Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
correct archive number, this article had a name change, numbering starts over
archive 7
Line 1: Line 1:
== April 2009 ==
== April 2009 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harrisburg, Illinois/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michelle Obama/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Papa Don't Preach/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edmonton}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shadow the Hedgehog (video game)}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Smithfield, London}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the Han Dynasty/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the Han Dynasty/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Release the Stars/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Release the Stars/archive1}}

Revision as of 16:28, 11 April 2009

April 2009

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 16:28, 11 April 2009 [1].

Harrisburg, Illinois

Nominator(s): Ruhe1986 (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article of Harrisburg, Illinois I think is a "good representative" for articles about small towns in the United States on Wikipedia and believe that there are no articles of it's caliber for a town of its size. Ruhe1986 (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm sorry, but there are long sections that go unreferenced. What refs there are are questionable in terms of reliability, and are desperately in need formatting (publisher, date, access data, etc.). That doesn't go into any other of the FA criteria. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - unreferenced sections, embedded links in the text of the article, bare urls in the references, unreliable references. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Reference fixes done for this page. Take another look. 96.230.239.172 (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dr pda. While almost all sections now appear to have references, some still need formatting as mentioned by Noble Story above. Some references do not support the claims they cite, for example reference [2] does not contain any mention of Harrisburg being named after James Alexander Harris. The sentences

Many business owners faced a daunting task as they assessed damage and began cleaning up. Some needed waders to make their way through the mess. Others were able to reopen fairly quickly after suffering only minimal damage or waiting for floodwaters to recede so customers could reach their businesses. Harrisburg officials reported 74 businesses affected by flooding, but businesses along Commercial Street (U.S. Route 45) and the city's east edge seemed to be hardest hit. Kroger, which had just undergone a major renovation, reportedly had two or more feet of water inside.

are cited to reference 14, which supports none of these facts except for the figure of 74 businesses affected. This reference is only about the Kroger store, and doesn't even mention the figure of two feet of water. The first couple of sentences seem to be verbatim from here or some other mirror on the web. I found other examples of plagiarism in some of the references I checked. For example

Reference number 2:

In 1854, the first slope coal mine began operations southeast of the community. At first, the coal was carried by wagon to area homes and businesses and used for heating. After the Civil War, coal production became an important industry in the county. The first shaft mine was sunk in 1873 or 1874. This was followed by the creation of several more shaft mines and by an influx of settlers drawn to the area to work the mines. By 1906, the county was producing more than 500,000 tons of coal annually, with more than 1,000 miners at work.

Early the 1870s, Harrisburg residents raised $100,000 to pay for construction of a railroad through the city. In 1872, the Cairo & Vincennes Railroad, later the New York Central, was completed and provided the means needed to haul coal to distant markets.

Article:

Early the 1870s, Harrisburg residents raised $100,000 to pay for construction of a railroad through the city. In 1872, the Cairo and Vincennes Railroad, later the New York Central, was completed and provided the means needed to haul coal to distant markets.[2]

Coal mining was the city's biggest industry. In 1854, the first slope coal mine began operations southeast of the community. At first, the coal was carried by wagon to area homes and businesses and used for heating. After the Civil War, coal production became an important industry in the county. The first shaft mine was sunk in 1873 or 1874. This was followed by the creation of several more shaft mines and by an influx of settlers drawn to the area to work the mines. By 1906, the county was producing more than 500,000 tons of coal annually, with more than 1,000 miners at work.

I suggest having a look at Wikipedia:FCDW/Plagiarism, which will shortly appear in the Wikipedia Signpost. Dr pda (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna need help with this. Been improving the article throughout the day96.230.239.172 (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review
*Fix the 6 disambiguation links
  • The following ref (code pasted below) is duplicated and appears more than once in the ref section, use a ref name instead
  • {{cite news | url = http://www.wsiltv.com/p/news_details.php?newsID=4499&type=top | format = Text| title = Grocery Store Woes | date = [[2008-06-07]] | accessdate = 2009-04-06 | work = [[WSIL-TV]] }}
*The following ref name is used to name more than 1 ref, it should only name 1 ref.

Oppose The article just isn't, well, encyclopedic. Just skimming, I saw: "This ended the reign of big coal in Harrisburg." This sounds a bit, not POV, but not like something that should be in an encyclopedia article. And to start the very next paragraph: "In 1984, horror struck the community when a respected local physician, Dr. John Dale Cavaness, was charged with the murder of his two sons for insurance money. The case was chronicled in the book by Darcy O'Brien." I'm pretty sure that's POV, and the article doesn't mention the title of the book by Darcy O'Brien.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  02:08, 10 April 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 16:28, 11 April 2009 [2].

Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company

Nominator(s): grarap (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it well sourced, comprehensive and well written. I built it from the ground up and genuinely believe that it is of an excellent standard. I am extremely open to criticism and will do my best to bring the TCI article up to FA status. grarap (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)grarap[reply]

Comment: I gave a very fast CE, and fixed a few things. One thing I noticed is that ref 8 doesn't have a citation template. If it's a book, it should use a cite book template.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  13:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the link checker at the right of this page. The link to the map you included in text is dead and so is #12. Maybe instead of linking to the map, you could include it in text?  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  13:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I like this article. However, I wonder if it is long enough. Also, the article needs updating: "...continues to be operated by U.S. Steel to this day (April 2008)..." TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Fails 1a and 1c of the Featured article criteria. The 1c oppose will stand until the above sourcing issues are resolved; the reliability of several needs to be demonstrated, and the deadlinks updated. The 1a oppose will stand until the article has had a thorough copyedit. Most of the following issues are from the lead only, yet seem representative of the article as a whole. However, it is a short article, so an experienced copyeditor may be able to clean it up within the timeframe of this FAC. Steve T • C
    • It might be the right time of year for it, but Easter egg links are discouraged. Thus, the reference to "coal" should not point to coal mining. You perhaps do need/want the link in the section somewhere, so recast the sentence to properly include it. Similarly with "index"/Stock market index, and "turbulence on the financial markets"/Panic of 1907.
    • Multiple redundancies. Identifying and eliminating redundancy in prose is 90% of the copyediting job; fewer words means cleaner reading, yes, but it also reduces the likelihood of other errors' creeping in. Some clarifications may also be required. Some examples:
      • "Originally based entirely within the state of in Tennessee..." At a push, you might mention that it's a state, but the wikilink perhaps makes that unnecessary too.
      • "from then onwards operating almost exclusively around the Birmingham region."
      • "With a sizable real estate portfolio, it owned the Birmingham satellite towns of Ensley and Fairfield..." If these were the only towns it owned, then the statement may be unnecessary. If there were others, why present only these two examples? If the ownership of the towns was part of a larger real estate portfolio, then include the opening statement, but make that clearer.
      • "where it located two large steel mills..." Located? "Built" or some other synonym would be more appropriate; this sounds as if they were Prefabs.
      • "the latter employing a peak of upwards of 4500 workers during World War II." Confusing and vague. Up to 4500? Up to maybe a little more than 4500? A lot more?
      • "This brought it into direct competition with its principal rival, the United States Steel Corporation, with which it merged in 1907 after banker J.P. Morgan exploited turbulence on the financial markets by procuring a majority stake in Tennessee Company shares from a troubled New York brokerage firm." Perhaps overlong sentence that would benefit from splitting. Also, some might consider "This brought it..." to be ambiguous; this what?
      • Inconsistent use of "Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company" and "Tennessee Company". It's obviously fine to list them in the lead sentence, but when referring to the company afterwards, you should pick one and stick with it.
      • "continues to operate the Fairfield steel plant to this day..." Might be outdated in a few years if no-one remembers to update the article. Consider As of.
      • Inconsistent use of "United States" and "USA" in a couple of spots. Inconsistent use of "US Steel" and "U.S. Steel".
  • As I say, these were picked up based on one pass of the lead only. The sourcing issues remain my largest concern, but in the meantime I strongly recommend making several passes to tighten the prose and look for other examples of the above. These exercises also come strongly recommended. I'll watchlist this FAC, so I'll be able to respond here to any replies or rebuttals. All the best, Steve T • C 13:48, 9 April 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 16:28, 11 April 2009 [3].

Michelle Obama

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has improved greatly and its wide audience continues to refine its editorial content. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I appreciate the effort that has gone into keeping this article relatively condensed and on point, but there are still many prose issues. In several sections, particularly at the end of the family and education section and throughout the career section, there are way too many short, broken paragraphs with insufficient transitions. I also believe the 2008 campaign section could be reorganized to have a better flow and greater adherence to summary style. Individual interviews, appearances, etc., should only be referenced if they are needed as examples to support specific points in the article or if their greater importance can be illustrated by secondary sources. Indrian (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. The chronology of the article jumps all over place. The "Career" section seems badly underweighted compared to the rest of the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that this article is structured topically instead of chronologically, with intended chronology holding by topic. Topical structure is accepted at FAC as I learned when I voiced some objections to William D. Boyce. Do you feel that it is out of chronological order within any topics.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realize that some people prefer topical organization, but this treatment leaves me with no sense with how she's developed as a person and how she got from there to here in her life. As for your question, the topic granularity seems to be below the section level, so I can't really tell the boundaries. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is, and it screams WP:RECENTISM Fasach Nua (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not recentism. Recentism is editing "articles without regard to long-term historical perspective". In this case we have a woman who by the sources cited in the article is becoming a fashhion icon and a woman who has been compared to Jackie Kennedy for some time. This is the type of woman for whom an appearance on the cover of the world's pre-emininent fashion magazine is a fairly central topic and for whom that topic is not likely to be a short term one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While the effort gone into raising this article to a higher standard is commendable, I'm concerned by the disproportionate size of the 2008 campaign when compared to the rest of her life. Since I don't have a clear solution as to how to address this (I'm hesitant to suggest condensing it and also unsure about ways to expand everything else), I won't mark this as an opposition but more as a general concern. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in mind that she was not a WP:N person prior to the campaign by most WP guidelines. The wife of a U of C law school professor is not notable. Neither is the wife of a state senator. Unlike Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton, none of her prior professional roles were subjects of normal WP articles. Also because of the prominence of females in the campaign that included Sarah Palin, both Obama, Jill Biden and Cindy McCain became much more important to the race. Thus, the article elaborates on the first notable role that she had. I don't think there is much encyclopedic info missing from pre-notability times. The question is just how much to retain from the campaign section. I had hoped some other editors more knowledgeable in politics might jump in with this at FAC. However, I will attempt to winnow things down a bit tonight if no one else steps forward.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • For starters, I think there's way too much on her convention speech. In the scheme of things it was important but not that important, and it's not necessary to give the views of 20 different commentators on it. Maybe some of this should be offloaded to 2008 Democratic National Convention#Monday, August 25? Also, it's odd that National Review's opinions are given so much emphasis regarding the speech, when the most famous National Review treatment of her – their "Mrs. Grievance" cover story earlier in the campaign – isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

Prose needs significant cleaning up. I've read only the lead and first section, and it clearly needs attention throughout. It's well worth it, since this topic is thoroughly deserving of promotion. We need to do her justice. Here are a few random examples, just from the top.

A response about the use of the first name: we do use "Michelle" occasionally, when it is felt that "Obama" could be misunderstood to mean Barack Obama. This came up in the FACs for Nancy Reagan and was discussed here and here - I am not finding discussion about the further changes to this section of MOSBIO text, but maybe I'm missing it. I think we should evaluate each use of "Michelle" and see if "Obama" would be confusing - and if so, stick with "Michelle" or "Michelle Obama". It may not be precisely according to MOSBIO, but clarity should trump guideline, especially when there's no particular evidence of discussion or consensus on the current MOSBIO wording. In other words, despite the guideline, the far worse offense would be to imply something about Barack which was actually about Michelle - so I think, as I thought for Nancy Reagan, that we should use the first name where needed. As for your specific example, I re-worded it as "The Robinson family can trace their roots...". Will have to look at other examples, but I don't agree that it is necessarily the right thing to replace all "Michelle"s as, again, clarity should be our goal over strict adherence to rules. Tvoz/talk 09:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Happyme22 (talk · contribs) has undertaken a much needed industrious copyedit. It seems that text was removed in a rather haphazard way with relevant citations disappearing. Was any attention paid to the citations when the copyedit was performed. See as an example the following change: She has also sent representatives to schools to encourage the personal development of the students.<ref name=MIFOTS/> She has also advocated for public service.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/188270|title=An Army Of Changemakers|accessdate=2009-04-06|date=2009-03-07|work=[[Newsweek]]|author=Alter, Jonathan}}</ref> --> She has also sent representatives to schools and advocated public service.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/188270|title=An Army Of Changemakers|accessdate=2009-04-06|date=2009-03-07|work=[[Newsweek]]|author=Alter, Jonathan}}</ref> Obviously, a citation has disappearred. Much of the diff is difficult to follow in the markup and I can not confirm how many refs were recklessly abandoned. I see that AnomieBOT has found at least one. It seems like the copyedit was pretty good and I don't want to revert. I am tempted however.

I also noticed that some images were removed. Following this talk page request, I added the following image: File:Michelle Obama at Notre-Dame de Strasbourg 4-4-09 2.jpg. I know that meeting the Queen of England is important. It may be somewhat more important than entertaining with the spouses of the entire G-20, but not to the point that it should replace such an image. I think both can be included and have readded this one. I am also disappointed that File:March 2009 Obama Vogue cover.JPG was removed, but am not sure how much support there is for its inclusion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy's a very good editor with mucho experience in First Lady articles, so I would definitely AGF here. His edits aren't that difficult to follow if you look at them one by one. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:00, 10 April 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 16:28, 11 April 2009 [4].

Papa Don't Preach

Nominator(s): Frcm1988 (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first article I am nominating for featured article. It covers one of Madonna's most famous and controversial songs; it had a massive expansion during the past month. It also had a very useful peer review; it's currently listed as a GA and I believe that it meets the criteria. Frcm1988 (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • "The opening chords and the melody emphasize the tonic of the leading notes: Fm---E♭---D♭---Cm---D♭-E♭-Fm---D♭-E♭-Fm, resembling a Baroque work." What is baroque (and distinctly Vivaldian, as claimed) about this chord progression? Very unbaroque, I'd say. What does "the tonic of the leading notes" mean? How bizarre. May we have en or em dashes between these symbols? The prose throughout needs work.
The reference Im using have the following: The opening chords, presented twice in antecedent/consequent phrases, could easy resemble a Baroque work, as both chords and melody emphasize tonic, submediant and flattened leading notes: Fm---E♭---D♭---Cm---D♭-E♭-Fm---D♭-E♭-Fm. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"anticipates the lyrics to follow"—how could you anticipate something that wasn't to follow?
Again the book have this: "Papa Don't Preach" begins with a distinctly Vivaldian flair, as the fast tempo and classical-style chord progression anticipates the listener for the substantive lyrics to follow. I didn't put substantive because I think is a bit POV. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the only song in the album that she did not have a strong hand in writing"—no strong hand in the writing of the album or all but one songs?
It said making "Papa Don't Preach" the only song in the album... I don't understand what is unclear about this. Maybe if I replace that for in which. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"but commonly used in classical music, like Beethoven's Appassionata sonata"—one work cannot be likened to "classical music".
The source mention this work in particular, but I'll remove it if you believe is unnecessary. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the combination between"—wrong preposition.
Changed to of. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Odd to say that the instrumentation produces a powerful beat.
I changed it to instruments. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd withdraw, do serious work with others on this, and resubmit in a while. Tony (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoinder to nominator's responses: Yep, I'd withdraw and renovate. Can you find a copy-editor in this field, and a WPian with good knowledge of how to describe popular musical style? Alas, Deckiller isn't around at all nowadays. I can advise on how to search for one, on your talk page if you need it. While WP is based on secondary texts, editors need to rely on more than one, to ensure that it's well-written and authoritative, and preferably to cross-check it with other sources. Could I remind you to be aware of the need to avoid repeating word-strings from other sources without quotation marks (you may not be, but there's a sense of over-reliance on what is written elsewhere. Tony (talk) 06:47, 5 April 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.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edmonton Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shadow the Hedgehog (video game) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Smithfield, London

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 Karanacs 15:54, 7 April 2009 [5].

History of the Han Dynasty

Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 18:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article meets all the requirements for FA status, along with the other Han-dynasty related pages I have worked on.Pericles of AthensTalk 18:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is, by any reckoning, a formidable piece of work. But...File size 390kb, wikitext 141kb, wordcount 14,608? Breaches all the guidelines as to length, per WP:LENGTH. With 15 links to other "main articles", and 19 more to "further information" articles, it must be possible to produce a summary history of the Han Dynasty in a shorter form than this. Other reviewers must decide for themselves whether to take the plunge, but for me, life is too short. I would love to see a scaled-down version, say 50% less (and still a fairly long article), but as it stands it is way, way too long for me to feel confident that I was doing a proper job while reviewing it. Apologies, Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it doesn't violate Wikipedia:Article size at all. The wikitext 141kb is the overall length, thus includes "see also", external links, categories, reference sources, section titles, hidden citations that appear in the notes section, and the lead paragraphs in the introduction. The only thing that matters according to WP:SIZE is the prose text of an article, i.e. the main body of text. Using a word document a little while ago, I found out that the prose size is about 86 KB. It is still very big, but falls short of the maximum tolerated size of 100 KB. Plus, the scope of this article covers four centuries of history and thus completely justifies the current length (in my opinion).--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK I stand corrected over the length guidelines, but please note what they say about articles over 60Kb readable prose (and yours is way over that). I hope that others have the time and patience to review the article fully, but my own view is that nothing justifies a single article of this length. Good luck with it! Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. User:Nlu and I actually did a lot of copy-editing so far in an effort to reduce the size of the article. Believe it or not, but a lot of extraneous stuff has already been pruned from the text.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Brianboulton is correct. WP:SIZE recommends a maximum prose size of 10,000 words; this article is almost 50% larger than the outside limit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that (i.e. 10,000 words or 50 KB) is the recommendation for most articles (with the toleration limit exceeding no further than 100 KB), but Wikipedia:Article size#occasional exceptions states that "Two exceptions are lists and articles summarizing certain fields. These act as summaries and starting points for a field and in the case of some broad subjects or lists either do not have a natural division point or work better as a single article. In such cases, the article should nonetheless be kept short where possible. Major subsections should use summary style where a separate article for a subtopic is reasonable, and the article should be written with greater than usual attention to readability...Readers of such articles will usually accept complexity provided the article is well written, created with a sensible structure and style, and is an appropriate length for the topic. Most articles do not need to be excessively long, but when a long or very long article is unavoidable, its complexity should be minimized." I would argue that, given the brevity of this topic—comparable to the timeframe for the History of the Roman Empire and even longer than the History of the United States—I have done a fairly good job in cutting out the extraneous and keeping in what is necessary to explain this rather massive topic.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: As the reviewer of the Good Article nomination, I can assure you that much effort has already been made to shorten the article. Any further shortening, would, in my opinion, excise important information. I am in full support of promotion of this article to Featured status. Zeus1234 (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical Review
  • The following refs (code pasted below) are duplicated, a WP:REFNAME should be used instead
  • Ebrey (1999), 73. Fixed.
  • Loewe (1986), 136. Fixed.
  • Torday (1997), 83–84. Fixed.
  • Ebrey (1999), 66. Fixed.
  • Bielenstein (1986), 238. Fixed.
  • Bielenstein (1986), 241–242. Fixed.
  • Crespigny (2007), 498. Fixed.
  • Crespigny (2007), 591. Fixed.
  • Bielenstein (1986), 284–285. Fixed.
  • The following ref names are used more than once to name a ref, they should only name 1 specific ref.

