:28, 15 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 Colm Talk 22:52, 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]

Support All my concerns have been addressed, so "support".Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until the referencing issues are addressed, and until the Gell-Man and Ne'eman thing in 1961 is clarified.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:28, 29 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.
  • All other images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]



  • "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. ISBN 0618711686. 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 DissidentTalk 15:40, 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 DissidentTalk 00:30, 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 DissidentTalk 15:19, 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.
Used the hyperphysics refs.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
Fixed. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
It's suitable enough to establish that Gell-Man and Zweig proposed it. Nevertheless I've placed the original articles from Gell-Man and Zweig next to it.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. ISBN 978-0465053148 - it's not very helpful if readers have to search the whole book to find the information they're after.
    —This is part of a comment by Markus Poessel (of 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
    "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. ISBN 9812709142: 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.
Switched it to Introductionary Nuclear Physics by Samuel Wong. There's a paragraph directly on that.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref. 17: A. Pickering (1984). Constructing Quarks. University of Chicago Press. p. 84. ISBN 0226667995. 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.
The publication predicted what became known as the charm quark, even thought it might not have been proposed as a quark. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)?
I've added the Hyperphysics ref so the word baryon is explicit.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current reference 33, E.V. Shuryak (2004). The QCD Vacuum, Hadrons and Superdense Matter. World Scientific. pp. 59. ISBN 9812385746, does mention pentaquarks, but not tetraquarks, as far as I can see.
I've added the 2008 PDG review on tetraquarks.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. ISBN 1584887982. 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.
"Half-integer spin" and "fermions" are synonyms. I've changed the page to 81 though.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that is a horrible ref. I've removed it.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 52, M. Veltman (2003). Facts and Mysteries in Elementary Particle Physics. World Scientific. p. 46. ISBN 981238149X. - 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.
I've fixed the Velman refs, the pages now fit the statements.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. ISBN 0387029303. 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. ISBN 2863322052. 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.
Fixed.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 72: National Research Council (U.S.). Elementary-Particle Physics Panel (1986). Elementary-particle Physics. National Academies Press. p. 62. ISBN 0309035767. 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).
"A neutral sea of gluons" and the like is good enough I say.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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?
I think it's because later physicists added more properties such as weak isospin, etc... Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.

Markus Poessel (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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]
I've mentionned it.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:04, 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 DissidentTalk 12:36, 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"?
  • Remove "the" from the last sentence in the lead.
  • This is clunky: "plus the unobserved (as of 2008) Higgs boson"; why not "plus the Higgs boson (unobserved as of 2008)"?
  • The flavour names are italicised in the first section, but roman in the lead. And are you going to use the symbols introduced in the lead?
  • "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"?
  • "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]

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 DissidentTalk 01:42, 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]
Have you noticed what is between the section header and the sentence "In 1963, Nicola Cabibbo ..."? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 01:52, 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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:14, 3 January 2009 [71].

Chernobyl disaster

Nominator(s): Rj1020 (talk)

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.

NancyHeise talk 06:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggestion : Some of the text have lists which can be converted into a paragraph of continuous prose.
  • Oppose (1c) until all [citation needed] tags are resolved. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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." ϢereSpielChequers 13:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -

Basically, the references are a mess and with the large sections that are unreferenced, I must oppose on sourcing issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Format references per WP:CITE/ES to include publisher and access dates
  • "Further reading" goes after "References" per WP:LAYOUT
  • For "Commemoration of the disaster", is the subsection "Chernobyl 20" necessary when it's the only one in that section?

Gary King (talk) 16:11, 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 Colm Talk 16:12, 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:14, 3 January 2009 [72].

Barney Gumble

Nominator(s): Tj terrorible1 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Opppose
    • 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
    • Image:Barneyfirst.png doesn't have a fair use rationale.
  • 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. -- Scorpion0422 23:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Image:Barneyfirst.png is entirely replaceable by the line of text: "the original character had yellow hair," so NFCC #1 doesn't apply there. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:46, 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. -- Scorpion0422 23:58, 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"). -- Scorpion0422 00:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Troy 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

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, couldn't check links, the toolserver's down. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Went back and checked links with the link checker tool, and they all work. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 - Talk 15:21, 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 - Talk 15:41, 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. -- Scorpion0422 17:21, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/January_2009&oldid=266449997"