Cool. I'll strike these out as I fix them. Is that ok with you?--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go right now, I'll be back to fix the rest of these.--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done!--Pericles of AthensTalk 10:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its all chevere.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on citation style Have you considered using {{Harvnb}} to make the References more accessible from the Footnotes? Or condensing the References section using {{refbegin}} and {{refend}}? Thirdly, it is somewhat unusual to have a "further references" section; if the reference in question (Dubs 1938-) is not used in the article, it might be clearer to title the section Further reading, which makes it clear that the section is not references mark II but rather categorically different. All suggestions are purely optional, of course. Thank you for writing the article, it was a very enjoyable read. Skomorokh 14:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I have amended the article according to your suggestions of using refbegin/refend as well as changing "Further references" to "Further reading". I have used Harvard style citation in the past. Although I don't mind using it for such articles, at this point it would be very inconvenient to replace the existing method, as I would have to change not only the citations in this article, but would have to conform the other five Han articles to the Harvard method as well (i.e. Han Dynasty, Economy of the Han Dynasty, Government of the Han Dynasty, Science and technology of the Han Dynasty, and Society and culture of the Han Dynasty). You can see how this becomes a much larger issue than fixing the nearly 400 individual citations of this article alone. I hope you understand. Aside from that, would you care to review the article in full? It doesn't seem to be getting much attention here at the FAC page.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment great job with the images, its hard to get an FA on such a broad topic, best of luck Fasach Nua (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you can view more Han images in the other four branch articles for the Han Dynasty; just go to the template at the bottom of the article, or simply go to the main Han Dynasty page where all the links are located.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Apart from being much too long, the overall approach is for my taste too descriptive, even at places anecdotal. It should be more analytical instead. Statements such as the dubious "the Romans allegedly paid tribute to the Han court" in the lead (!) show that the author places too much faith in Han dynasty propaganda which, as all subsequent Chinese dynasties, would call as a rule trade foreign "tribute" and their tribute "presents" (a custom already wide-spread in the Oriental Kingdoms of the Ancient Near East). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the tribute thing, it's not a matter of what you or I believe, it is a matter of what sources say. In this case, the source I used, Rafe de Crespigny's A Biographical Dictionary of the Eastern Han to Three Kingdoms (2007), does not explicitly say "tribute" but rather "gifts" that the Romans presented (he speculates they are merchants, not diplomats). I will use the term "gifts" instead, just to be safe on this matter. Sound better?--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is Crespingy's passage in full, just for the record:
Page 600: QUOTE: "Most spectacularly, it is recorded that a mission from Daqin 大秦, identified as the empire of Rome, came to Luoyang from the south in 166. The envoys claimed that they had been sent by their king Andun 安敦, presumably the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus [reg. 161–180], and the gifts they brought, including ivory, rhinoceros horn and tortoise shell, had evidently been gathered on their journey. There was and still is some suspicion that these men were enterprising traders rather than accredited officials, but their visit provided valuable prestige to the emperor at a time of political difficulty. [It may be only chance, but the date of this visit coincided with the outbreak of the Antonine plague which ravaged the Roman empire from the middle 160s: the question of epidemics is discussed in the entry for Liu Hong, Emperor Ling.]"--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, if you're serious about improving the article, exactly what contents in the article seem extraneous enough to you that they would need to be removed or further summarized? Keep in mind, I don't want to water down the article or take out so much detail that it confuses or misleads the reader, or forces them to ask more questions about the subject instead of answering them. Also, where (in exactly which sections) does the article need more scholarly analysis? Please be specific.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record. Pulleyblank has treated the subject most comprehensively. This is what he says:

...One such source of information would have been the so-called embassy from the king of Da Qin, Andun xyz an twan, that reached the Han court by sea in 166 c.E. Since the name Andun can be plausibly identified either with the emperor Antoninus Pius (reg. 138-161) or his successor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (reg. 161-180), this provides at least one firm link to Rome itself. There is not much else. A point that needs to be stressed is that the Chinese conception of Da Qin was confused from the outset with ancient mythological notions about the far west. In the same way that Da Qin replaced Zhang Qian's Da Xia as the "counter-China," the Weak Water (rud shut §§7fc) and the Queen Mother of the West (XI Wang Mu ffizE M), reported by hearsay as features of Tiaozhi in the Shiji and Hanshu, were moved to the western extremity of Da Qin in later texts. Attempts to identify them with actual western places are obviously futile. Edwin G. Pulleyblank: The Roman Empire as Known to Han China, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 119, No. 1. (1999), pp. 71-79 (78)

Please show me where Pulleyblank speaks of Roman tributes to China. This is nonsense, because, apart from two possible contacts, there was never any direct interaction between Rome and the Han. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? From the passage you provided, he does not mention tribute, but I never made an assertion about Pulleyblank's work, nor have I cited him in the article. As for the Han people's conception about what Rome was (or rather, misconceptions based on mythology of the far west), I believe Michael Loewe is the authority (can't remember off the top of my head which one of his books covers this in detail). Now, is your main qualm merely with the fact that Rome is mentioned in the introduction to this article? Since this occurence is described in greater detail in the body of the article, I would argue that a quick mentioning in the introduction is not unjustified (as WP:LEAD notes, a lead summarizes what is found in the body), but perhaps you're right. After all, the Han interactions with Parthia and Kushan were much more substanial.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, I'm the one who wrote Tibet during the Ming Dynasty; trust me, I know all about the dubious claims of "tribute" in many cases where the correct term should be "gift".--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To beef up the crediblity on this issue, I recently added a citation (page 460–461) from this source:

Yü, Ying-shih. (1986). "Han Foreign Relations," in The Cambridge History of China: Volume I: the Ch'in and Han Empires, 221 B.C. – A.D. 220, 377-462. Edited by Denis Twitchett and Michael Loewe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521243270.

...who also uses the word "gift", not tribute. However, Yu notes that nothing is entirely confirmed in regards to the occurrence of this alleged visit to Huan's court by Romans.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you going to lay out any specific points on where you think the article should be reduced in size? I'm all ears for suggestions, but I would ask that they be constructive ones that take into account the need for comprehensiveness (i.e. I don't want to cut anything that is vital to the understanding of this subject).--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My criticism is not that you "made an assertion about Pulleyblank's work", but that you made an assertion about Sino-Roman contacts which is not supported, ex silentium, by Pulleyblank (among others).
And this is not the only example. Your account does also mispresent the Seres by equating them simply with the Chinese, although, in fact, the term was used, in the course of several centuries, for a number of peoples and tribes in Central Asia, including the Indians. The story about the Romans allegedly praising Chinese iron has been long refuted on good grounds:

Although in Pliny's "Natural History" there are several references to the Seres and a very full account of the mining and smelting of iron in all parts of the world that were in communication with Rome, there is no other passage in that work in which the Seres and iron are brought together, nor is there in any other work that survives to us from the Roman and Greek period anything to connect the people known as the Seres with the production of or trade in iron. Yet upon this slender authority rests the assumption that steel was brought overland to imperial Rome from far-away China.

The various referenees to the Seres in the Roman writers cannot be harmonized for any one people, and it is certainly an unneceessary interpretation to identify them with the Chinese, or to transfer the "Serie iron" to China. I have already indieated that the Indian steel, although mainly an Andhra produet, was attributed by the Romans to tbe Chöra Tamils, and then eonfused with the Seres of Turkestan; and I will elose with a further identifieation of one of these ubiquitous Seros, not heretofore made, so far as I am aware.

Wilfried Schoff: The Eastern Iron Trade of the Roman Empire, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 35 (1915), 224-239 (224, 237)

I have read some articles of yours and IMHO they all suffer from the same problem. You are content with the first source you find, to quickly move on to the GA or FAC nomination, without sufficiently taking the time to look for contrary stances. IMO it could be expected from a FAC that the author is aware that Chinese 'knowledge' of Da Qian (Roman Empire) had strong mythological connotations, or that the Seres should never be lightly equated with the Chinese. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this meant to be a snarky comment? For one, there is not sufficient room in this article to explain the Chinese conceptions of the far west and the various mythological ideas about lands of immortals therein (although covered briefly in Society and culture of the Han Dynasty; well ahead of you). Even if I tried to make room, it would be irrelevant, and you would certainly complain, given that you already have issues with the size of the article (as you stated, one of the main reasons why you oppose it). In any case, I already removed the Seres comment in the article due to the fact that you shared Wilfried Schoff's source on your talk page with me already. So how exactly is it relevant anymore? So far it seems you have seized on two statements involving Rome (which I've amended according to your suggestions), and haven't really offered much in regards to improving the rest of the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 08:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what made you think I was totally unaware that the Chinese attached mythological ideas to Daqin? Was it the mentioning of the alleged embassy? The Book of Later Han description of Rome's government, postal network, and cities that I briefly mentioned in a foreign affairs section? I'm all ears, because I don't know where you got this idea (given the sparse amount of attention I gave to Rome in the article to begin with).--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gun Powder Ma. It's been a week since you first stated your opposition to this FAC. As we discussed on your talk page, are you going to list point-by-point the specific statements/areas which need improvement that I can address? It's hard to address vague generalities about what you think is anecdotal; it would be much easier for me to address your concerns if you laid out specific items that needs to be fixed, much like how User:Ruslik0 listed his concerns below that I could address one by one (click the "show" button on the extended content box). That is fairly normal procedure for an FAC if one is not merely commenting but opposing the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cross-checked some points and, particularly in the field of foreign relations, I noticed again the tendency of the author to attract notice away from the normal and usual to the unusual, extraordinary and rare. Specifically, I am irritated by some points which are given prominent weight in the lead, but which are only briefly addressed in the continuous text, and which pertinent secondary sources do give even less weight.

  • So in 400 years of Han history we have 2 possible direct contacts between Rome and the Han dynasty through Roman travellers, while a single Chinese party made it reportedly as far west as the Black Sea or the Persian Gulf. Since these travels are not in any way exemplary for the true geographical scope of China then, I am still not sure what warrants an inclusion in the lead. IMO the lead is for the broad outline and not for extreme anomalies which may effectively heavily mislead the reader. This also holds true for the 2 Japanese missions:
  • The Cambridge History writes only: "These (Hann) units <a Korean tribe> were in all probability in contact with visitors from the Japanese islands, and the missions that made their way from Kyushu to the court of Lo-yang in A.D. 57 and 107 may well have passed through the Hann confederacies on their way." From this flimsy passage the author extracts: "The first known diplomatic mission from a ruler in Japan came in 57 CE (followed by another in 107 CE)" which is fair enough in the continous texts, but leaves me mystified as to it being mentioned in the lead. Shouldn't the lead rather say something along the line that, with the exception of the odd mission, about which we know next to nothing, there were no known political contacts between Japan and China then?
  • Third point: Much of the article is simply descriptive: For example, in the first passage of "Foreign relations and war of middle Eastern Han", the relationship with the Western regions is dealt with by relying on the Cambridge History. But, while the reference explicitly evolves around the problem for the Han to upkeep their control of the Western regions due to the great financial strains and demands of their allies, which would be an interesting general point understanding Han foreign policy in the region, the WP article simply lists events and events.
IMO this is symptomatic of the general style of the article which leaves the reader with a mass of 'facts and figures', but, due to its lack of analytical structure, with little real understanding of the real forces which shaped the history of China then. This may well do in a normal or even GA status article, but IMHO fails short of FA status. Therefore, I remain opposed. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding! Since you have issues with a couple statements in the lead which are not pertinent to the summary of the article as a whole, I have shortened that particular paragraph so that it now only mentions prominent foreign contacts like the empires of Parthia and Kushan. I think that is a fair compromise.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to slightly disagree with your third point, though. I don't know if you read it or not, but the financial crisis and constraints of the Eastern Han court at this point are already mentioned in "Reforms and policies of middle Eastern Han". I didn't want to seem redundant by mentioning all of the same material again, especially since the issue of size constraints have been raised for this article (even by you in one of your original points of opposition). Plus, do I really have the space to dive into the various complex relationships and alliances that Han had with the Tarim Basin states? I'd be glad to provide a little analysis on this, but it's not going to exceed a sentence or two.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I added a bit of analysis on why Han involved itself in the Western Regions:

The Eastern-Han court periodically reasserted the Chinese military presence in the Western Regions only as a means to combat the Northern Xiongnu.[1] Han forces were expelled from the Western Regions first by the Xiongnu between 77–90 CE and then by the Qiang between 107–122 CE.[1] In both of these periods, the financial burdens of reestablishing and expanding western colonies, as well as the liability of sending financial aid requested by Tarim-Basin tributary states, were viewed by the court as reasons to forestall the reopening of foreign relations in the region.[1]

I hope you find this sufficient, especially since the issue of the article's size does not allow me to add much more. In the next paragraph, the comparison of the cost of putting down the Liangzhou rebellion (24 million cash coins) to the average annual amount of minted coins (220 million) should demonstrate just how the court's finances were suffering and why they could not commit their forces to far-flung campaigns of conquest and settlement. What do you think?--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? You still around, Gun Powder Ma? I'd like to get your take on the revision to the article I made a couple days ago.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A lot of work has clearly gone into this article. I am no expert on Chinese history (and I hate unpronounceable Pinyin naming). But I have a few niggles on prose style, particularly in the lead, where I have taken the liberty of splitting some confusingly overlong sentences. However there are two sentences in the lead which I find baffling:
  • The Han emperors were initially forced to acknowledge the rival Xiongnu shanyus as their equals, yet in reality were inferior partners in a tributary and royal marriage alliance known as heqin. Who were the inferior partners - the Han emperors or the Xiongnu?
  • From its beginning, the Han imperial court was threatened by plots of treason and revolt from its subordinate kingdoms, eventually ruled only by royal Liu family members. Were the Imperial court or the subordinate kingdoms ruled by the Liu family?

Xandar 02:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope that I fully addressed those two "niggles" you have listed here. I reworded those two selected sentences just a bit to clarify my points in no ambiguous terms. I hope you find this sufficient.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. My points have been addressed. Thank you. Xandar 11:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I read the article with great interest, but I noticed some problems that need to be fixed before the article becomes featured.

Extended content
  1. General comments:
    • The date format is not consistent. Some years are given with CE (or BCE) after them, while many others without. The article should either omit CE or use it everywhere.
    • The time intervals for the Westerns Han and Eastern Han are given in almost all figure captions! I think they should be dropped, as specifying the period as the Western or Eastern Han is enough in my opinion.
    • The article mentions the names of many persons without any explanations of who they were. Specific examples are below. Every historical figure mentioned in the article should have a very short description of their background.
  2. Lead:
    • founded by the rebel peasant leader Liu Bang However the main text says nothing about his peasant ancestry (it only says that he was a supervisor of convicts in Pei County).
    • yet in reality the Han was an inferior partner in a tributary and royal marriage alliance known as heqin Again the main text does not say that they were "an inferior partner".
    • according to Dong Zhongshu's (179–104 BCE) cosmological system involving the earthly imperial government. Could you clarify this sentence. What does "involving the earthly imperial government" mean in this context?
  3. Fall of Qin and Chu-Han conflict:
    • the armies of Qin marched on and conquered the other six Warring States I think it would be good if the names of all six states were provided here.
    • employing a ruthless realpolitik to preserve his rule I do not like this phrase, particularly the word "realpolitik". Is it used in historical literature?
    • with an agreement that the first officer to capture this region would become its king Did Liu Bang become the king of Guanzhong after he captured it? It is not clear from the article.
    • persuaded by Zhang Liang and Fan Kuai not to let his soldiers loot the city, he instead sealed up its treasury Please, clarify who they were.
    • carved Guanzhong into three kingdoms with Zhang Han and two of his subordinates Was Zhang Han the same person as the Qin's general who fought against rebels before? The article should say something about this.
    • With Chenggao and his food supplies lost, and with Han Xin (d. 196 BCE) having conquered Please, clarify who Han Xin was, what was a second front to Chu's north.
  4. Reign of Gaozu
    • I think the paragraph beginning with According to Michael Loewe should be moved forward and placed before the paragraph beginning with Wu Rui (吳芮), King of Changsha.
    • When the Xiongnu invaded Taiyuan in 200 and were aided by the defector King Xin of Hán I want to know if he was the same Xin of Hán who is mentioned above. Some clarification is necesary of why he defected.
  5. Empress Dowager Lü's rule:
    • I think the part beginning with After Hui's reign, however, the court under Lü Zhi was not only unable to deal should be moved into the next subsection, as it is not really about Hui.
  6. Reign of Wen and Jing:
    • Han imperial patrons of Huang-Lao, a mix of political and cosmological precepts, sponsored the policy of "nonaction" I do not understand what this means. What does "a mix of political and cosmological precepts" refer to? to patrons? Or may be it refers to the policy of non-action?
    • The sentence beginning with From 179 to 143 BCE, the number of kingdoms is too long and should be split in two sentences.
    • When Liu Xian (劉賢), the heir apparent of Wu Is he the same Liu Xian who rebeled against Lu in 180 BCE?
    • Emperor Jing carried out under the advice of Chao Cuo, Please, clarify who Chao Cuo was.
  7. Reign of Wu:
    • Fergana threatened to cut off Han's access to the Silk Road, yet historian Sima Qian (d. 86 BCE) saved face by asserting that Li's mission was really a means to punish Dayuan for not providing tribute of prized Central Asian stallions. Can you clarify what "save face" means in this context? The language used here is not encyclopedic.
    • Moreover, it was a government means to take over the profitable grain trade and eliminate speculation in grain trading Can you clarify what this means?
  8. Latter half of Western Han:
    • and by 80 BCE Shangguan Jie and Sang Hongyang were executed Can you clarify who Sang Hongyang was. Was he mathematician and official mentioned before?
  9. Wang Mang's usurpation:
    • Dowager Wang confirmed Wang Mang as acting emperor What does an acting imperor mean? I have never heard about "acting imperors". Does this position is the same as a regent?
    • despite the fact that a Liu marquess had revolted against Wang a month earlier, followed by others. What is the connection between the revolt of "Liu marquess" and the confirmation of Wang Mang as acting emperor? Can you calrify.
    • The "partisan" historian Ban Gu I do not like the word "partisan". It is not encyclopedic.

I will review the Eastern Han part later. Ruslik (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC) The second part of the review.[reply]

  1. Restoration of the Han:
    • On April 8, 70 CE, a Han imperial edict boasted that the southern branch of the Yellow River emptying south of the Shandong Peninsula was finally cut off by Han engineering. This looks like a stray sentence. It should be probably moved into the 'Policies under Guangwu, Ming, Zhang, and He' subsection.
    • With much of the southern North China Plain inundated, It is not clear why "much of the southern North China Plain" was inundated. Was it because of the opening of the south branch of the Yellow Rive? It should be clarified.
    • captured the fleeing Gengshi who they demoted as King of Changsha before killing him. The article does not mentioned that he was the King of Changsha. He was a king of Nanyang, was not he?
    • Comparing this to the census of 140 CE, there was a significant migratory shift of up to 10,000,000 people from northern to southern China during Eastern Han How many people did live in China in 140 CE? I think the article should say this.
    • that had been abolished by Guangwu, thus favoring centralizing policies which were not the hallmark of most Eastern Han policies to come and which himself canceled in 68, finding the policies ineffective This long sentences contains two "which", ans should probably be split.
    • he was followed by the initiative of Ban Chao Please, explain who Ban Chao was.
    • However, Gan described Rome as having hundreds of walled cities, a postal delivery network, the submission of dependent states How was it possible if he never traveled further than Persian Gulf? This should be clarified. In addition, near 100 CE Rome was an empire, not a republic. So the next section, which identifies Roman "king" with consul is probably wrong. Should it be princeps instead?
  2. Middle age of Eastern Han:
    • The total monetary cost for putting down the Qiang rebellion in Liangzhou was 24,000,000 cash. Can you compare this sum to, say, the total annual revenue in that year? Otherwise it looks meaningless, because modern readers are unlikely to know how large this sum really was.
    • Following Ban Yong's reopening of relations Please, clarify who Ban Yong was.
  3. Concluding remarks:
    • I think a table with names of all emperors and years of their reign would be beneficial for the article.

Ruslik (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. General comments
    • I have fixed the BCE/CE issue as well as the Western and Eastern Han date range issue with picture captions.
  2. Lead
    • Fixed everything you mentioned.
  3. Fall of Qin and Chu-Han conflict
    • I originally had all the six Warring States mentioned by name, but User:Nlu, in an effort to reduce prose size, took them out of the article. I have replaced them according to your suggestion.
    • Got rid of the "realpolitik", as it is an anachronistic phrase that was used by the source I cited, but not by Han scholars (since it is not an ancient Chinese word, lol).
    • I cleared up the Han Xin thing.
    • Did Liu Bang become the king of Guanzhong after he captured it? It is not clear from the article. No. In the next paragraph, it explains why he was not granted Guanzhong (given to three others), but Liu Bang was granted Hanzhong instead.
  4. Reign of Gaozu
    • I switched those two paragraphs as you suggested.
    • I clarified that he was not the general Han Xin, but for the sake of staying on topic and reducing the article prose size, I do not think it is necessary to mention why the King Han Xin decided to betray Emperor Gaozu of Han and form an alliance with Modu Shanyu. That's not the job of this article; that is the job of a lengthy description that should belong at Han Xin's page. His name is linked if anyone wants to know more. Besides, his role is not that important anyway.
  5. Reign of Wen and Jing
    • I fixed the Huang-Lao thing and the excessively-long sentence.
    • I believe you are mistaking "Liu Xian" for "Liu Xiang"; one has an extra "g".
    • I added that Chao Cuo was the Imperial Counselor.
  6. Reign of Wu
    • Can you clarify what "save face" means in this context? I changed "saved face" to "downplayed this threat", since that is what Sima did; he was downplaying the fact that Fergana had the power cut off Han's prime trade route.
    • I clarified what I meant by "eliminating speculation" in the grain trade by adding a comment in parentheses. I do hope all of your suggestions don't amount to an excessive increase in prose size, as this article is already fairly big.
  7. Latter half of Western Han
  8. Wang Mang's usurpation
    • No, Wang Mang was already the regent by 1 BCE. To clarify that Wang Mang was given a new status as of July 6 CE, I added the title of the acting emperor (jiahuangdi 假皇帝).
    • Noted why the marquesses were rebelling against Wang Mang.
    • I deleted the word "partisan".
  9. Restoration of the Han
    • I moved the sentence on the Yellow River engineering project down to the section you suggested.
    • Clarified why the southern North China plain was inundated: creation of the Yellow River's southern branch.
    • The article does not mentioned that he was the King of Changsha. He was a king of Nanyang, was not he? No, he was never made a King of Nanyang (as far as I know), he was the Emperor Gengshi. When one is demoted one level from being an emperor, one becomes a king. In this case, they made him the King of Changsha, a new title that was inferior to the one he previously enjoyed: emperor!
    • I added new census info as you suggested.
    • I split apart that long sentence in the "Guangwu, Ming, Zhang, and He" sub-section.
    • I clarified that Gan Ying acquired the information on Rome from Parthian oral accounts and not by actually visiting Rome. Since Gan Ying's information was out of date, he was in fact anachronistically describing the Republican-era consul, not the princeps.
  10. Middle age of Eastern Han
    • In the previous section on the economy under "Reign of Wu", I noted that 220,000,000 coins were minted annually, so I just reminded the reader of this in regards to the 24,000,000 cash coins used to fund the campaign of suppressing the Qiang rebellion in Liangzhou.
    • I added the fact that Ban Yong was a general, but you might remember from the previous foreign affairs section that I already mentioned Ban Yong as the son of Ban Chao.
  11. Concluding remarks

I hope that I have fully addressed all of your concerns; please let me know otherwise.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the population of China decreased by 10 million between 2 and 140 CE? And this decrease is attributed to the migration of 10 million to the southern China, which appears not to be a part of China at all? Ruslik (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC) I also noticed that some figure captions are excessively long and duplicate the text:[reply]

  1. the Chinese were fearful that Han-manufactured weapons would fall into the ... in the caption in the 'Xiongnu and Heqin' subsection should be shortened with duplicate information removed.
  2. The same with the eunuchs Zhao Zhong and Zhang Rang concealed their enormous mansions ... in 'Partisan Prohibitions' subsection.
  3. You may want to look at other captions as well. Some of them, while not duplicating the text, still are too long, my opinion.

Ruslik (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further Response: So the population of China decreased by 10 million between 2 and 140 CE? And this decrease is attributed to the migration of 10 million to the southern China, which appears not to be a part of China at all? No. I guess you didn't notice the new sentence I added to that section, QUOTE: "Population size fluctuated according to periodically-updated Eastern-Han censuses, but historian Sadao Nishijima notes that this does not reflect a dramatic loss of life, but rather government inability at times to register the entire populace." I've read the same statement by many sinologist scholars; see the last section of Ming Dynasty for further analysis on government inability to county everyone in the census, even in later times. As for the Han Dynasty, parts of southern China were still wilderness areas (or controlled by tribal peoples or states like Minyue), but over the course of Han, more and more Chinese settlers moved south into new areas that were thus occupied by the Han Empire. Does this make sense? I took care of the duplicate information in the picture captions, shortening a few picture descriptions as you suggested. Is this really grounds to continue opposing the article, though?--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think now I can support. However some remaining long captions can be still shortened. Ruslik (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for reviewing the article. I will shorten some more picture captions at your request.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is the four-column reflist ok? It shows up wonderfully on my computer (and it makes sense to have it that way, since the references are all short-form), but I don't know if it will show up well for everyone, and I know the rule of thumb is not to use more than two. Since this is an unusually long article, maybe it gets to be an exception, I don't know. This is not an oppose, just a question for anyone else looking at this FAC. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really mind it, but someone else might object.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{reflist|colwidth=25em}} instead of a set number of columns – that way users with wide monitors get the full four columns, but the hypothetical reader on an iphone gets them all in a single column. (See the current version of Michael Jackson for an example of how this works in practice – resize your browser window from wide to narrow and watch the number of columns automagically change.) – iridescent 22:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly, truly have no preference in this regard; I would not mind if someone changed it to {{reflist|colwidth=25em}} for the sake of iphone users, if we are to be entirely inclusive and fair to all. Feel free to edit the reflist section any way you want.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reflist|4 is broken in some browsers, and is discouraged (somewhere in WP:MOS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I couldn't find it in WP:MOS; could you point this out? In the meantime, I'll change it to {{reflist|colwidth=25em}} anyway.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to troll through the mess that is MOS to find it, but the browser issues for reflist greater than three are also mentioned directly at {{Reflist}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link; regardless, I have just recently changed the reflist to {{reflist|colwidth=25em}}, so everything should be ok.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my recent comment above on this issue. Keep in mind, this article covers a country's historical timeframe that is roughly twice as long as the entire History of the United States, if I were to make a comparison with my own country. As User:Zeus1234 pointed out above, any further reductions in the size of the article might excise vital and pertinent information.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Thanks.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comment - The article is too long and detailed. I know it covers over 400 years of history and we should expect a long article, but this is too much. It would benefit from the advice given here; WP:Summary style. It is certainly well-written, as far as I got, but it would take me a month to produce a thorough review. Please, can some attempt be made to make this more digestible? I am not opposing because I haven't read the whole article, and this is also the reason why I am not supporting. Graham Colm Talk 17:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Unfortunately, the previous suggestions posted here have forced me to add a few more sentences and thus increase the prose size (if I was to gain support for the article). I certainly can't please everyone, but I would definitely take further suggestions on how to reduce the article's prose size. I don't think any single section is excessively long. It's just that there has to be so many sections to cover the history in a linear way and comprehensive fashion. Perhaps we could cherry pick a sentence or two out of each section that could be stricken from the article, granted that the flow of the article is not disrupted or major points made unclear by removal of vital content.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm completely out of my depth on this subject. I have made a suggestion on my Talk Page User_talk:GrahamColm#Hi_GrahamColm—in response to your message—which I'm too shy to paste here. Graham Colm Talk 23:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pasted from my Talk Page:

This is a difficult because this interesting subject is completely new to me. My gut reaction is to suggest simply dividing it into two articles straight down the middle; "History of the Western Han Dynasty" and "History of the Eastern Han Dynasty". I know that this would probably mean sacrificing this FAC, but who knows, two FAs might result! As I say, this not something I know anything about and you might think this is a ridiculous idea, if so please forgive my ignorance. Bye the way, the article is beautifully written on the whole. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 22:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is an ignorant idea at all; it does make logical sense to make such a split considering the interruption of the Han Dynasty by Wang Mang's brief regime. However, in addition to what you've already mentioned about this article's current featured candidate status, another reason it would bad to split the article is the fact that it is already a branch article of Han Dynasty. I think it would be a bit excessive to make branch articles of branch articles. That might make it a bit too confusing for the readers who want to know where they can locate everything.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you are the expert, but the second half of the article would only be one mouse click away. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 23:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I thought you meant simply shortening the article so that it would summarize two new articles: "History of the Western Han Dynasty" and "History of the Eastern Han Dynasty". Like I said, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea; however since I have three supports for the article in its current form and two oppositions, let's see how other editors feel about the 86 KB prose size of the article. I think at this point that is the only matter of contention that some editors might have. Keep in mind though that this is a preference issue, since the article prose size exceeds the recommended limit of 50 KB, but not exactly violating the maximum, upper bound limit of 100 KB (according to WP:SIZE).--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:47, 7 April 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 19:39, 4 April 2009 [6].

Release the Stars

Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it qualifies and I have made improvements based on a peer review session. Thanks so much! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I checked this at Peer Review, and asked about these also. I'm not convinced about the LOGO one at all, the first one, I'd like to see a bit more about why it's reliable, unrelated to the wikiproject's recommendation.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how else to insist NewNowNext.com is the official blog of the TV channel Logo. The network's logo appears in the banner and Logo is mentioned throughout the "About This Blog" section. I'd like to reiterate that the reference, in this case, is only being used to cite the airing of a television program on the network--it is not contributing any other information to the article. ChartStats was used on Rufus Wainwright discography, which was recently promoted to FL status. Is there a better source or database that can be used to cite UK Singles Chart positions? I can try to find an article that indicates the position reached. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Sorry, I didn't get the first time that Logo is a television channel. (I'm a Yank and I watch very little besides Discovery and History Channel...) That's done. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem! Perhaps I did not explain that well enough the first time. Any suggestions for replacing ChartStats? I have used it in the past without problem, but I am not saying that reason will work here. I am simply not aware of any other databases that keep track of UK Singles Chart positions. Is acharts.us acceptable? --Another Believer (Talk) 23:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue, honestly. I'd love for someone to show ChartStats reliable so that I can quit questioning it. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's my problem. I don't know how to show a source is reliable. According to this chart, theofficialcharts.com is reliable for citing UK Singles Chart positions. However, the archive here only display Top 40 positions, as opposed to all Top 100 positions. It's a shame there isn't a single, simple, reliable database with this information. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability 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 reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information Ealdgyth - Talk 00:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Here is how ChartStats operates. I will continue to look for a newspaper article that mentions the peak position for "Going to a Town". --Another Believer (Talk) 00:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Is "pop classical" a real genre? I've never heard of it, and we don't have an article on it either... I think you can cut down on some of the names listed in the lead; stuff like guest musicians don't really belong there. Also, as somebody who has never listened to Wainwright, the lead tells me nothing about the music on the record. More later. indopug (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the genre to baroque pop. Wainwright's music can be hard to categorize, but this genre is used often since he tends to draw from both pop and classical influences. As for the guest musicians, I understand where you are coming from, but in this case I think the names are relevant because they are famous performers and family members. I did remove Julianna Raye, however, since she is not a family member and does not have an article here on WP. In what way(s) should the music on the record be addressed? An overall theme for the album? I'd be happy to expand. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:31, 26 March 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 19:39, 4 April 2009 [7].

Hue chemical attacks

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!)

Article has passed a GA and a MILHIST A-class review... YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tech. Review

Comments by Sasata

Very interesting article on something I knew nothing about. Would like to support, after the comments below are addressed. Sasata (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...while protesting a ban against the Buddhist flag on Vesak." -> against the use of the Buddhist flag (or something similar)
  • "...while protesting against a ban on the flying of the Buddhist flag on Vesak." how about "... while protesting a ban that prevented them from flying the Buddhist flag on Vesak." Sasata (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chenged. and defiance is more approriate, they ignored the ban, YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*vaporise spelled differently in lead and infobox

*I think the lead needs to be lengthened a little bit, perhaps one more sentence about how the whole affair culminated in the assassination of the President? That would certainly encourage the average reader to continue reading the article!

  • Suggest putting the first sentence in the Background section a couple of sentences later
  • The reason for this suggestion is that the first sentence in this section states that Ngo's policies created claims of religious bias; however, it has not yet been explained what these policies were, so the reader does not yet have any background context for interpreting the statement. To me, the paragraph would flow better if this statement was saved for after the explanation of Ngo's pro-Catholic policies. Sasata (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I think the summary should go first, which is why it's there. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Wikilink or define pagoda

*"Furthermore, the land owned by the Catholic Church was exempt from land reform." Please clarify what is meant by land reform.

  • "In May 1963, a rarely enforced 1958 law known as Decree Number 10 was invoked..." Can you provide a more specific date for this Decree, it would give a better timeline to the May 8th activity that soon follows.
The exact date isnt given YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Hue Vesak shootings (largely edited by you) it was May 7th. Sasata (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This disallowed the flying of the Buddhist flag on Vesak..." Passive voice
changed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's another instance in the Background section. Sasata (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed some. If there are any more, please remove them. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"On June 3, protests continued." I think they had been continuing for some time, perhaps on this day they escalated?

*Several times throughout the article, it makes reference to the government deflecting responsibility by blaming the Vietcong, so I think it would be helpful if a sentence or two could be inserted somewhere to inform people who the Vietcong are and how they fit into the big picture.

*"...the troops fixed bayonets and put on gas masks before charging the protestors and pelting them with tear gas grenades." Unsure of the usage "fixed" in this context.

added the knife onto the rifle, basically YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"Deaths and injuries were averted when a Buddhist leader urged the protestors to..." Do we know the identity of this leader?

No not mentioned. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Wikilink state department

*"...passed on the US threat to denounce regime for the chemical attacks." missing "the"

*"Before the Ngo family were deposed in November..." Isn't it the Diem family? Or is this a case where the first name=family name? At any rate, it's confusing.

*"...the findings declared..." awkward

  • "...had used tear gas ... which was known for its strong irritant symptoms." A gas doesn't have symptoms.
  • "The former has a brown colour.." -> "The former chemical...", or even better, just use the chemical names again so the reader doesn't have to go back to the last sentence to see what is being referred to.
  • "Chloroacetone has a brown colour, while the ethyl bromoacetate is yellow, is used in conjunction with acid, and is a liquid at outdoor and room temperature." This sentence needs some repair. Sasata (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
changed. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reference cited does not support the statement. The only reference I can find to color in that Org. Syn. article is: "After about half the bromine has been added, the liquid assumes a cherry color which is retained throughout the remainder of the bromination." The phrase "... used in conjunction with acid." also seems misleading. Yes, the cited Org. Syn. article describes the use of a variety of acids in the synthesis of ethyl bromoacetate, but this doesn't really have anything to do with the use of chloroacetone and ethyl bromoacetate as chemical weapons. Sasata (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"Some varieties of French tear gas also contained phosgene oxime[29] or hydrogen cyanide.[30] This can lead to fatal consequences.." What can lead to fatal consequences?

*"Despite continuing protests, including self-immolations..." please clarify this latter part

I've changed all these, except the sentence reordering. Not sure it should be....YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article doesn't do enough to place the attacks in broader historical context, in particular, the context of the Vietnam War (a topic that isn't even mentioned in the article) and US connections to the ARVN.--ragesoss (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Improved. I still think it does not do enough to give broader context for the event, but I'd like to see what other reviewers think.--ragesoss (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general yeah, but this was an internal SV matter not about communism/colonialism/puppets etc YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:33, 27 March 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 19:39, 4 April 2009 [8].

Homeopathy

Nominator(s): Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

Homeopathy has had a long, chequered past. I am reliably told - by the person who did them - that scholarly studies have been done on the edit wars and battles over this article.

However, the battles appear to now be mostly over. Discussion is polite, progress has finally been made, and I think, after much work, that this article has finally reached a state that it can be considered for featured status.

I believe this will be the first candidacy of a controversial subject in some time; however, if we can handle Intelligent design and Global warming, it's my hope that Homeopathy can join this club of articles that rose above the problems inherent in their material to reach featured status. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the WP:FAC instructions, were the lead editors consulted about the preparedness of this article for FAC? For example, TimVickers (talk · contribs) and Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) are currently active significant contributors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were, and I thought that everyone knew by now my old identity, which clearly is one of the lead editors. While I don't want my real name appearing on Wikipedia for websearch reason, I did think everyone knew what my old account was. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not even of good status as it explains the topic poorly, has a patchy coverage of the topic's history and has a generally tendentious tone which is not NPOV. Overall, it compares poorly with encyclopedic treatments which I have inspected elsewhere and so promoting this as a FA would damage Wikipedia's reputation. Pushing for FA status seems likely to reactivate the battles of which User:Shoemaker's Holiday speaks. I had walked away from the article as discussion was so hostile and uncivil that it was quite unpleasant to work upon. Looking at the current talk page, this still seems to be the case but I shall return. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to have improved significantly since I last read it in depth. I can see few major problems.
  • The references will need checking to ensure that they are suitable.
  • This paragraph under Research on medical effectiveness reads poorly: "In 2005, a systematic review of publications suggested that mainstream journals had a publication bias against clinical trials showing positive results, and vice versa on the complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) journals, although it's probably an involuntary bias. A possible submission bias was also suggested, in which positive trials tend to be sent to CAM journals and negatives ones to mainstream journals.[142] It also noted that the reviews on all journals approached the matter on an impartial manner, although most of the reviews on CAM journals avoided noting the lack of plausibility, unlike the ones on mainstream journals who almost always mentioned it." Fences and windows (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited. Fences and windows (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, this is gonna be ugly. I'll just mention the first three issues that pop out at me: (1) the lead does a poor job of explaining the rationale, (2) far too many references in the lead, (3) the lead does a poor job of concisely explaining the scientific objections, to wit, that homeopathic remedies are frequently advertised as having no side effects, for the simple reason that they are completely inert and have no effects whatsoever. Basically I think that in Wikipedia, an article on this topic that can survive will inevitably be an "article by committee", which cannot possibly be an example of Wikipedia's best writing. Looie496 (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • Dabs (based on the checker tool in the toolbox at the right)
  • The following ref (code pasted below) is duplicated and appears more than once in the ref section, a WP:REFNAME should be used instead.
  • {{cite web |url=http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=197&sectionId=27 |title=Homeopathy results |accessdate=2007-07-25 |publisher=[[National Health Service]] }}
  • The following ref names are used to name more than one ref, when it should only name 1 specific ref.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Started work on this, it may take a little bit. I hope you don't mind, but I'm renumbering your numbers as I go. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Take your time. It's a big article and lots of extraneous issues come in so I expect it'll take a bit of time. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article requires some work before I would consider it a FA. There is little info on the main page about areas in which it is practiced and how it's popularity has changed over time. Both of these would make good images ( which is something else that this article needs more of ). Make a world map of areas were this stuff is practiced and a graph of how its popularity has changed over time.

Also the discussion of regulations and its popularity are two different things and need to be separated into two sections. I am also not certain after reading this article what kind of conditions homeopathy treats. Does it treat everything of just certain conditions?

The wording often seems to side step the issue. If you look at the lead it says "Claims of homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence" This is a round about way of saying: "evidence has not shown homeopathy to be of proven benefit for any medical condition." Some of the wording in the rest of the article is also a little confusing.

Also the fact that homeopathy has a placebo effect should be emphasized as a positive rather than as a negative. A placebo effect is powerful and is all that is needed or is the best currently avaliable treatment for many conditions. Take the common cold for example or most cases of depression, anxiety, or insomnia. One can explain that no treatment is needed which takes a great deal of time or one could prescibe a placebo. Giving a placebo is much faster and is what some people want. But for a physician of course this is unethical.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:

  • Needs a paragraph on the proposed mechanism - "law of similars" and "water memory" in the lead.
  • Needs to discus in-depth the conditions used to treat and how often it is used to treat those conditions. I'm guessing most of the time it is used for colds and flus.
  • Why use multiple footnotes for single facts in the lead?
  • A historical summary is merited in the lead as well; in Hahneman's time, his approach had lower death rates, as noted in the article. It was abandoned was medicine became more science-based. How it rose to popularity again in the 1970s is a historical gap which needs to be filled. Who popularized it?

(Reading above, I see these points have already been made.) II | (t - c) 07:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the two types of citation templates – I tried to do this mostly by hand, but it's too much work. I am working on a script which can convert citation templates automatically. It should be finished this week, probably in the first half. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Excellent article. I have a couple of comments. The "Revival in the late 20th Century" is too short and does not discuss the incredible growth of homeopathy in Europe. Given its effectiveness is under so much dispute, why is it so successful to the point that homeopathic treatments are accepted by major European insurance companies or national health systems? A significant portion of the population believes in homeopathy; this cries out for an explanation. Also, I have to agree with the discussion on the talk page that the final image does not illustrate what is in the caption (the woman is looking at other items, not homeopathic remedies). It should be removed or changed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't agree that there is an incredible growth of homeopathy in Europe. Certainly not in my observation. Homeopathy is now covered by some of the health insurers that make up the German public health system, but that's just an experiment with the new freedom left by a recent reform. In Britain it has always been part of the NHS, and now there are strong attempts to throw it out. Anyway, we would need a reliable source observing such a growth before we could describe it. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the way you state it sounds like a pretty good rate of growth to me! The fact that homeopathy is even covered (even experimentally) by a national health system says something about how much it has changed during the 20th century. The article gives no history on how it grew from almost non-existence to accepted practice as an alternative treatment. How in the world did it become a part of the NHS? Pharmacies where I live are all stocked with homeopathic remedies attesting to its acceptance by a significant number of people. If there are no sources describing this phenomenon, then that would be a rather unfortunate gap in the coverage of this article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Homeopathy has been an optional part of standard medical training for a long time, although there are attempts to get rid of it. The German health insurers are now covering almost everything from acupuncture to voodoo (well, almost). What has changed is only that they are now allowed to do it. I think it's quite likely that the same would have happened 30 years ago, had there been such a reform at the time. Homeopathy probably became covered by the NHS because of the strong support by the Royal Family. The gap in coverage is not because we don't want to describe this but because nobody has found a good reliable source. Homeopathic sources tend to overstate the prevalence of homeopathy, while more general sources tend to understate it or ignore homeopathy. The best thing we have is the WHO report on CAM, but it's not enough for this purpose. We must distinguish how prevalent homeopathy is in a country from the trend of prevalence in that country. My guess: Germany > UK > US; US increasing, UK decreasing, Germany staying on the same high level. But as I said, I have no reliable sources for this. This is just my impression. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The trend info may be unavailable, but the early history of support (such as your speculation about royal family support) might exist somewhere. Whatever you could add to the 20th century history would be interesting. Excellent article anyway. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a telephone survey of 1001 adults in Germany, 11.5% had used homeopathy. [9]. News story about increase in homeoapthy in India: [10]. News story about homeopathy increasing in the US: [11]. More here.

This looks like a good review. It is already cited in the "rise in popularity" section, but it points to two studies that themselves should be cited: Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, Appel S, Wilkey S, Van Rompay M, et al. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997: results of a follow-up national survey JAMA. 1998;280:1569-75. [12]; Jacobs J, Chapman EH, Crothers D. Patient characteristics and practice patterns of physicians using homeopathy Arch Fam Med. 1998;7:537-40. [13]. Fences and windows (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
outdent - Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy already has a lot of information on the prevalence of the use of homeopathy today and historically in various countries. Fences and windows (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it's so unstructured. It's hard to draw any claims about general trends from it without serious original research. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Homeopathy is controlled by the critics and skeptics. No homeopath would accept it to be NPOV, so it should never be a FA.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... no. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it were controlled by the homeopaths, then it would also be POV, and no skeptic or critic would accept it, so... Poechalkdust (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Article is quite good and is nearly of featured quality. I found some problems in the current version, which need to be fixed before I can support:
  • Topics that are missing or are not well covered:
  • scope of practice (e.g., what are homeopaths not allowed to do?). To address this, the Associations and regulatory bodies section should be moved out of External links and should be put into the main text.
  • education and its relationship to licensing
  • schools of thought within homeopathy
  • What percentage of the population uses homeopathy? (This should be in the prevalence section.) Also, please give prevalence versus time.
  • Regulation and prevalence talks only about Europe, and needs more of a worldwide focus.
  • Misspelling: "Hehnemann"
  • "US" is sometimes used; should be changed to "U.S." (the majority).
  • Truncated sentence: "sunlight,[101] Recent"
  • "professional qualifications and licenses are needed in most countries" (stated in both the lead and the body) is dubious, and the cited source says "relatively few countries have developed policies and regulations", which seems to contradict the claim.
  • The Campbell/Vithoulkas incident is repeated in two sections. It should be mentioned just once.
  • The See also section should not list Homeopathic dilutions, as that is already mentioned in the text. Nor should it list Electrohomeopathy, as that topic should be briefly covered in the text and the wikilink moved there.
  • Some citations separate author names with commas, others with semicolons. Please standardize. I suggest commas, as that's the typical style in medical sources.
  • A stray space before a period In the Williams 2002 citation.
  • The Other links section should be either removed or drastically trimmed down. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of links, and the utility of these links is dubious. Do we really need a link to an 1885 history of homeopathy?
Eubulides (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eubulides, why don't you recommend Chiropractic to be an FA instead of this? I know that you post a lot there.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely you meant "in addition to this", not "instead of this"? But that would be a different topic; let's stick to Homeopathy here.
  • I fixed the minor editorial stuff noted above, and struck it out.
Eubulides (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been slow about everything - illness'll do that. Will try and get it all sorted tomorrow. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion "d". The article is biased. It is obviously controlled by the critics of homeopathy. I am not a homoeopathist or a conventional doctor and I am not a fan or a critic of alternative medicine or the conventional medicine. I simply do know a little bit about homeopathy. After reading this article I would think that homeopathy is some kind of witchery. The problem is that most of the article - not only the sections that are related to criticism according to their headings - are related to criticism. The article purposely uses a style, where every statement by homeopathists is immediately disproved by the classical medicine. Many sections that are related to the characteristics of the method are full of pure criticism instead of a description of the method. Many arguments are raised by the classical medicine, but the arguments of the other side have been left out. "Criticism" of homeopathy should be one section of the article. It should not be part of every single paragraph. The language is also oppinionated by using words such as "been diagnosed" for conventional medicine, but "been claimed" or "under the belief" for homeopathy. As I said I am no expert of any kind of medicine, I am just a student, but this article is totally opinionated from the top to the end - I know a bit about homeopathy and it is not what this article says. The writer is using the sources that he prefers for his view and ignores the arguments of the other side. Already the lead section is ridiculous. In this article, homeopathy is being treated as something that "does not work". It should not be treated as something that "does or does not work". It should be described from a neutral view with a neutral language (simply collecting facts that homeopathists provide) and then there should be a section about the view of the conventional medicine. Therefore I oppose.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The thing is, because Homeopathy is a fringe theory, it is quite reasonable to use disparaging references. One must not obfuscate neutrality with objectivity: an objective encyclopedia cannot allow for fringe theories to be construed as anything more. WilliamH (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can homeopathy be the fringe theory on the article on homeopathy (that argument may hold water only in the article on allopathy created by Bryan Hopping)? Why don't you go argue like that on the osteopathy, naturopathy or chiropractic articles? The online Encyclopedia Brittanica is really NPOV, while Citizendium allows both criticism as well as a defence, but Wikipedia is being policed by the skeptical critics who don't let a defense to be put up. Wikipedia lost credibility when it let people post that some people had died, when they hadn't on their wikipedia biographies - if this article becomes an FA, it will lose more credibility. I'd prefer the articles on osteopathy, naturopathy or chiropractic to be made FAs'.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Homeopathy is a fringe theory because it is not supported by the vast majority of the scientific community, because the evidence for it is poor, and because it contradicts well-established scientific principles. Where it is being discussed doesn't change this. Brunton (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then why aren't the articles on osteopathy, naturopathy or chiropractic considered fringe theory and called quackery? Let's have the same yard-stick for all Alt. Med. articles.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think they should include it, and can find RS for it, then add it. But can we stick to the topic of the homoeopathy article here, please? Brunton (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your answer is pretty much of a good display of the problem. "Homeopathy is a fringe theory" is what you say. That is the problem. You are observing Homeopathy from the view of the critics.
In the most developed countries in the world such as Sweden or Netherlands, homeopathy is officially been used in hospitals along with conventional medicine and also veterinary homeopathy is used there for agricultural animals instead of antibiotics. Yes, the majority of scientific community does not support homeopathy, but a huge part of scientific community and thus reliable scientific sources written by medicine professors and scientists do support it just because its effectivness as well as some developed countries decided to.
"Homeopathy is a fringe theory" is a non-neutral statement as well as this article is. I am absolutely not saying that homeopathy should be put on the same level as the conventional medicine. But to say that the conventional-medicine-view is the objective one and the view of homeopathy is the subjective one is wrong and not neutral. There is a difference between these two of course. But that does not mean that conventional medicine, which is only acknowledged by the majority (that's not 100%), must comment every statement of homeoathy from its "conventional medicine view".
Yes, homeopathy is not accepted by the majority of scientists, and that is why the conventional medicine (which is accepted by the majority) should have a section about criticism in the homeopathy article. But the conventional medicine is not the only accepted medicine. Homeopathy is accepted by a minority of scientific world thus it is not any kind of quackery. And that is why conventional medicine is not the objective one that has the right to say its opinion on everything in the article. Conventional medicine has its reliable sources but homeopathy does have its reliable sources as well. Conventional medicine is not objective just because it has more of them.
You can use this style of writing for some quackery, but not for homeopathy, which is supported by many scientists and some European countires. The problem is that you think that homeopathy is quackery, but that is not neutral.
These arguments are just a lame way how to preventively get rid of criticism.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this is a controversial area, but I suggest taking this dispute to Talk:Homeopathy. It's out of place here. Eubulides (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a debate between homeopathy and "conventional medicine". The issue is one of science. If these treatments were so wonderfully potent it would be EASY to show effectiveness. Research however has not shown more than a placebo effect. Therefore claimed benefit is pseudo scientific and based on faith.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Whether the issue is one of science is one of the issues. 2) I think Eubulides meant that everybody who wants to continue this discussion should do so at Talk:Homeopathy. 3) I think he is right and I apologise for responding here. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not an expert so I don't think that I can contribute any effective arguments to any side of this discussion anymore. I am only expressing, as an average potential reader, who is not on a side of any of these treatments, that the style and language of this Wikipedia article seems to be pretty unbalanced to me and thus definitely not FA quality. The way I think you should deal with the imbalance is described in my last comment. But if you believe it is balanced, you can simply outvote my single oppose. Cheers.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the nomination as a FA due to the concerns made above. A few other concerns include

  1. "In many countries, the laws that govern the regulation and testing of conventional drugs do not apply to homeopathic remedies." implies that in some countries it is regulated under the same laws as pharmaceuticals
  2. "Specific pharmacological effect with no active molecules is scientifically implausible" It is not implausible but impossible.
  3. More on prevalence and regulations need to be combined into the main article
  4. I think history section should be moved to the end.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 4 April 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 19:39, 4 April 2009 [14].

Zaprešić

Nominator(s): Admiral Norton (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because it passed GA recently and had a subsequent peer review to determine whether it's ready for FA. Thus I believe it's time to make this article progress one step further. Admiral Norton (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - the couple of English sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I did not evaluate the non-English sources. And surely there must be some books on the subject? I note that all the refs are to websites. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at web, I've almost immediately found Sto godina vatrogastva u Zaprešiću (100 years of firefighting in Zaprešić), but this is hardly something that would merit a "Further reading" section. I'll have a look at a public library, but I don't promise anything, because Zaprešić is a fairly new town and it didn't even have a four-story building before the Zagreb urban area came close. Admiral Norton (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tech. Comments

  • Dabs need to be fixed (according to the checker tool in the toolbox at the right)
  • Oppose. It's a nice looking article, but I'm concerned about the grammar in places, and further explanation could be helpful in some places. You've got a lot of good information here, but I think that it could be organized better and the history section in particular needs to be expanded.
  • Comments and questions:
  • Overall, I'd suggest getting a few people to read through this and copy edit it. In many places, articles are misused and the text does not flow smoothly.
  • The article has been already through two peer reviews and I feel that, unfortunately, I'm the best speaker of English on WikiProject Croatia, so I don't know what to do anymore. I had tried to make some improvements to the flow before, but I was asked to remove them at the GA review because it was deemed to be unnecessary editorializing. (Also, I was taught that encyclopedias don't look the same as ordinary books; I was trying to pick the notable bits of information from a large body of text).
  • In note 1, I'd suggest second-largest rather than second-biggest. Traditionally, large is used more often when dealing with size and big when dealing with importance or notability.
  •  Done
  • In the lede, it's stated that the city's water quality is good, but I don't see a citation to back that up in the text.
  •  Done It's ref 49 ("pitkavoda_zap"); I added it to the sentence "The water from the water pump is of drinking quality."
  • In the lede, you state that Zapresic had the first "meat industry" in Croatia. What does that mean? Was it the first large-scale packaging plant, the first export-quality meat, or something else?
  •  Done I changed to "meat packaging plant", as it agrees with context of the sentence mentioning it in the ref.
  • I threw a wikilink in for the utility company, but don't feel as if I'm forcing you to stub that out.
  •  Done I'll have a try if I catch enough time soon, but I don't think it's very notable.
  • The lede sentence about the "palace path" was somewhat awkward; I changed it around a bit, so let me know if it's wrong or if you disagree.
  • It's correct. In fact, it's way better now.
  • You alternate between using the serial comma and not using it. Please stick with one style.
  •  Done I tend to use it only when the last entry is so long that an omission of a serial comma would be ambiguous. However, I've now changed the entire text to use the serial comma.
  • I've heard that basketball is pretty popular in Croatia -- does the town have a basketball team? I ask this because you mention the futbol team.
  • I'd suggest removing the reference to the global financial crisis in the lede. As phrased now, it reeks of boosterism and doesn't really contribute to an overall understanding of the town's history.
  •  Done I had decided to reek because the source did, but the mention in the lead is now gone.
  • I'm a bit concerned at the length of the history section. For a town that has been in existence for more than seven centuries, I don't think a few paragraphs do it justice. Forex, we don't get anything about the period from 1575 to the First World War. That's more than three centuries! Surely something important must have happened during that time period. Industrialization, the building of the railroad that you mentioned, political upheval, anything at all would fit in here.
  • Also in the history section, you mention something about the refugees bringing a different Slavic pronunciation to the area. Why is this important? Do people in the area still pronounce things differently from their neighbors? Is it a pronounced regional accent unique to the town itself? If this is something that affects more than just the town, I'd strongly suggest putting it into a different article.
  • If the town was not established as separate until 1995, I'd strongly suggest putting that in the lede. In addition, I'm confused as to how the area was organized prior to the establishment of the town. According to your notes, it looks as if the town was formed from the merger of several smaller communities. Is this correct?
  • In the text, you mention that it's the most densely populated town in Croatia, but the density figures aren't in the text. They're just in the infobox. Could you put those into the text right next to where you talk about the density?
  • You say that it has "very high" net migration and population growth -- could you provide a figure for another town of similar size in order to provide context and back that statement up?
  • When you say that NK Inter Zaprešić is the "best-placed" team in the county, what does that mean? Is it the highest-ranked, plays in the highest league, or something else?
  • These are a few things that came to mind as I did a quick readthrough of the article. Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns, and I'll reserve a second readthrough until other folks take a look, too. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:19, 2 April 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 17:22, 4 April 2009 [15].

Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park

Nominator(s): Es.ntp (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this is a well-qualified article about geography. Es.ntp (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comments:

Suggest withdrawl, there is serious work needed before this is ready. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 4 April 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 03:48, 4 April 2009 [16].

Schulze method

Nominator(s): Señor Señor Señor (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article explains a rather complicated single-winner voting system in a scientific and very elegant manner. Señor Señor Señor (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - references lack publishers and last access dates, some are just bare links. Some appear to be forum posts. There are embedded links in the article, which is contrary to the MOS. Unreferenced sections. I also suspect it's not comprehensive, since I don't see any impact or criticism sections. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 4 April 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 03:48, 4 April 2009 [17].

Friday the 13th (franchise)

Nominator(s):  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that the article currently meets the criteria for featured articles, though I concede my bias and acknowledge that others might point out some flaws that need correcting. That being said, I do not believe there are any major issues that should/could keep this article from being "one of Wikipedia's best".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Explain how so? The text beside it describes the image in detail. The image itself is used to illustrate the description Cunningham gave of how he wanted the advertisement to look. That meets the very definition of FUC. I'm curious. Why is it that you immediately opposed Friday the 13th, but merely made a suggestion to the Alien FAC to look at the NFCC? Also, I'm curious how "basically" gave your support to them, but how exactly does an image of the cast become detrimental to readers if it was removed? Or, how does a still photograph illustrate someone shooting in slow motion? I know what it looks like to film an object, the average reader does to, but I don't see how this image significantly increases my understanding of slow motion filming. File:F13Variety.jpg actually has text describing it (a whole paragraph all to itself, both describing the look of the image Cunningham was going for and how that promotional ad was used to facilitate interest in a project that did not even exist).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can empathize with Fasach Nua's oppose; I cannot speak for him, but this is my view. Fair use images help the reader understand the topic in ways words cannot express (well, except for main subject identification shots, which are less critically judged unless they are living persons). Moreover, the aid for understanding has to be for a significant point. In this case, the imagery of "the words 'Friday the 13th' breaking through a glass pane" can be readily imagined by most people. Unless notable opinions claim that there is something sublime about this imagery, or that it has some quality that is not material, such a display is not of significance to the topic at hand. The poster, hence, simply functions as identification of a mere idea—decoration. The claimed fair use of this poster is not as strong as that for the theme song (whose rationale would be helped with further buffing up, and whose caption in the article should point to the distinctive quality of the tune), which has text about its "iconographic" and "memorable" properties, as well as the rhythm and sounds that cannot be accurately described in words (I doubt "ki ki ki, ma ma ma" is what everybody thinks of on hearing the tune). Jappalang (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the image serves two purposes. First, it's the illustration of text. Maybe you could visualize the text bursting through glass, but maybe you couldn't visualize it doing so in this detail (i.e. With this style of font, and with this imagery of glass shattering...maybe "glass" is synonymous with a window instead of a bare pane of glass). Maybe people think of simple bolded terms coming at them. Regardless, it does add to the understanding of the text, the question is whether is adds enough to warrant inclusion. That comes to the second point, which is that the image serves an additional purpose of illustrating the actual advertisement that Cunningham developed simply to create interest in a film that did not even exist. The simplistic nature of the ad was used to generate studio interest as well as test the waters for potential lawsuits regarding the use of the name. If there are any "problems" with the fair-use of this image, it's subjectively borderline. It's not as black and white as including some generic screenshot from a film in a plot section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the CAPS problem. I think you brought all this up at the Peer Review before. So, to save space (and I'm not sure if you ventured back to that page), I'll just provide a link to the peer review discussion that has my explainations for why each of those sources was used.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability 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 reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Just because they are reviews or they are used in other GAs or FAs doesn't mean they are reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any are "reviews". If they are "reviewing" something, that wasn't what I was citing them for - I am typically citing them for describing some objective thing (e.g., this DVD contains these features...), which allows me to provide a third-party source for describing something that can easily be read on the box. Or, as was used for sites like Bloody-Disgusting, ShockTillYouDrop, or Slasherama, I'm using first-hand, exclusive interviews they conducted - that's straight from the horse's mouth (i.e. Q&A where they put in fully quoted conversations). I've been on Wiki since 2005, so I know what WP:RS is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to type "interviews" not "reviews". However, just because they are interviews, doesn't mean they are reliable. You need to make sure that the reporting of the interview is reliable also. The site itself needs to have some sort of reputation for accuracy, so we know that the interview was accurately reported. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Collectonian did that below for several of them. Using other news sources reporting on those websites doesn't prove reliability - it's more like circularly defining reliability. IMDB is cited by USA Today and many other professional, reliable news agencies but we know that it's not a reliable source of information. I'm not trying to deflect your concerns, just pointing out that having some other agency report on your website, or not having one do so, isn't necessarily reflective of reliability. I also couldn't see how an FAQ or About Us page that says "we get some of our information from exclusives" is any more helpful than one that doesn't. One could easily say, "how do we know they're telling the truth?" IME, it's always up to the communities common sense to read the actual source and make the call from their. If there are clues that the source is a little too "iffy", then suggest finding a different one. USA Today could be considered the most reliable source in the world, but I wouldn't cite them if they said "We heard from a scooper inside Universal Studios that Film X...."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry, there are problems with the prose too numerous to list. I recommend that an uninvolved editor is asked to copy-edit the whole article; it is not ready for featured status and this nomination is premature. Graham Colm Talk 17:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - I have to agree, the article as a whole needs a third-party copy editing to fix prose issues. I'm curious on the box office box - why are so many films missing information on the worldwide release, yet the first film has it? Why is it with the development section instead part of the reception/impact section. For the overall article organization, why have Films separate when they are the main part of the franchise? Why not have the films' sections be the main sections, then have the television, novels, etc under a other media section? It seems like the article is using short references, but I don't see a notes section with the listings for those being used multiple times, like "Brack, Peter, pp. 50–52". I presume its referring to the book in ref 19, but either all the refs need to be full, or a central ref for that book added. For the referencing issues noted above, my views:
Collectonian, I have removed all of the soundtrack info (minus one statement) from the article and move it to the talk page. I was having trouble finding a reliable source to back up all of the information we had on that, so I moved it to the talk page for the time being so the FAC could continue.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have any specific prose examples? Vague notions of poor prose does not help. I'm not positive that most of the films even had worldwide distribution, or if it just was not significant enough to chronicle by any outside source. The books certainly do not mention anything. I don't understand " Why is it with the development section instead part of the reception/impact section?" - The Box office information is part of the "Films" section, not the "Development" subsection. I also don't understand the follow up question. "Films" IS the main section. Films, Television, and Literature are all their own independent sections. Because most of the literature does not directly tie to any specific film, they are independent. They got their start thanks to the films, but they have taken on a life of their own. As for the references, the first instance it was used you got the full citation. After that it was the short reference. It's no different than having a "Notes" section and then a "References" section, except that it doesn't put a needless section in there. Look at "References". The first time Grove and Bracke are cited they have full citations filled out.
HorrorDVD is not being used for anything beyond a listing of the DVD features. I don't even need a source for that, because looking at the back of the box will tell you what's on the DVDs. It's uncontroversial, kind of like a plot summary.
As for the sources that Ealdgyth listed, and Collectonian addressed individually, the vast majority are used for first hand interviews, which have been upheld as "reliable" in most articles because they are reporting first hand (instead of hearsay information).
I'll have to check the soundtrack link to see what exactly is being cited. I'll try and find a replacement for it. Other than Amazon, I cannot find anyone talking about the soundtracks. I'll check the books again to see if they mention them.
I fixed the journal source you mentioned.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I usually don't give examples because it is hard for me to do so. My brain just goes, this isn't reading well for me, but my copyediting skills are not that swift, so its hard to explain why, so I usually just note unless I see something really bad/blatantly obvious. It might be good to see if the film's without info did have worldwide distro, to clarify that either "the data isn't available" or "American only release". And sorry, I meant why is box office under Films instead of Impact, but okay on your explanation of the structure. For the references, the reason for having a note section is so readers don't have to hunt through the 145 references trying to find out what Grove?Bracke refer to. Don't get me wrong, I personally hate them, but it seems to be what is preferred in WP:CITE if you're going to use that method (and feel free to point me elsewhere that says it isn't). I'd go ahead and switch the HorrorDVD to just the DVD itself, then, or point to one of the other DVD reviews (if possible), or even Amazon just to clear up the issue. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EL Question: Why link to just the timelines page instead of just having an official link to the main http://www.fridaythe13thfilms.com/ URL? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it did just go to Fridaythe13thfilms.com.... Hmm, I'll check that and make the correction as necessary. You bring up a good point about the "Notes" structure, and I'll take care of that as well. To answer the question about the box office stuff, it's because the "Impact" is speaking more directly about how the franchise has impacted cultured. Box office success doesn't really reflect cultural impact, and it's really specifically aimed at each individual film. "Impact" is aimed at the series as a whole, instead of any one film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey there. I wish I had the time to review the article right now (I'm trying and failing to weigh in at every film-related FAC), but I did happen to see the comments already posted via the transclusion on the main FAC listing. What I will say is that it's almost always best to give constructive examples when opposing an article's promotion on prose grounds. Sometimes an article that seems like it needs a thorough rewrite can be made good with just a couple of hours' concentrated work on removing redundancies and similar. But without that feedback, nominators can be at a loss as to what kinds of issues they should tackle. With that in mind, I've taken a look at the lead only to see what specific pointers can be given:
    • Overlinking. Examples include television program, fictional character, novel. I can't see anyone's needing to click through to these for clarification, and they draw attention away from the potentially higher-value links around them.
    • "various merchandise" is a little hand-wavy; the sentence works equally well without the "various". If you think it lacks something without a word there, clarify with a more useful term, such as "tie-in merchandise".
    • Dangling modifier. "Originally created to cash in on the success of John Carpenter's Halloween, the success led Paramount Pictures to purchase the full rights to the Friday the 13th franchise." The statement as written states that F13's success—rather than the film—was created to cash-in.
    • "[comma] with [noun] [gerund]" is, apparently, a clumsy connector. (See sentence beginning "While the franchise was owned by Paramount...")
    • Immediately following, it seems a little clumsy to say "and a crossover film with Freddy Krueger from another horror film series, A Nightmare on Elm Street." Would it be better to say instead "and a crossover film with Freddy Krueger from the A Nightmare on Elm Street horror film series" or similar?
    • "When the franchise was sold to New Line Cinema, Cunningham returned to oversee two additional films..." Some readers might define the director as the overseer of a project; this sits oddly with the statement in the previous paragraph about Cunningham's not writing or directing any film but the first. Better to be precise and say "produce" or "executive produce" (depending on what his role actually was).
    • "various comic book series". Never a fan of "various", I've always thought the more direct "several" works just as well a lot of the time. I think it does here.
    • "Though not very popular with critics, it nevertheless became a financial success at the box office." The previous paragraph ends by talking about assorted franchise media; this begins with a statement relating the film series only. Suggest clarifying by using "the film series" instead of "it". Beginning the sentence with "Though" makes "nevertheless" redundant too.
    • "but also because the extensive merchandising and repeated references in popular culture." Missing "of", or is there a word or statement missing from the end of the sentence?
  • As I say, this is based on nothing more than a quick look at the lead in isolation; I have no idea if it's representative of the rest of the article, whether it's better or worse. But I hope it gives some pointers, and I will restate the point that the prose issues may be more easily resolvable than you've been led to believe. Good luck! Steve T • C 21:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from GrahamColm (talk · contribs) The nominator has asked twice, on my talk page, to provide examples of poor prose. This is not fair because this is FAC and not peer-review. Steve, has listed the ones I saw in the Lead, but there are many others throughout the article:

  • were off having sex and not paying attention - why the "off", indeed where were they?
  • Five years later, a group of teenagers arrive at Crystal Lake to set up a new camp, only for Jason to murder them, one by one. - "but Jason murders them.
  • Friday the 13th: A New Beginning (1985) tried to move in a new direction. - Perhaps it was the producers or director of this film that tried to adopt a new style?
  • They learn Roy was motivated to become Jason after witnessing the remains of his son, whom no one knew about, butchered at the hands of one of the patients at the institution. - Perhaps "whom had been butchered" would help.

These examples are taken from the next section. There are many more throughout the article. I agree with Steve in that a competent copy-editor could fix the article in a few hours. But at FAC reviewers have to decide whether to support or oppose a candidate. It is of no help to the FA delegates to dilly-dally. I am often guilty of such and will provide "comments" or "conditional support" and so forth. But, as I have said above, this nomination is premature. FAC is too congested, we haven't the time and are not obliged to fix articles. We judge them as they are presented here. I do not like opposing because I know the amount of time and effort that is put into writing these articles. It is a poor show to challenge an FAC reviewer on their Talk page and not at FAC. Graham Colm Talk 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I completely and utterly agree that a solid oppose should be registered if you think the prose isn't up to scratch. :) I didn't mean to try to dissuade you from doing so, I just had in mind that Bignole has several Featured articles to his name, so presumably has the writing chops to make any necessary amendments if given a few examples. Steve T • C 22:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To both Steven and GrahamColm, thank you both for the examples, that's basically what I needed. Steve showed me some flow issues, while Graham seemed to point out a concern that I mentioned on his talk page about prose problems often relating to the fact that the primary editor (in this case myself) will overlook explaining things because subconsciously they already understand it. I will get to work on not just the lead, but the whole article and try and go through sentence by sentence to make whatever adjustments necessary. When I'm done I'll provide a link for the full edit history so you can see what was changed throughout the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so there isn't worry (don't know if anyone is watching the article itself), I am in the process of cleaning up the page. I've just had a bunch of real life projects that I have had to focus on, so it's taking a bit longer than expected. I'm on the TV section right now, so I'm virtually half-way done. Just wanted to let you guys know that I am attempting to get this done in a timely manner.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Article appears to be complete. Looks well sourced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment The merchandise section alone has so many small issues that it hangs a question mark over the prose of the article, for me at least.
  • Ref #128 is a little muddled, 'The Your Sinclair Rock and Roll Years' is a fansite covering Your Sinclair (and a good one), but the article linked seems to be on World of Spectrum (an archive of magazine scans, games and misc. other things), neither of which should be mentioned when the publication details are there for it to be cited directly to the magazine article.
  • The NES game's details take several sentences, and all are cited to ref #129, GameSpot, which gives no details except for the developer/publisher/release date/genre. Fine for an infobox, but the rest of this information is unverified. Due to the game's age it will be difficult to cite this info without having access to a game magazine from the time, but that's what it boils down to.
  • I'm not convinced that Domark's release of License to Kill and Pack-In-Video's development of Rambo is relevant, film licenses were not new even then, they're not even in the same film genres.
  • The mobile phone game is sending mixed signals, I've seen examples of it being called Thursday the 12th, IE an unofficial knock-off, though some sources like GameSpot list it as Friday the 13th. It's not looking very notable and it might be worth removing it altogether, not sure though.
  • "Jason appears as a normal character in the game until he decides to attack." Meaning he's disguised as one of the teenagers until he reveals himself at random and attacks? Needs clarifying.
  • "Friday the 13th has stretched beyond film, television and literature into other collectables." Stretched? Seems far too casual.
  • "In 1988, Screamin' toys produced a model kit where you could build your own Jason statuette." I believe this is incorrect, one of the first things I learned when editing video game articles is to switch 'you' to 'the player' etc. I checked back in the history to early July 2008 and this particular line was there too. That suggests to me that this article needs some attention from an experienced copy-editor, or at least someone who's had no hand in bringing this article forward to its current state. Someoneanother 19:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're commenting on a section that I havne't gotten to yet in my c/eing (Coincedently, I was going to change that "stretched" bit as well). I'll have to check some of those sources, but I could have sworn there was one on the game that just details what the gameplay is. THe "Your Sinclair" is used merely because it is publishing a scanned copy of the actual magazine. I could cite merely the magazine itself (without the url), but I felt providing a link would help people in verifying the magazine information. The GameSpot page might have died...again I haven't gotten to that section yet so I cannot say for sure till I go through it. I'll recheck where the information is coming from while I c/e (as well as take under advisement the non-direct relation of the other games by Domark). Could I request you check out the article from the Lead through the films' section? I have the TV up to (but not including) the Merch. section done I'm just at work and haven't have a chance to impliment it yet. I'd like some looks over what has been c/e'd to see if I missed something as well as to get some more thoughts on the plot section. The Plot section is the hardest to c/e because I need someone who isn't entirely familiar with the films to let me know what is confusing (when you've seen them as many times as me, you tend to automatically fill in the blanks with your mind).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing with the Your Sinclair cite is that some may quibble about a direct link to a copyrighted scanned image, I totally get why there's a URL link but it may trip you up. If someone wants to verify that source during the process it's all here. I'll gladly check the rest of the article over the weekend, haven't seen any of the films and don't know a thing about the franchise. Someoneanother 20:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this moment, I think I'm going to leave it and if there is a real problem with it then I'll remove the link and do a typical "cite journal" template for it. I have taken care of the rest of the c/eing (what I call the "first round", because I want to make a second pass and see if/what I missed). You can all of the edits, from the start and get an idea of the changes that were made. I'll wait to do a second pass until after I have checked on some source replacement for the "Soundtrackcollector" links, because there was concern over their FAQ indicating that they take user submitted content. It may be that I have to remove the soundtrack info until I can find replacements because Amazon doesn't have release dates for most of the older CDs. I'll also check on those game sources and see if they say (or said) what they were supposed to have said about those games, as well as that "Thursday the 12th" contraversy.
I found this source, which seems to show that the mobile game was in fact called "Friday the 13th". I wonder of "Thursday the 12th" was some game released at a different time, before this mobile game?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, since I didn't see anything about it in the article at the moment: if it would be useful information, I found a reliable source on the 1989 game noting there was also a Friday the 14th board game released in the UK which was a top seller in 1989 and came "with blood capsules that you crunch in your mouth to create home-made special effects." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, if you got a RS for it, sweet. I didn't know about the board game. As an update for Someone Another, I have checked the GameSpot sources and they are useless as they are. I'll try and find replacement sources for them...otherwise (they'll all have to be ousted).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, here is the cite: {{cite news |title=Giving the games away: Sheila Johnston pits her wits and her patience against the latest best-selling video and board games-of-the-films |first-Sheila |last=Johnston |work=[[The Independent]] |date=December 15 1989 |page=27 }}; alas, she did not mention which company published the game :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have her text, so I know what it says or you could add it to save time?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sent via email. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting confusing. The mobile game listed on GameSpot is this Thursday the 12th developed by HeroCraft. Compare the title screens, they're identical except the GameSpot one is obviously Jason. 'Thursday the 12th' had players controlling 'Slayson'.. I think what might have happened is that they started with the knock-off, then managed to secure a license then changed the title screen. The mobile game reivew you found is a different game entirely developed by Xendex. Xendex's version is an adventure game whereas the Thursday the 12th .. thing by HeroCraft looks like a Splatterhouse clone (very much an action/beat 'em up game, look at the screenshots on the Thursday the 12th site). The HeroCraft game could do with some research. Someoneanother 22:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the Xendex's game info when I get a chance (didn't realize there were 2 mobile games). I found this NewsWire source saying that HeroCraft did make a "Friday the 13th" game (but it's just a list mentioning). Maybe for the time being it will be best to just remove that game mentioning from the article, given the confusion over the licensing, because I haven't really seen (was just googling) anyone talking about HeroCraft not having a license...or not initially having one but later getting one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How's this Someone?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, the description of Xendex's title coupled with the 'make your own special FX' board game info adds a lot of interest to the section. Duh me BTW, I brought up Splatterhouse without suggesting that it would be worth considering mentioning it somewhere - the game's character Rick is basically Jason Vorhees, and there should be sources out there to back it up, like this. Splatterhouse is a notable series (very few games at the time had anything like as much gore or feeling of dread), and after a break of 15 years is spawning a new game, it would probably be brought up at some point due to that. Someoneanother 23:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that, it seems like it might be more relevant for Jason Voorhees, than this page, given that the character is a "supposed" homage/rip-off/coincedental look-a-like for Jason, and the game itself isn't a homage to Friday the 13th in general.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 4 April 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 03:48, 4 April 2009 [19].

Fountain of Time

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because of my A-Class WP:MILHIST articles, this passed in the shortest amount of time. Thus, it is probably interesting or something. It is the only high quality level WP article that I know of that is about a memorial to peace. In order to answer a question from my GA reviewer Chzz (talk · contribs), I got two books from the library. I was unable to answer the question, but did end up adding 25% more text to the article and I found several old Library of Congress photos in the mean time.

I am quite sure the image guys will have instructions in regard to what is kept in the article. I was going to move out the gallery and then the GA reviewer said he felt they added to the article, but needed better captioning. I am thinking that the image reviewers might want them moved out so I have not worked on that. I am hoping that none of the images other than the gallery are contentious and am willing to make any changes to the gallery or remove it entirely. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRT, the image gallery, I should note that because of the restoration, this might be a rare case where it is appropriate to have one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There remains one dab (Open house) that I am not sure how to resolve. It describes what I mean in the opening sentence and then lists another dozen possible uses for the term.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query Hi Tony, interesting topic "Despite all the restoration that has been completed, supporters of Time continue to pursue resources for additional lighting," what has the lighting to do with restoration? ϢereSpielChequers 22:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also "Time is one of the few outdoor sculptures that has been made of these types of materials since the 1930s" might need rephrasing if the opening date of 1922 is correct. ϢereSpielChequers 22:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a big public sculpture and I think the article could benefit from a bit about the vistas that incorporate it (which might be a way to move some gallery pictures into the article). How much of the Park around it is designed to show off this monument, and which bits are meant to be seen up close and which from a distance? ϢereSpielChequers 15:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical Review

Is anyone else having problems with the newsbank refs. They got reformatted with these two edits. They are no longer working on my machine even though they did when I first checked out what had happened.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The links were not working earlier, but they are working now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm opposing because I think the prose is not FA quality, and there's some MOS issues to be addressed (eg. page # ranges in refs need endashes). I've listed some examples below, but stopped reading after the Installation section. Sasata (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The prose has been much improved, and I'm switching to support now. I'll take Tony's word about the lead citation issue, but am not striking it out, as I'd still like to hear an MOS expert's opinion about it. Sasata (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it appropriate to have so many (I counted 19) citations in the lede?
    • I don't think the Lead is presenting anything more than the summary of the article and thus the text is good, IMO. Are there facts that you would like to see the citations removed from?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Assuming that everything that's cited in the lead is also cited in the main body of text, then I would take out the citations for anything that isn't contentious. For example, its location, when it started running water and its year of dedication, and the fact it underwent repairs; I doubt if any of that is likely to be challenged. The rest can probably stay. Sasata (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you aware of the two citation conventions for the WP:LEAD? Either a LEAD can be fully cited or fully uncited. Both conventions are common and fully acceptable. What is unaccepatable is a partially cited LEAD where some facts are cited and some are not. In this case, I attempt to do a fullly cited form. Your suggestion is against convention. Either you want the citations with the main body text only or also as presented in the lead. There is no halfway.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I was not at all aware of the two citation conventions. I was working off Wikipedia:LEADCITE; could you point out the location of a description of these alternate lead citation conventions? Thanks Sasata (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is no clear governing text where you point. Policies change and I am going by interpretations, that prevailed in 2007 and 2008. I have been asked about citing WP:LEADs several times by reviewers and given this explanation. I have never been told it is wrong. I believe it to still be the prevailing sentiment that editors agree that leads must be either fully cited or uncited. I do not have an MOS text to point to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • So what you're saying is that there is a policy/convention for citing the lead that directly contradicts what's currently suggested in the MOS, yet I can't read about it because it's unwritten? Am I being punked? :) Sasata (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←What I am saying is that in my experience with GA, FA and FL reviews on WP, which is fairly extensive, this subject has come up dozens of times. I have explained that in my early days they taught me to only do fully-cited or fully-uncited WP:LEADs. Every time that explanation has been accepted. I have not reviewed policy to give the explaination. Thus, I don't know where it is. What we need is an expert on current MOS guidelines to confirm the currently prevailing policy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any convention, reason, guideline or policy to support the notion that leads should be either fully cited or fully uncited; as far as I know, this is simply incorrect. Information about citations in leads is at Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know guidelines or policy. Generally, I spend my time adding encyclopedic content. I only learn policy through MOS tussles about my work. In terms, of convention it seems to have been longstanding and reasons are pretty clear. Suppose you have two fully cited paragraphs in a LEAD and someone plops a third uncited paragraph that further summarizes the article it looks bad. Similarly, if you have an uncited paragraph or two and someone contributes a fully cited one, it looks just as bad. Citing half the claims in the lead as necessary and the other half as unnecessary begs the question of why should the uncited half be cited in the main body either.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"Time had to undergo several restorations due to the elements" What elements? I think this is a too-informal way to say "weathering"

*"Originally conceived in granite,[14] Time had another plan that called for it to be chiseled out of Georgia marble..." Anthropomorphizing the sculpture

*"... a Bridge of Arts at Woodlawn Avenue would have been more elaborate than a Bridge of Religion at the intersection of Ellis Avenue and a Bridge of Science at Madison Avenue." I'm confused about the relevance of the elaborateness of these bridges; were these bridges even made?

*"...Taft began lobbying for a grand Midway beautification plan in 1908 immediately after winning the first commission from the Ferguson Fund to create the Fountain of the Great Lakes, ..." This clause in the middle of a longer sentence is dificult to follow and should be broken up into something more digestible.

*"Two surviving elements stand outside the entrance to the Main Library and two others are at the south side of Foellinger Auditorium." Confusing - there are four "elements" in total, two are not surviving, but two are? What's the distinction between the surviving and non-surviving elements?

*"...was delayed by Taft's World War I service in France with the Y.M.C.A.," Sorry, but I don't know enough about history to make a logical connection between war service and the YMCA

*"However, Taft and his Chicago school of sculpture..." What school was this? (Sorry if I seem deliberately disingenuous, but that's the question that intuitively pops to mind when I read that sentence)

  • "Another notable sculpture nearby is Henry Moore's National Historic Landmark, National Register of Historic Places-listed, Chicago Landmark Nuclear Energy, which is located..." Jarring constructing construction, does not flow smoothly.

*"Formerly, The Midway Plaisance, Jackson Park and..." Does the "The" really need to be capitalized?

  • "There is little agreement on the dimensions of Time, with various sources describing it at 102 to 127 feet (31.1 to 38.7 m) long.[10][3][12] One of the few precise estimates describes it as 126 feet 10 inches (38.7 m) long, 23 feet 6 inches (7.2 m) wide and 24 feet (7.3 m) tall.[2]" Why is there little agreement on something which can be measured with a tape measure? What makes the latter measurement more precise?
    • I suppose that there are at least four or five ways to measure the width:
      1. The width of the reflecting pool, which probably could be measured by the width of the water (interior width) and the width of its physical structure (exterior width)
      2. The width of the base of its figures
      3. The width of the sculpting of the figures
      4. The width of the ground upon which it is laid.
        1. Suppose there is a three foot-wide ring of grass around the sculpture which is considered Fountain land.
        2. Suppose that there is an official plot of land that contains the fountain that the Cook County assessors office might describe as a parcel or something.

This is my best guess. I have seen this problem with other sculptures such as the near by Nuclear Energy (Henry Moore sculpture). I have also had articles where I was able to get specific dimensions for separate parts such as Crown Fountain where I was able to get dimensions for the reflecting pool and the physical sculpture separately. Here separate measures do not present themselves in the sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*It's still plural. Sasata (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing review: (Starting from "Design" section)

  • "John Early of Washington, DC determined that by crushing pebbles, he could create a new concrete mixture that was more durable..." How about something like "John Early of Washington, DC determined that by adding crushed pebbles, he could create a new concrete aggregate that was more durable..."
  • "It was produced in the period following his assignment to design sculptures for William Le Baron Jenney's Horticultural Building when he designed several large-scale public works, including Fountain of the Great Lakes." The sentence seems run-on, please reword, or split into two sentences.
  • "Designed without expansion joints, Time is one of the few outdoor sculptures that has been made of these types of materials, and few have been created since the 1930s." What types of materials? The pebble/concrete aggregate? Please clarify. What kind of repairs were needed in 1936 (i.e., did the sculpture really deteriorate that much in 14 years?)
  • "In early 1997, after almost two decades of study," What were they studying? Wasn't the holdup due to lack of funds?

"Below are pictures of the Fountain of Time uploaded in August 2004 before restoration."

*Reference formatting needs some more tweaking: some books refs (eg. #28, #32) end in periods, some don't; ref 15 has double period after author name; Taft refs do not have "p." while the other book refs do.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the ref.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose—Not well-written. MoS breaches in the linking of dictionary terms. In addition, the nominator continues his established practice of fighting against almost all issues raised. This article, by no stretch of the imagination, could be promoted. Is the whole text going to be fixed up? I have provided only random examples. Tony (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gawky four-item hyphenated hedgehog: I've commented on this before in your writing, and gone to some lengths to explain how easy it is to avoid. Here we have it right at the opening: "a 126-foot-10-inch (38.7 m) long sculpture by Lorado Taft situated at the western edge of the Midway Plaisance". Here is how you fix it, by simply moving the noun: "a sculpture by Lorado Taft, 126 feet, 10 inches (38.7 m) long, at the western edge of ...". Or choose your own recasting, but no quadruple bypasses, please, especially since the conversion is required in the midddle. Here's another: "20-foot (6.1 m) high robed model of Father Time". Please fix them all. You seem to be hooked on this word "situated", but a statue is a statue, and it just is where you say it is. "Situated" is quite redundant; clunky, actually.
  • "was the first work of art made of concrete,[7] and used a new type of molded, reinforced material". The linking of "concrete" is on the boundary of the required relevance test, but since the text is not massively overlinked with dictionary words, it works, I think, and there's some slight chance that a reader might click on it. But is the "material" referred to the concrete? It's unclear.
  • "that corrected many of the problems caused by prior restorations." Please remove "prior", since it's pretty hard to correct something that hasn't already occurred.
  • "caused by the natural elements such as weather"—what other natural elements are there? Why not just "by exposure to the weather", or something like that?
    • Here is a sentence fragment from the restoration section: "Five workers began repairing the cracks, killing biological growth, removing calcium deposits and pollution-blackened gypsum" I had thought that weather and time (or in the case of this fountain Mother Nature and Father Time) are conjointly considered natural elements. As such corrosion that occurs over time is considered the result of the natural elements. Later in the article I describe urban soot and grime as natural elements. Also, note that WP redirects to (Periodic table), so it is not clear to me that natural elements means weather.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the late 1990s and first few years of the 21st century"—"the" is missing.
  • "Despite all the restoration that has been completed, supporters of Time continue to pursue resources for additional lighting, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation has nominated it for further funding." How does one "pursue resources"? It's not English. The National Trust nomination was despite the restoration? The clauses in this sentence need to be rearranged so they're unambiguous in relation to each other.
  • Overlinking: "intersection". This is a breach of the guidelines, by any stretch of the imagination. The overlinking is not at the ruinous density I've seen before, but here it is: "lagoon", "canal", etc. Just why you'd want to click on a link to "World War I" from this article is beyond me. Let the important links show up, please.
  • Mea culpa; during GA review, I asked that intersection be wikilinked. As a Brit, I felt the term sufficiently obscure to warrant a wikilink for clarification. The word is not common in the UK.  Chzz  ►  06:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You find them "linkable" because it "borders" on some WIkiProject? That is not the test of whether the link deepens the reader's meaning. This is overlinking—dictionary terms—and is clearly a breach of the style guides. Tony (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow me to clarify. The article has a lot of encyclopedic information related to urban planning and beautification. Thus, readers with urban planning interests may find this article worth reading. For those readers lagoons and canals are not tangential terms. They are central to the proposed urban beautification plan. I feel in this context linking the terms is O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The finished portions of Fountain of Creation are considered Taft's final work, and were given to University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, his alma mater." What does "are considered" add? If it is necessary to inject a little uncertainty, make it clear why. This comes over as coy.
  • "The figures in the sculpture were planned to depict the Greek legend of the repopulation of earth after the great flood." They were planned to, but didn't end up doing this? That is the unfortunate tinge of meaning. I had to read it twice and think before realising that you probably didn't intend this nuance. Not good. Same for "possible themes"; I have to work hard to fathom whether these bit the dust or were borne out. Planning versus constructed features is blurred in a number of sentences.
  • " Two surviving elements stand outside the entrance to the Main Library and two other surviving elements are at the south side of Foellinger Auditorium.[23] The four figures range in height from"—Can we avoid the straight repetition of "surviving elements"? Can we know first that there are four, and then ... "Two are ..., and two are ..."?

I've not read more than the lead and some of the first section. It all needs treatment. On the other hand, it has the makings of an FA, and I can see the effort you've put into this (and the good results). But it can't be promoted until the writing is up to scratch. Please bring in someone else to sift through the text. You have a lot of valuable things to say, but you don't do justice to your knowledge without collaboration with a skilled writer. Tony (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've covered this hyphenation issue many times on TTT's previous FACs, so shouldn't still be finding these kinds of errors in the first line of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This needs a thorough copyedit. Minor issues include a quote in italics; a poem title in italics; a publication title in plain text; Jstor listed as a publisher; and National Trust and American Express listed in italics. Conversion figures are needed for historical monetary values. There are flow problems (there is no connection between these sentences: "The sculpture had a rededication in 1966. However, early repair crews often did more harm than good with techniques such as sandblasting and patching cracks with rigid materials.") and logic problems (all NHLs are listed on the NRHP, so why "Time is located a few blocks from Taft's studio, the National Historic Landmark, National Register of Historic Places-listed, Chicago Landmark Lorado Taft Midway Studios, which is located at 60th Street and Ingleside Avenue. Another notable sculpture nearby is Henry Moore's National Historic Landmark Nuclear Energy, listed with the National Register of Historic Places."?). The Chicago Tribune is arguably not a reliable source for the massive assertion that this piece is "the first work of art made of concrete", later restated as "the first finished art piece to be made of any type of concrete". The main issue, however, is that there are grammar and word choice problems throughout. Maralia (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The publication title in plain text is in "Some Tribune critics". RE the monetary conversion issue, I don't have time to dig for policy at the moment, so let's just use a little logic: the average reader likely has no point of reference for the equivalent modern value of early 20th-century dollar figures. FAs have long offered such conversion by giving a modern value as of a specific year; {{Inflation}} even offers a country-specific conversion that automatically updates with the CPI. The "$30,000 per year for five years" figure for Taft's initial plan is (very roughly) $5.1 million in modern terms—surely more meaningful to readers. Maralia (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{Inflation}} is an interesting template. Feel free to tweak or advise on stylistics of use. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 4 April 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 03:48, 4 April 2009 [20].

Ultime grida dalla savana

Nominator(s): Helltopay27 (talk)

This article is already listed as a Good article, and after some further copyediting, I've decided to try my luck here. I have two major concerns that I feel reviewers will target: the synopsis section may be too long and detailed, for one. No documentary article is currently a featured article, so I had no example to follow. I found this film in particular, which doesn't feature a cohesive narrative, to be particularly challenging to provide a sufficient yet concise synopsis. Also, the lack of a "Production" section is unfortunately unavoidable, as I've yet to encounter any source that covers the production of the film. I will try to implement these corrections if asked. Helltopay27 (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for writing such a good article on an obscure topic, it is an enjoyable read. I'm sorry to say this, but I couldn't support the article in its current state given the absence of page numbers for each book reference. I know it would be quite a chore to have to through them again, but think of the poor reader trying to chase a claim! Some other comments, queries and suggestions:
    • The average reader is likely to be unfamiliar with the Mondo and exploitation genres; perhaps you could add a sentence or two to provide context?
    • In the Synopsis, is the hunter being introduced to Patagonia or the viewer to the hunter?
    • Is there an appropriate wikilink/redirect for social hunting that might be useful for context here?
    • Not sure about the appropriety of an entirely parenthesised sentence; might be better as a footnote. A MoS-expert could help here
    • There are second-grade teachers out there who would decapitate you for starting a sentence with "Also,"!
    • "Reflected in this is a montage of gun ownership, which is related to feelings of masculinity" – does the film make this relation explicit, or is our article simply saying that there is a relation? In the latter case, attribution to a reliable source would be necessary.
    • If the author of the Time Out Film Guide entry is named, the article ought to mention them.
    • Could you briefly state James Ferman's argument as to why the film showed the need for censorship?
    • This sentence needs altering: "The inclusion of several staged or scripted scenes has made the film, which claims to consist of purely authentic footage, a target for critical condemnation." Films don't make claims; if there is written text or voiceover making the claim, say so. If the producers make the claim in an interview, say that.
    • "The lion attack on Pit Dernitz is also suspected of being a fabrication" – by whom?
    • "While staged footage had been included since the early history of Mondo films, these scenes are nonetheless targets for critical abashment." The change of tenses here is awkward; changing either clause to the past tense might help.
    • "come under fire" is a little informal for an encyclopaedia.
    • In the last sentence of the Criticism section, it appears as if Goodall is receiving criticism, and at least one of "aside from", "also" and "another" is redundant.
    • Most readers will not be familiar with the Valtion elokuvatarkastamo; couldn't hurt to add an adjective or two. In a similar vein, RSPCA might be clearer if not abbreviated.
    • What makes the following links Reliable sources? [21][22][23][24][25]
    • It might also be a good idea to add articles on the directors, Antonio Climati and Mario Morra. Again, thanks for your efforts thus far and I think the article could be featured standard without too much trouble. Sincerely, Skomorokh 21:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've corrected most of the points that you've made. Unfortunately, I won't have access to the books again for another week or so, so the page number issue will have to wait. Here are some responses:
        • No, Time Out Film Guide doesn't give the name of the reviewer.
        • The DVDManiacs reference, which is now dead, will be removed once I find another review of the film (which are quite scarce).
        • The Digital Retribution reference has been replaced.
        • The DVD Aficionado reference is intended to prove the existence of said DVDs, which the link clearly proves. The purpose of the DVD Aficionado website is to collect various DVD releases of films and provide them as a reference. Its dedicated purpose, combined with the fact that it is not an independent website (i.e. it is part of Saudakar Corporation) I believe makes it reliable.
        • I'm looking for a more reliable source than SoundtrackCollector.com to provide a source for the soundtrack's release, although I believe that the soundtrack's mere existence is of itself evidence.
        • Refused-Classification.com receives censorship information from the OFLC, which is a pretty reliable source. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech.Review
  • Dabs are not up to speed (checked with the links checker tool)
  • They need to be fixed
  • External links are not up to speed (checked with the links checker tool)
  • There is 1 dead link
  • Ref formatting is not up to speed (checked with WP:REFTOOLS script)
  • The following refs are duplicated and appear as such in the ref section, a WP:REFNAME should be used instead
  • {{cite book |last=Kerekes |first=David |coauthors= David Slater |title=Killing for Culture: Death Film from Mondo to Snuff |year=1996 |month=January |publisher=Creation Books |location=UK |isbn=1-871592-20-8}}
  • {{cite book |last=Goodall |first=Mark |title=Sweet and Savage: The World Through the Shockumentary Film Lens |year=2006 |publisher=Headpress |location=[[London]], UK |isbn=1-900486-49-0}}
  • {{cite web |url=http://wc04.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:245084~T1 |title=Ultime Grida dalla Savana > Review |author=Robert Firsching |publisher=All Media Guide |accessdate=2007-10-04}}
  • {{cite web |url=http://www.digital-retribution.com/reviews/dvd/0779.php |title=Savage Man, Savage Beast DVD Review |publisher=Digital Retribution |accessdate=2007-11-08}}
  • {{cite web |url=http://www.refused-classification.com/Films_S.htm#Savage%20Man,%20Savage%20Beast |title=Films S |publisher=Refused-Classification.com |accessdate=2007-11-08}}
  • The following ref names are naming more than 1 ref name, when they should only name 1 specific ref
I don't know what "Dabs" are, but the references have been fixed. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It means disambiguation links. Sorry.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then forgive me, I'm not sure what you're proposing that I need to fix. Helltopay27 (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It means that some of the internal wikilinks, instead of leading to the intended article, instead go to disambiguation pages, and should be fixed. The two in question are Huemul and Kangaroos. Steve T • C 01:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I believe all of your issues have been fixed. Helltopay27 (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my ignorance, but what's wrong with their format as is? Is there a style guideline for such things? Skomorokh 03:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find nothing in Wikipedia's policies that say that these are inadequate. In fact, I've formatted image pages like this for other featured articles. Helltopay27 (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I have always formatted fair use images like so. I am unsure if it is a requirement to use such templates, or if it just makes it look nicer. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I'll try to hunt down the appropriate templates. Helltopay27 (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the film poster's page, and the soundtrack cover is no longer part of the article. However, the screenshot template is about to be deleted and since its inclusion is up in the air anyway, I've let it be. Helltopay27 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - three low quality images that show a man getting mauled are unjustified under NFCC, images don't convey much information. The LP cover seems weird, I don't know why that is significant at all. Fasach Nua (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll remove the LP cover, but the other images help identify the scene in question and gives context to the scene's violence and why the scene is often censored. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't it standard practice to include the cover of soundtracks in film articles? Skomorokh 19:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This was the premise I was working under, yes. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per the film article guidelines, the image in the film article's infobox serves as cover art to identify the topic. With this identification in place, the inclusion of additional cover art should be rationalised with a non-identification purpose, e.g. secondary sources' coverage of the cover art's appearance. While it relates to DVD, a good example can be found at Fight Club (film) – Home media. Saying all that, there may be some wriggle room in that the soundtrack cover art is identifying a separate subject. But coming at this from an angle of what's best for the article, I'm not sure what the image was actually adding of value—just because an image can be included, it doesn't necessarily mean it should. Good luck with the rest of this FAC, Steve T • C 09:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page numbers are coming as soon as I get the books again, and I've already been over the reliability of R-C.com and DVDaf.com. The other site is the official site of the Finnish film board, and since it is used to cite the classification of the film in Finland, I think it qualifies as reliable. Helltopay27 (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability 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 reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
R-C.com gets their information directly from the OFLC -- reliable. The official site of a film board -- reliable. 99.167.78.33 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing where on the refused classification site they say that their information comes from the OFLC. Looking at the page for the film, they are crediting someone named "HellToPay27" for some information on what was and wasn't cut. I've struck the Finnish film board query. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On individual film entries, they will provide specific information on their sources. A good example is the Cannibal Holocaust and Classes in Seduction entries, where they quote numerous customs and government releases. Also, I'm not affiliated with the site; I merely gave them cut status based on a comparison of a cut and uncut print, and they credited me for it. This website has been used as a source in other featured articles without a hitch. Once I get access to the books again, I'll do further research. Helltopay27 (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've also removed the DVDaf.com citation, as the existence of said DVD releases should be evidence enough. Helltopay27 (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OKAY, let's review what issues have been raised:
    • The references have been fixed. The format is updated, and all book references have been revised to cite the specific pages.
    • The DVDManiacs citation exists no more.
    • The disambiguation links have been fixed.
    • The overlinking issue has been fixed.
    • As for the pictures, the LP cover has been removed, and I've given my argument as to why the images of the lion attack should be included: they provide a visual example of the violence of the scene without being excessively graphic. So far, nobody has commented on this, not even the person who originally brought up the issue.
    • The picture pages have been reformatted.
    • The seemingly only remaining issue is the credibility of Refused-Classification.com. I still contend that the website is indeed reliable, as the bulk of their information comes from the Australian government, as evidenced by the multiple quotes of customs reports, court transcripts, and OFLC rulings throughout the website. Helltopay27 (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 4 April 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 03:48, 4 April 2009 [29].

Slovenian presidential election, 2007

Nominator(s): Tone

Lots of work has been made on this article since the last FAC attempt. I believe all the issues raised during the last nomination have been addressed, the article went through Guild of Copy Editors polishing and passed a GA review. I believe it is finally ready for a FA now. Thank you for your consideration. Tone 23:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in Slovenian are from mainstream media, so is the one in German. --Tone 12:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech.Review
  • External links are up to speed (checked with the toolbox checker tool)
  • The dabs are not up to speed [there is one that needs to be fixed] (checked with the toolbox checker tool)
  • Ref formatting is up to speed (checked with the WP:REFTOOLS script)--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image comment - I would prefer if File:Glasovnica_za_predsednika_republike_2007.jpg credited the author of the subject, should also be tagged with Template:PD-text, otherwise fine, good job! Fasach Nua (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a ballot, an official document issued by the electoral comission, i.e. the state authorities. IMO, this doesn't require such a credit. Zocky | picture popups 18:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not a show stopper by any means, but it would be nice if the article explained what finally happened with the votes from abroad, which were regarded as potentially contentious (and favouring the right wing) before the election. Zocky | picture popups 18:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about it. This source says that Peterle actually got some more of those votes than Turk but since the difference was so big, they didn't change anything. If I put it in the first round paragraph, it does not fit well but if I put it in the final results one, it still does not fit too well. The thing is that Peterle got 1106 and Türk 963 votes from the embassies while the ballots sent by mail were 2587 for Peterle and 2077 for Türk. Nowhere close to tip the scales. Do you have any suggestions how to include that? --Tone 20:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Zocky | picture popups 13:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Many of the issues I brought up in the last FAC have not been fixed. The prose needs a major overhaul. There are a lot of small grammatical errors. Listed below are examples only.

  • There are capitalization inconsistencies. Sometimes the article capitalizes "Government", "Prime Minister" and "President" when there are no names behind them; sometimes it doesn't. (I realize that there are occasionally times when this is necessary, but most inconsistencies here don't appear to be.)
  • "more than good" is not good prose
  • Some of the prose is still pretty clunky.
    • Where possible, the prose needs to be tightened. Examples:
      • "The disagreements however escalated " - why "however"?; that should probably be removed
      • watch for repetitive phrasing - "rejected President's candidates for the Governor of the Bank of Slovenia, beginning with the rejection of "
      • "Jelinčič had already run for the office " - why already? "had run" already tells us that this was int he far past. Perhaps you are thinking of "previously"?
    • In some cases, the grammar appears to be off. sometimes, it looks like words are missing. Examples:"the Roma family Strojans", "rejected President's candidates", "revealing, among other,". Also, check for verb agreement - "One of them were " should be "one of them was" etc
    • The Leading candidates section has several two-sentence paragraphs. Such small paragraphs tend to break up the flow of the section; I encourage you to combine and/or rewrite them as necessary to help the section flow better.
  • The article doesn't say whether presidential elections are held on a consistent cycle (every 5 years) of if they are called whenever the government wants to call them. Perhaps this could be included in the background section?
  • I think the background section may go into too much detail on the political workings in the previous presidency. It doesn't appear that all of that is completely relevant to this article.
  • I'd combine the two sections on the first round of the elections
  • Need a citation at the end of every sentence with a quotation in it. Example that does not have a cite "Prime Minister Janez Janša blamed Peterle's poor showing on certain topics that were brought up during the campaign by "hidden centres of power". "
  • Image stacking leads to large white space after heading Runoff campaign and before the text
  • The lead still contains a lot of information about a referendum; this is not mentioned at all (that I saw) in the body of the article.

Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at the prose once more, I think the guild of copyeditors did a good work but there may be some details here and there yet to fix. Otherwise, I believe I have already fixed most of the issues you mentioned last time. Too bad the last FAC was closed just after you made your comments, I hope we can work it out this time.
  • Capitalization: when president refers to the function, it's lower case. When it refers to Drnovšek, it's upper case, isn't it the way it's supposed to be? Otherwise, no problem with fixing. Lower or upper case for all, what's better?
  • Maybe a good idea to add details about election in the requirements section instead, I'll do that.
  • I believe that the background section needs to go into details because it is the confrontation between Drnovšek and the government that set the stage for the election and the atmosphere surrounding it. I wouldn't want to cut it. It is relevant, more or less all of it.
  • I think we had only one section about the first round before but then decided to make two instead. I find it better because the second round and results are also separate. And the focus of each section is different.
  • There are citations for each sentence with "". The one you mention is ref 48, at the end of the sentence (because it refers to the whole sentence, I didn't want to put it in the middle and repeat again but it can be done).
  • I don't see any white space because of the image stacking. Maybe you are using another browser? What do you recommend in this case?
  • There is now a section on the referendum in results section as well. Again, the referendum needs to be mentioned because of the consequences both election and referendum had for the government.

So, I believe most of the issues are fixed already actually... I'd appreciate further comments. --Tone 17:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 4 April 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 Karanacs 14:34, 3 April 2009 [30].

Vasil Levski

Nominator(s): Todor→Bozhinov'

I am nominating this for featured article because I've spent a lot of time working on it since I took it up in October 2008 and I believe it meets the criteria. The GAC review back in November was particularly optimistic, and the article has been improved since then thanks to a very helpful peer review. English sources have been used where available, but the best research on Levski's life is undisputably the work of Bulgarian historians, and so most of the references are in Bulgarian. Todor→Bozhinov 08:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. (Example ... New York Review of Books)
  • Current ref 64 (Vassil Levski...) is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 68 (national sports...) is lacking a publisher
  • What makes http://www.bulgariasportbase.com/?magic=0.0.0.2 a reliable source?
  • What makes http://www.kirildouhalov.net/ a reliable source?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed your points. http://www.bulgariasportbase.com is the website of the state-owned company that maintains the Vasil Levski National Stadium, so it's pretty reliable with relation to that. http://www.kirildouhalov.net/ was used to cite a commonly known fact, but I've changed the footnote nevertheless, to a photo of the banknote. Thanks, Todor→Bozhinov 10:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was a pretty good suggestion, I have to say. I found out I've linked a bit too many common words. I've removed those wikilinks, but I've retained links to some common terms like democracy, republic, ode, political corruption or middle class because I believe they would be of use to the reader. Todor→Bozhinov 12:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comments -- Errors found using WP:REFTOOLS.

  • <ref>"[http://www.aba.government.bg/levski/VL_snimki.htm Външен вид]", ''170 години''.</ref> | Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>"[http://www.aba.government.bg/levski/VL_avtob.htm Автобиография]", ''170 години''.</ref> | Does not use a citation template
  • <ref name="bio">"[http://www.aba.government.bg/levski/VL_bio.htm Живот и дело]", ''170 години''.</ref> | Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>"[http://www.aba.government.bg/levski/VL_Arabakonak.htm Обирът при Арабаконак. Процесът над Левски]". ''170 години''.</ref> | Does not use a citation template
  • <ref name="idei">"[http://www.aba.government.bg/levski/VL_idei.htm Идеи за свободна България]", ''170 години''.</ref> | Does not use a citation template--TRUCO 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there is no requirement to use citation templates. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The best biography of Levski I have ever read (having read a lot about him). Hesitating whether refs/citations should be translated in English as English people usually balk at Cyrillic texts. Maybe this article is an exception because Levski is a Bulgarian national symbol/icon. In addition, the book of an English woman (well, maybe Scotch), Mercia MacDermott, deservingly features prominently in the article. --Lantonov (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now by karanacs. This was, overall, a very interesting article. I know nothing about Bulgarian history, and for the most part the article did a decent job of explaining the necessary background. I believe the text needs a good copyedit, however. Some examples and other issues:

  • I'm unclear from this sentence The ideologist and strategist of a revolutionary movement aimed at the Liberation of Bulgaria from Ottoman rule, Levski founded the Internal Revolutionary Organisation, a network of secret regional committees seeking to instigate a nationwide uprising. whether internal Revolutionary Organisation is the same as the revolutionary movement described in the first half of the sentence. I suspect this needs to be rewritten
  • Watch for redundant prose. For example, "It was ... that..." can usually be reworded to be much tighter prose.
  • Watch for repetitive wording (for example: "In emigration...an emigrant ...")
  • Quote in lead needs a citation in lead (even if cited in article body)
  • "leaving Vasil a half-orphan"...um, there really is no such thing.
  • Do we really need to know that Ivan Kunchev's family was traced back to the 17th-century? Is that important later? If not, I'd remove it
  • "a whole, Vasil Kunchev's family could be described as belonging to the newly-forming Bulgarian middle class." -- could be described seems awfully wishy-washy. If they were middle class, just say so, otherwise, tell which scholar thinks they might haveb een
  • Don't wikilink names separately. I assumed "Archimandrite Basil" was the name of a person, but it isn't. The link to Basil needs to go away, and there should be a bit of explanation on what an Archimandrite is
  • Provide some context for the reader. Who is Panayot Hitov? A biographer, friend, etc? I had to check the link to figure it out. (same with the other names just dropped in to that paragraph)
  • There are several cases where the prose is a little too relaxed - for example "he got to know "
  • Any details on the "elaborate disguise" he had to use to avoid arrest?
  • Can you expand on "Levski's one-man judgment on important matters often came to be questioned"
  • The betrayal of Levski is a matter of heated dispute among Bulgarian historians and writers - to me, this implies that whether or not he was betrayed is the dispute; is that true or is it a question of who betrayed him? Maybe another sentence or two on the alternate theory would help
  • "was the killing of a servant in Lovech that the capital punishment was based on" - we haven't heard anything about this before....more detail?
  • "Levski developed a revolutionary theory, which meant a decisive step forward for the Bulgarian liberation movement" - this seems a bit...peacocky?

Karanacs (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

half orphan or half-orphan (plural half orphans) 1. A person, especially a child, with only one living parent. (see allwords.com, Wiktionary). --Lantonov (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed comment, Karanacs, you've brought up some good points. I'll be working on your suggestions tomorrow. All I can say right now is that it's really hard not to be peacocky when writing a biography of Levski. Also, it is unclear whether he was betrayed at all and by whom, so the dispute involves both points. I guess I should elaborate on that. Otherwise, I'm glad you think the article provides a good background for readers who are not familiar with the subject and its context. Todor→Bozhinov 18:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I believe I have addressed all issues you have pointed out above. I have added some information to all the parts which you thought should be expanded, but sometimes sources don't get much more detailed than what we already have. Also, I wouldn't like to elaborate too much on some peripheral matters such as the betrayal controversy, the killing of that servant or the dozens of anecdotal stories about Levski's disguise, so as to keep the article tightly focused on the important facts. Thanks again, Todor→Bozhinov 18:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been unable to contact Karanacs so she can check if I've really addressed all concerns and potentially change her vote. Any ideas about what I should do? Todor→Bozhinov 15:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like she hasn't edited in a few days, so I would give it a bit more time. I see that she asked for a copyedit, though, and these are representative issues. --Laser brain (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can be expected to know what the other issues are if I don't get any feedback :) This oppose vote may be very important and it currently all of the examples given by Karanacs have been fixed. I hope Karanacs responds soon because this vote seems to be vital for the nomination to succeed or fail, and this is all pretty important. Todor→Bozhinov 15:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for a delayed response - illness and computer issues prevented me from editing for a time. I see that Tony1 has also gone through the article and his prose objection is satisfied. I don't have adequate time right now to go through the article again, but I will strike my objection because the vast majority of the time I agree with Tony. Good luck, and thank you for your hard work. Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay: in fact, I feel a bit awkward for asking you to come back and review the article again. There are things that are more important in life than Wikipedia and that should be respected :) I deeply appreciate your trust and thank you. Todor→Bozhinov 21:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as follows:

  • File:Vasil Levski.jpg, File:Levski2.jpg, File:Levski3.jpg requires source, author, and date. At the minimum, a source must be given. The author and the date need not be a factor since Levski died in 1873, and Bulgaria's copyright law is 50 years p.m.a., which means that unless the photographer lived beyond 1946 (to account for URAA), which is unlikely, the photos are PD. However, we still need the source.

Other than that, the outdoor shots are okay; even though Bulgaria does not permit freedom of panorama, the creators of the buildings and monuments have died more than 50 years ago. Jappalang (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some sources for those images, although I can't be sure where exactly the images were taken from. I can possibly add some info about the photographers and the dates when I get back to Sofia, but given the public domain status of those works, I don't think it's really important. Thanks for the review, Todor→Bozhinov 18:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine, all images are okay. Jappalang (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say that I've researched the authors of the individual photographs and included them in the image descriptions, with the year and in some cases the date the photograph was taken. Todor→Bozhinov 14:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Neutral; certainly improved. Stilted language, not a nice read. 1a not satisfied.
  • "renowned as the national hero of Bulgaria and styled the Apostle of Freedom." Sounds like I'm at the hairdresser's. Who styled him? A group of followers, or was he "self-styled"; this statement looks stubby.
  • "a network of secret regional committees seeking to instigate a nationwide uprising, that Levski founded." I think you mean "... the network of secret regional committees Levski founded that sought to instigate a nationwide uprising."
  • "... to join both Bulgarian Legions and several other Bulgarian revolutionary groups." "Both" means two. Several means more than one. Doesn't add up.
  • We're told twice in the lead that his nickname was Levski. Why is the title his nickname rather than his real name?
  • "he proceeded to propagate his revolutionary ideas and developed the concept of his revolutionary organisation"—easier, and probably what you intended, to say "he proceeded to propagate his revolutionary ideas and develop the concept of his revolutionary organisation". That is, he proceeded to do two things.
  • "several" twice. Careful of this word—it's vague. How many tours? Don't you know? And there are more vague numerators in the lead, thick and fast: a number of; numerous. One or two may be OK, but ease up on them.
  • a wide network, probably.

And spot-checks after the lead:

  • and the political actions towards the formation of a separate Bulgarian state." Strange use of "the": do we know about them already?
  • "another girl called Maria was born to the family, but died as a child" --> "another sister, Maria, died as a child". Do we need to know this? Seems trivial.
  • "Vasil commenced his education at a school in Karlovo and learned to read and write; he also studied homespun tailoring as a local craftsman's servant." Boring. What else would you learn to do at school? And the two halves of the sentence are uncomfortably linked by the semicolon. "Also" needs shooting down.
  • "In Stara Zagora, he worked as Basil's servant and spent several years studying at the class school of that place." This is not English.

Serious copy-editing is required. I would withdraw the piece, edit, and resubmit when it's written properly. There's a problem in the control of the level of detail. Trivialities are admitted; obvious points are made, or made too much of. Tony (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the mentioned issues have been fixed... I think. The title is his nickname because this is the way he is known: not as Vasil Kunchev, but as Vasil Levski. I've been intentionally vague about the number of tours. Besides the 1868–1869 two tours that are clearly described, there was at least one more during the establishment of the organization. We don't know the exact number of monuments and institutions either, don't think anybody has counted those. I'll try to find a native speaker to copyedit the article. Todor→Bozhinov 07:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to Oppose: I agree that an article on Levski should largely be based on the works of Bulgarian historians. But then why are most of the citations to websites and not to history/biography books? To show the differences, take a look at an FA that relies on Finnish language sources. Notice in this article that nearly all the references are to books. I would have expected the same for this article. For this reason, I must lean toward oppose as this article may not comprehensively cover Vasil Levski (1b) and may not be factually accurate (1c). --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly doesn't rely mostly on websites for the biographic data. You were probably misled by the fact that the Commemoration section has about 30 of the the 83 references and it has been mostly referenced using online sources. All the references have been checked for their reliability, so I fail to see how the different way they have been published can influence your decision, really. Some of the online resources are books and articles by established publishers and this website, to which most online references in the Biography section point, is an official publication of the Bulgarian government. I am pretty convinced that my coverage of Levski matches the expected level and I'm confident in the accuracy of facts in the article. Todor→Bozhinov 07:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is right now the article reads like a hagiography. The cause may be the website sources that were used. I took a deeper look at the sources. Even if you exclude the Commemoration section, leaving only the biography sections, more than half the cites are to websites. Among the bibliography (which I thought were all books), Manova points to Radio Bulgaria (that one alone is cited 11 times) and there are a lot of cites to http://www.aba.government.bg/ which according to the English version is the site for the State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad. These are not sources that are known for their historical studies. When books were cited, Бакалов do not give page numbers, Стояновъ is from the 19th century, and Кондарев is from 1946. I would recommend largely using modern solid biographies by historians if they exist. This is especially important for someone who is a prominent hero of the nation. I am striking the Leaning to and changing to a full oppose. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bakalov (Бакалов) is cited in the CD edition, which, understandably, does not have page numbers. There are no new biographies of Levski (that are not reprints of Undzhiev (Унджиев), Stoyanov (Стоянов) or Strashimirov (Страшимиров)). Levski has been dead sinde 1873, which means that pretty much all the data about his life has been available since then. The sources that I've used are the most comprehensive and accurate biographies of Levski. I don't see why Radio Bulgaria and the State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad, a ministry-level institution, cannot be considered reliable for basic facts. I really don't see the problem with online sources and how they can affect the quality of prose either.
I don't know how Finnish Civil War can be an FA with uncited paragraphs and sections (!?), one citation for huge blocks of text and short two-sentence paragraphs. There ought to be better examples to illustrate your point: I mean, the article you're asking me to compare to mine is worse referenced than this one... Todor→Bozhinov 09:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the point of the comparison. It was not to make a comparison of the two articles. It was to show an example of an FA that largely used scholarly, non-English sources; the Vasil Levski article does not. Instead, it relies largely on government websites that are not involved in the area of historical research. The article reads like a hagiography, possibly due to poor sources used. I would recommend to undertake new research in the library, revise or perhaps rewrite the article, and bring it back here. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't miss the point at all, I was just remarking that the article you used as an example is, overall, worse referenced than mine, and therefore an awful example. I still maintain that my referencing meets the required standards and there is nothing more to be researched. So far, I've seen nothing particular that can question the reliability of my sources. And I'm sorry, but "rewrite the article" doesn't just sound ridiculous, but almost disrespectful to the hours I've worked on this piece. As for the quality of prose, see below. Todor→Bozhinov 19:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, R.J. Crampton, an Oxford history professor whose focus is 20th century Bulgarian history, cites Mercia MacDermott's Levski biography (referenced in the article) as both "well-researched" and "hagiographic" (Here). Nevertheless, her biography is the most thorough English-language text on Levski to date. The article gives fair attention to Levski's misdeeds (see the paragraph on making Levski a saint) and also presents the current doubts surrounding the hagiographic myth that a colleague betrayed Levski to his persecutors, as Judas did to Jesus. After contributing to this article, I learned a lot about Levski (mainly from the sources) and would liken his historical treatment to that of George Washington. Researchers haven't scrounged up much dirt on either of them.—Raskovnik (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, I was not pinged to revisit this FAC; in any case, I remain opposed. You mention MacDermott, but it is not cited at all; in other words it does not look like it was used at all except for the transliteration definition. And as you mentioned, even that source is not one of the best. I see that new sources were recently added (e.g. Crampton) which is definitely an improvement. But if one eliminates the Commemoration section (which by itself is almost all cited to web sites), one is left with a biography section of which half is cited to websites. Since you mentioned George Washington, the analogy of this article in an American context is a biography on him in which a significant portion of the text is based on the websites of Americans Abroad organisation and Voice of America Radio as sources. That would not be accepted as FA as it violates 1c. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say MacDermott's bio isn't one of the best; in fact, I've noticed that bibliographic sections of Levski-related texts frequently cite the bio, making me wish I had access to it. I do, of course, respect your input and am now adding more sources (especially Crampton). I'm finding, however, that such texts lack precise dates found on the referenced websites, which makes me hesitant to dismiss or delete these online sources. In particular, the frequently cited Agency for Bulgarians Abroad online text is written by an assistant professor (Vania Racheva) in the history department at the most prestigious university in Bulgaria and includes sources. But to reiterate, I'm more than happy to keep researching additional sources.:)—Raskovnik (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I didn't ping you, but given that you were the latest opposer and you had been around just a day before the copyedit, I assumed you were following the nomination closely. In addition, your reason to oppose is not only the quality of prose, but also the perceived bad referencing (which I disagree with), so I though you wouldn't just change your opinion after a copyedit. Thanks for revisiting though :) Todor→Bozhinov 06:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I noticed that Raskovnik has doubled-up some of the cites with a second cite to a book. That definitely reduces the impact of those online sites. By the way, the appearance of online sites having additional useful information as compared to books is misleading. Online sites often use poor sources and add old anecdotal information that may not be accepted in an academic book or paper. If you could backup the remaining text that have cites only to the websites (Agency/Radio Bulgaria/Online news, examples: [5], [23], [29], [31], [51], [52], [57], [60], [61]) with additional cites to Undzhiev, Crampton, MacDermott, Jelavich, etc., then I will cross out my opposition. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will certainly try to meet your referencing standards, even though I disagree with your view that websites are, by default, inferior as sources. Particularly the State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad microsite devoted to Levski is a pretty credible and itself well-referenced resource. As Raskovnik pointed out, Vanya Racheva is an assistant professor of Bulgarian history at Sofia University. Not only that, but she's also a specialist in the Bulgarian National Revival, which is the period that covers Vasil Levski's life. She cites this online publication of hers in her resume along with her books and scholarly articles, meaning that she herself hands it no less importance.
I don't see why articles by established publishers such as Radio Bulgaria, The Sofia Echo (largest-circulation English-language paper in Bulgaria), Sega (a major national daily) or the Zemya archives (once a large-circulation weekly) should be snubbed either: a few days ago we had the Lazare Ponticelli article on the Main Page, which is a biography referenced using mostly online newspaper and news agency articles by reputed publishers. It employs hardly any offline resources for the entire article.
As I said, I promise I'll work on adding Undzhiev and MacDermott footnotes when I have the time (that is, Saturday/Sunday), it's just not possible for me right now to even lend the books once more, what's left to put them to any use. Todor→Bozhinov 10:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Racheva article may look credible, but the question is the publication process. If she wrote a scholarly book, she writes it knowing her peers will carefully examine her output. A website is only a short-term marketing exercise; the content may be solid, but how much confidence could we have in it? Did it get peer-reviewed? Did a government editor change it for marketing purposes? As for Ponticelli, the quality level of the sources depends on the field. For a biography on a contemporary person, news sources may be the best and perhaps only sources available. However, that's not the case for top historical figures. Most of the biographies on WP:FA on 19th century figures (and earlier) are sourced to books because they are our best sources. You will probably find very few, if any, cites to news or radio sites. Granted, that does makes the research work searching relevant literature much harder. But then you are writing about a national hero, not Britney Spears. :) --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the government could be involved in marketing, but I've added citations from another scholarly source, a chapter of a book written by Doyno Doynov, a professor and doctor of history and a Bulgarian National Revival specialist. I was unable to visit the library and lend Undzhiev and MacDermott this week, but I hope these new references will be of help. Todor→Bozhinov 09:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) The new source certainly helps, but I see that of the 12 new Doynov cites, only three provided additional support to a web-only citation. There are passages that are still sourced only to the websites of Bulgarians Abroad/Radio Bulgaria/online news. As I mentioned previously, for a biographical article of a prominent historical figure, these are not high-quality sources and thus they violate criterion 1c. I found the following:

  • to achieve what our French brothers have been seeking...
  • Turks, Jews or others—should enjoy equal rights.
  • his moustache was light brown and his eyes appeared hazel.
  • but was arrested in Zaječar and briefly imprisoned.
  • relations were maintained with the revolutionary diasporic community.
  • fake personal and committee names.
  • Levski's assistant Dimitar Obshti defied his orders
  • Obshti and the other perpetrators were soon arrested
  • inspired one of Levski's informal nicknames, The Deacon (Дякона, Dyakona).
  • Rakovski exclaimed, "This is a lion's jump!"
  • the principles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen,
  • the Russian vice-consul Nayden Gerov.
  • but those assumptions are based on uncertain data.
  • actualise his concept of an internal revolutionary network.
  • his views on the revolution had clearly matured.
  • tactical matters were increasingly questioned.
  • while attempting to extort money from a wealthy local.
  • liberation once Bulgaria was reestablished.
  • and did not tolerate corruption.

If these could be cited to Doynov or some other solid source, then I am willing to pull my oppose. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


UPDATE: The article has been copyedited by Raskovnik, a native speaker and a teacher of English (big thanks for that!). The people who voted oppose based on the quality of writing are more than welcome to review the article again. Todor→Bozhinov 19:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping all of the opposers for a revisit (they may not have the FAC page watchlisted). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Todor→Bozhinov 08:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony and Karen have amended their votes after the prose and referencing improvements by Raskovnik. Thanks, Sandy, for your patience with this nomination :) Todor→Bozhinov 21:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've economized the prose and rearranged sentences to streamline the article's flow and style; however, its structure and sections are already well-organized. No facts are missing (admittedly, I considered deleting some facts), and the historical background section succinctly covers the relevant Bulgarian resurgence during the Ottoman Empire's decay. The extensive references and citations contain quality research, and I've added additional academic English-language sources available through Google Books for non-Bulgarian speakers.—Raskovnik (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. EDIT: Struck, Steve T • C I'm leaning towards supporting, but there are a few points that may require clarification first:

  • Lead: "before emigrating to join the two Bulgarian Legions and other Bulgarian revolutionary groups." It's not clear to someone unfamiliar with the Bulgarian Legions that they were set up outside Bulgaria, rendering that "emigrating" somewhat confusing. Would "the two Bulgarian Legions in Serbia..." suffice?
  • First Bulgarian Legion and educational work: "After the legion's disbandment, Levski joined Ilyo Voyvoda's detachment at Kragujevac, but returned to Rakovski in Belgrade after discovering that its plans to invade Bulgaria had been all for naught." I'm not entirely sure what this is referring to. The "all for naught" is vague enough to mean anything from the simple disbandment of Voyvoda's detachment, to some kind of defeat.
  • Hitov's detachment and Second Bulgarian Legion: "In November 1866, Levski visited Rakovski in Iaşi. Concurrently, two revolutionary bands... had been inciting the Bulgarian diasporic community in Romania to invade Bulgaria." It seems odd to say "Concurrently... had been". The former suggests the incitement occurred at the same time as Levski's visit; the latter that it began before the visit, continuing throughout. If that is the case, you'll see that removing "Concurrently" retains the meaning while eliminating the ambiguity, as Levski's subsequent selection as Hitov's standard-bearer indicates the detatchments remained active.
  • Creation of the Internal Revolutionary Organisation: "The internal correspondence employed encryption, conventional signs, fake personal and committee names." I assume the intent is "fake personal names and fake committee names"? In which case, the sentence is ungrammatical and should say, "and fake personal and committee names." If the intent is otherwise (fake personnel?), then repair accordingly.
  • Creation of the Internal Revolutionary Organisation: "Levski resorted to an elaborate disguise to evade arrest during his travels. For example, he is known to have dyed his hair and to have worn a variety of national costumes." This doesn't seem a particularly elaborate example, though the wording suggests he was some kind of master of disguise. Would the sentence lose anything by getting rid of that "elaborate" ("Levski resorted to disguises to evade arrest...")?
  • Creation of the Internal Revolutionary Organisation: "The political and organisational experience that Levski amassed is evident in his correspondence dating from 1871–1872;" in this instance, "from" and "to" are complementary and should be spelled out (i.e. "dating from 1871 to 1872).
  • Commemoration: some overlinking in this section. Museum, and perhaps some of the more well-known place names (e.g. United States).
  • Throughout: a mix of national varieties of English are used, e.g. organisation/organization. A good way to spot further examples is to open an edit window within a browser that checks spelling as you type, and in the options ensure the language is set to the variety required by the article. In Firefox, for example, this will then underline in red all instances where the wrong variety has been used (among other words it doesn't recognise, unfortunately).
  • Throughout: "autumn/winter/spring"—for southern hemisphere readers, these will be "spring/summer/autumn". Consider using spans of months where the information is available.
  • The prose is generally good, though it could probably use another pass by someone familiar with removing redundancies that serve only as bumps in the road of smooth reading. Note: there's no requirement to do this to get my vote of support; there are no particularly egregious examples.

Otherwise, nice work! On the sourcing issue, that several online sources are used is not a problem in my view. For example Vanya Racheva's tenure as an assistant professor of Bulgarian history at Sofia University should be more than enough to prove her a credible source. I don't buy the argument that online sources are inherently less reliable than print sources; Vanya Racheva's reputation is as much at stake—if not more so, considering the ease of access to her words—online as it is had she written a book. All the best, Steve T • C 14:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed comment! I think I have fixed all issues that you have pointed out but the last two (the redundancy check and the seasons thing). Quite often, my sources explicitly use seasons and this is often the only data we have available: if you feel this can be confusing for Southern Hemisphere people, we can add some kind of footnote explaining that it refers to Northern Hemisphere seasons. Todor→Bozhinov 15:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds an excellent idea; one footnote on the first instance should suffice. Steve T • C 16:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done :) Best, Todor→Bozhinov 16:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Support; my oppose has been struck after TodorBozhinov's speedy and characteristically gracious responses. It was a pleasure to review the article. Good luck, Steve T • C 16:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, I don't find anything I can complain about, except one of my pet issues below. I hope you can resolve the sourcing issue above—I regret that I don't know nearly enough to weigh in on the topic. Good work.
    • "This later inspired one of Levski's informal nicknames ..." Avoid beginning sentences with the ambiguous "this" in reference to something prior. This what?
--Laser brain (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: for a national hero, you usually have a dictionary entry. Any chance of getting an audio pronunciation of his name in Bulgarian? Ottre 23:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OPPPOSE not enough references and too many in not English. An article of this length should have more references. 141.161.92.138 (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The IP was blocked for disruptive editing. This oppose can be discounted. -MBK004 04:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to the committees after Levski's death? Why? See page 11 of Dimitrov, Vesselin. (2001). Bulgaria: The Uneven Transition. Routledge. ISBN 0415267293. More at Jelavich & Jelavich (see below) p. 138. Also, Rumen Daskalov describs a "crisis" in the revolutionary movement after Levski's death... Daskalov, Rumen. (2004), The Making of a Nation in the Balkans: Historiography of the Bulgarian Revival. Central European University Press, ISBN 96392418300.
  • What on earth is a half-orphan?
  • Unless I missed something, the article gives only a very sketchy description of how extensive the networks were. How many cities? How many people? What was the geographic spread as measured in miles or kilometers? How many "region-wide revolutionary centres" were there? There are some good numbers on p. 89 of R. J. Crampton R. J. Crampton (2007). Bulgaria. Oxford University Press, ISBN 0198205147.
  • What the heck did all these committees do? Did they do anything substantial?
  • Did they have the support of all the Bulgarian people? Did some people oppose them? Why? Were other groups less radical (e.g. the Bulgarian Society, see page 117 of Kellogg, Frederick (1995). The Road to Romanian Independence. Purdue University Press. ISBN 1557530653).
  • Mmm. along those lines, looks like the lack of popular support may have been a major factor in the committees' lack of success, see approx. pp. 137ff of Jelavich, Charles & Jelavich, Barbara (1986) The Establishment of the Balkan National States, 1804-1920: A History of East Central Europe. University of Washington Press. ISBN 0295964138. See also more on lack of popular support, with brief explanation, on pp. 135-36 of Roudometof, Victor (2001). Nationalism, Globalization, and Orthodoxy: The Social Origins of Ethnic Conflict in the Balkans. Greenwood Publishing Group, ISBN 0313319499.
  • Again and again the sources indicate that levski's assistant gave up levski's name and details of the committes only because he was attempting to establish bona fides as a political captive. This is not mentioned in the article.
  • Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that this is an article about Levski, there is a separate article about the Internal Revolutionary Organisation which is supposed to provide more in-depth information about the network of committees, its members and its proceedings. In my view, the Vasil Levski article gives a more than adequate overview of IRO without getting overly engaged with what should be treated in a separate article. Vasil Levski is trying to be a featured article, not a featured topic.
A dictionary definition of "half-orphan" was already quoted, but since the word isn't known by most people as it seems, I've removed it.
If you are interested in more specific details about IRO's network of committees, Dimitar Obshti's confessions or even the entire history of the Bulgarian National Revival, please expand the relevant articles. But this is a biography of Levski and as such, it attempts to stay tightly on topic, while of course providing a useful but brief background. Todor→Bozhinov 12:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. It is about Levski, but shaves off context to the point where Levski and his movement float along in a vague cloud of glory. Opposable on 1c and 1b grounds.
  • Moreover, if his death caused a crisis in the revolutionary movement, that is very strictly relevant.Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That might be notable, and I will include it. I still strongly disagree with your first point and I'm very wary of turning this into a comprehensive "History of the revolutionary movements in 19th-century Bulgaria", but I will see what I can do to reach some kind of compromise: would including the data from Crampton be enough? You have to excuse me, but I hope you understand that I'm pretty exhausted of responding to new comments after a nomination that has taken over a month now. The article should have been promoted more than a week ago in my opinion... Todor→Bozhinov 13:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your weariness.
  • However, if you take that weariness and multiply it by 30 or so, and you have the weariness of the (conscientious) FAC reviewer.... Moreover, ummm, does the article stress the fact that one of Levski's major contributions relocating the revolution to places inside Bulgaria, rather than basing it in other countries? Not sure that point was hit clearly enough.
  • Moreover, if he struggled against a lack of public support, as it seems he did, then that too is strictly relevant...Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have stressed that point in the intro, although it was also made clear in the relevant section ("Revolutionary theory and ideas"). I have also inserted some brief info about committee membership, the lack of universal support for a revolution, and the crisis in the movement that Levski's death exacerbated. I don't believe there is any even remotely accurate data about the number of committees or even places, or the exact geographical spread of the network. I do think that the info about Levski's assistant Obshti belongs in the relevant biographical article, not here. Thanks for the suggestions and once again excuse me, but this really is pretty stressful :) I do hope the nomination comes to a successful end pretty soon :) Todor→Bozhinov 14:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 1b. Having just finished reading the sections which you have indicated are the ones that contain some discussion of the lack of public support for his movement (not a lack of support for independence; rather, a lack of support for his tactics etc.), I see absolutely no mention of it at all. Am I missing something completely? I also oppose the idea that that the precise nature of the committees' activites should be left undiscussed. The activities of the committees were the goals of Levsky's activities and the culmination of his most important work, and thus are directly relevant. I can accept putting most of the descriptive info about the makeup of the committees into a sepatrate article. I also oppose the lack of discussion of the fact that apparently Levski was alone in insisting that he Bulgarian revolution should not seek help from outside countries, while seeking such help was the main feature of other Bulgarian revolutionaries' plans. I also suggest that the fact that Levski wanted all the revolutionary committees to be based in Bulgaria (a related, but separate point) is not explored in relation to other methods advocated by other revolutionaries... To sum up, who was Levski? He was the one who wanted a revolution by Bulgarian people on Bulgarian soil, without seeking outside help. He was the one whose life's work was the actions of the committees... however, those actions are left undiscussed herein. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence that I inserted before is exactly about the lack of support for an armed revolution, though I have added another sentence about the lack of support for an independent struggle now, hope that helps. It's all in the first paragraph of "Revolutionary theory and ideas" now, I hope you can find it. Levski's idea to base all the committees in Bulgaria is already mentioned. I have also added a sentence about committee activities. If this is not enough, then please provide more feedback so I can address your comments more effectively.
P.S. I'm never going on FAC again, this nomination has been hell on Earth :) Todor→Bozhinov 13:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Todor, if this is your idea of hell....(?). This FAC has been a light, fluffy, sweet piece of angelfood cake. Some comments, some light criticism. I think there's one and only one Oppose (mine). No drama. No blood on the floor—not even a little tiny bit.Is it hell because the article was not Passed in under two weeks? Is that why it was hell? If so, then.... your idea of hell is an extremely gentle place. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is another oppose and the nomination won't be successful if it was to be ended now. Never mind the post scriptum, it's not directed at you or anybody. Let's just say that this FAC has been much too stressful to be worth it for me and leave it there. Also, a smiley was used so that you don't take it too seriously :D
So can you please comment on my recent updates (see article history to locate them easily) and reply as to whether this is a step in the right direction: I'm ready to address the concerns you have brought up as best as I can, but I need your feedback as well to eliminate those issues. Thanks, Todor→Bozhinov 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your high-quality contributions! Is there anything I can do to help you improve the article, particularly with regard to your own objections? Or have those been addressed effectively? Todor→Bozhinov 07:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are more references than actual text. It is not worth to be FA.-- MacedonianBoy  Oui? 19:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How am I supposed to address this concern? One has to note that the user has had a personal issue with me and my nationality. He has been blocked for abusing me in the past and such an ungrounded oppose smells like vendetta to me. I'm officially requesting that this oppose vote is not taken in consideration. Todor→Bozhinov 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an actionable issue (citations are GOOD) and under the FAC instructions will thus be disregarded. Don't worry about it, Todor. (An actionable request along these lines would be "the article does not adequately cover X topic".) Karanacs (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Karen. I was really worried about this. Guess I'll take a break from Wikipedia once this nom is over (or over the coming weekend for sure), I'm beginning to take this too seriously and I'm experiencing a fair amount of wikistress, which isn't healthy in any way ;) Todor→Bozhinov 20:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing with someone here, the article is too short and is not worth to be FA. That I have been blocked here do not mean that my vote is not counted. Is this civilized and democratic ency? Yes, it is, according to the rules everyone can edit here. I do not like this article, it is not good to be FA and that is it. There are much better articles that should be FA, but this one no. And spare us from sending false messages TB, my vote is equal as the rest votes.-- MacedonianBoy  Oui? 20:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do have as much right as anyone to enter comments; however, all reviewers are expected to limit their commentary to actionable requests. "I don't like it" and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aren't actionable comments - that means that there is nothing the nominator can do to "fix" the "problem". If you believe that content is missing from the article, you should provide concrete examples of topics that are missing or reliable, preferably scholarly sources that have not been consulted. It might be wise to look at some of the other FA nominations and see how the other reviewers make comments so that you can see what is expected of a reviewer. Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd like to say that Nico Ditch is over four times shorter and an FA. It's not about length, but comprehensiveness, as our criteria point out. Todor→Bozhinov 20:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Too short" is not an oppose rationale. If you believe that the article lacks coverage of a relevant detail, say so. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be nice if the article used {{harvnb}} {such as in the article on William Shakespeare) with the incline citations to make it easier to navigate through. 98.166.139.216 (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, but not required. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've introduced {{harvnb}}, but I can't get most of the links to work. Any troubleshooting suggestions? I'm not experienced with this template. Todor→Bozhinov 08:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the date= field to year= which seems to have fixed a lot of them. Some still aren't working; this may be an issue over the use of special characters (some that look the same may not be quite right). I'll take another look at it later, see if I can straighten it all out. Steve T • C 10:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I think the links that are currently broken may have something to do with the presence of more than one author for each publication. Does anybody know how the template should be formatted to link correctly to such references (Cornis-Pope & Neubauer 2004; Дойнов et al.; Jelavich & Jelavich)? Todor→Bozhinov 11:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using last2= and first2= instead of coauthors= should resolve the issue, though it will result in the names' being displayed as they are in this example (lastname, firstname; lastname, firstname). Steve T • C 11:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that got it fixed :) Thanks a lot, Steve! Todor→Bozhinov 11:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, with strong suggestion: Well, crippity cripes... I was trying to help you by tracking down as many of RelHistBuff's objections as I can, and improving them as much as possible. But then I hit what may be a very nasty wall. Bakalov (Бакалов) is cited 11 times by my count. I wish I didn't have to tell you this, but on page 355 of this source (email me for copy): [Mosely, Philip E. (1937). The Post-War Historiography of Modern Bulgaria. The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 348-366] I found: "The lives of all the leading revolutionaries have been re-written in Communist style by Bakalov; interesting in their stress on class conflict within the revolutionary movement, they are in no sense scholarly." I sorta suspect the Bakalov in our article is a revised edition of the earlier version(s) that Mosely demurs. If we were professionals, we would get right on this, tracking down the relevant info. We would care. Does Wikipedia care? I don't know. I am unable to answer that question. Anyhow, here's my strong suggestion: find someone with access to MacDermott's bio, and ask for help. You really do need to get rid of those questionable websites that RelHistBuff mentioned, and to be honest, I'd be willing to bet my neighbor's ox that you could find 90% of the relevant info in MacDermott. Finally, the article still needs work on 1b, at least by my standards... In particular, though, a lot of the info I would like to see explored (see my comments above) is on page 89 of Crampton. I'm withdrawing my Oppose, not 'cause I support, but I have no time. Good luck. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work and your suggestions! Just like I promised to RelHistBuff, I am totally willing to work on improving the referencing in the near future, and this I promise to you too. I have been planning to get MacDermott and Undzhiev (best scholarly bio of Levski in my opinion) from my university library, but unfortunately, that can happen in the middle of next week at the earliest, and I'll be able to devote significant time and resources to further research only towards the end of next week. I'm working full time and I do feel like I need a more or less complete wikibreak for the coming weekend. That coincides with a trip I've planned, so two birds with one stone, one might say.
I'm going to look for an original English-language edition of MacDermott, though I suspect my library might only have the Bulgarian translation. You never know, though.
I don't think we have anything to worry about Bakalov, though. I'm not aware of his work during the Communist period, but the source I'm using is a new publication by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and has been revised, if not rewritten. There is no Communist wording there. The guy is deputy rector of Sofia University, responsible for the university's research activities and one of Bulgaria's most prominent historians: he's certainly a credible source.
Is the journal really from 1937? Georgi Bakalov was born in 1943 and it seems weird that a 1937 would talk about Communist style in Bulgaria. Communism was taboo pre-1944 :)
You have my word that I'll work on the issues you've pointed out. Thanks again and all the best, Todor→Bozhinov 11:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case anybody was wondering, we've sorted out the Bakalov issue. Turns out there was another Georgi Bakalov who was a Marxist historian and journalist: Georgi Bakalov that I'm citing is a modern historian. Todor→Bozhinov 07:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wish I had the words to say this in a way that would not offend anyone, but I am not sure I do. I will just say what I think, and if everyone wants to ignore and/or revile me, they are welcome to do so. I have been reading and reading about Levski, and have come to a conclusion: This article is slipping through the cracks of Wikipedia, and is not receiving the focused attention it needs in order to be FA-quality. It does not, in its current form, present a coherent picture of who he was or what he did, or why, or why others did not do what he did, etc etc etc. I am not insulting its authors. Writing is difficult. It requires a great deal of thought. This article doesn't say why folks weren't trying to run the revolution from Bulgarian soil (they considered it too dangerous). It doesn't clearly state that Levski and Karavelov joined two organizations together, doesn't clearly say what his Levski's principal contributions were (what does "ideologised and strategised" mean?). It doesn't do several things that it should. For example, it doesn't tie key ideas together... But people want comments to be "actionable". But I am saying, there is no way (in my opinion) that this can be made FA-quality within the normal timeframe of a FAC. I can't give actionable comments aside from "large sections need to be rewritten for clarity, and checked for possible hagiographic tone". Rewriting those sections requires researching the topic thoroughly, until the editors understand it fully, in order to be able to explain it clearly. At least as far as I can see, and may everyone forgive me if I am wrong, no one in PR or FAC has yet done so. It would require a nontrivial amount of time and effort, and I cannot do it... The FAC and PR processes implicitly assume that the info presents the whole picture in a coherent form; they then check mainly for surface problems. The problems here are not surface ones. So perhaps my comments are not "actionable". That's up to Sandy and/or Raul and/or Karanacs to decide. If they are not, then forgive me. I cannot Oppose because everyone will want "actionable comments", and as I said, my only comment is "it is not coherent, and needs nontrivial rewriting". I'm sorry. Consider this a symbolic oppose, not an actionable one. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to Ling.Nut.Public's comment. My contention was that the sources used were weak (violating 1c). But what Ling.Nut.Public has exposed is that poor research results in gaps in coverage (violating 1b). Hence, even if one could "patch up" the 1c violation by doubling up cites, this is not enough. Therefore I would again reiterate that the editors undertake new research in the library, revise or perhaps rewrite the article, and bring it back to FAC. The FA standards are high, but with some more work this article should be able to meet those standards. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article looks much better now. Jingby (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sandy and Karen, I believe we've had a consensus in support for a while now. The only active oppose vote by RelHistBuff (bar MacedonianBoy's vote that we have agreed should not be considered) is not actionable in the sense that it is now based on the non-actionable comment by Ling.Nut.Public. I do not agree that the article has to be rewritten, and this seems to be a minority view compared to the seven supporting votes and the three oppose votes that have been struck. I cannot and will not rewrite the article: the current piece has gathered a significant majority in support and a rewrite or any major revisions may be irresponsible on my part. When an article is overwhelmingly regarded as being of FA quality, a rewrite is pretty much the most illogical thing one can do, and I won't take that risk in order to have a single oppose vote struck. Furthermore, that would be a major violation of criterion 1e: an article that has been thoroughly revised or rewritten is by no means stable.

Also, I firmly believe that my referencing meets criterion 1c. The criterion itself mentions nothing more than "high-quality reliable sources" and "a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature", and my sources certainly conform with this. Using book sources or certain authors (when all are reliable) is not a criterion.

I expected the nomination to take two weeks at best and it has been over five weeks now. This is nobody's fault, of course, what I mean is that I've been finding it increasingly difficult to respond to comments and votes, and I do believe we have a consensus that the article meets the FA criteria.

Thanks, Todor→Bozhinov 11:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point I made about going back to do the research and rewriting is only a suggestion for a solution. However, the problem still exists; that is to say, the violation of 1c. It is not acceptable to use Radio Bulgaria/Bulgarians Abroad/online news sites for the biography of a major national character when scholarly biographies exist. Raskovnik pointed out through a link to Crampton a nice little bibliography for Levski noting three biographies: MacDermott, Genshev, and Undjiev. The first two are not used at all. The last book is only cited twice. But instead online sites that are not specialised in history are heavily used throughout the article. This means the article is not "characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature" (the key word here is relevant). The whole point of "high-quality" sources was to avoid the use of weak sources such as websites and rely on scholarly sources (see Jackie Robinson FAC as it was an example used during the criterion discussion). Finally, one can see the impact of not using high-quality sources: 1b comprehensiveness problems as Ling.Nut.Public pointed out. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize you're vocally opposed to this being an FA and you'd really like to emphasize that, but I think we can get away with your oppose vote, no offence. We have already discussed the "weak sources" issue and we've reached a deadlock. Nothing is forcing me to use books if my online sources are also reliable, and nothing is forcing me to use any specific authors if the other publications I have cited meet the FA criteria. I have said that I will work on introducing more book sources at some point, but this is just because I'd like to make the article as good as possible. Please remember that it's just a minority opinion that the article violates 1c, it's your view, not a fact, and I cannot stress this any further.
There really is no point in repeating the same stuff over and over again, and my comment is explicitly addressed at Sandy and Karen anyway. Todor→Bozhinov 13:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to barge in; I haven't been following this discussion closely since I registered my support for the article's promotion, but just to restate a point I made above, I don't have a problem with your using online sources instead relying wholly on books; if the information they provide is the same, and the source is reliable, then I'm OK with that. I suppose the only concern is that the book sources will contain significant additional details that the shorter online articles do not. Am I right in believing that you have read these books? If so, can you say that—as per 1b—you've left no major aspect of Levski's life unexplored, that the books don't cover significant areas untouched by the online articles? If you can, then I'll be happy to let my support stand. All the best, Steve T • C 13:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do believe my article is comprehensive and covers criterion 1b. I have read Undzhiev and I used MacDermott in my research (though I didn't have the book with me while doing the actual writing, so as to include footnotes). I've also read the Doynov, Stoyanov, Bakalov, Kondarev and Castellan books in their entirety. I'm confident that my online sources have their facts straight and I do not think I have omitted any major facts. Todor→Bozhinov 14:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Good luck, Steve T • C 15:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm sorry to change my mind but my previous assessment was based on examination of the prose (or "surface" as Ling.Nut put it). I've spent a few days reviewing the concerns of Ling.Nut and RelHistBuff. I'm convinced now that either this has not been researched as well as it could be, or the right information didn't make it into the article. I think this should be archived now so the sources and the use of sources can be thoroughly vetted. Let's find an interested expert - why not contact a few academics in the field and have them provide a list of essential sources? Or better yet, have them review a working outline? --Laser brain (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given that Ling.Nut's comments are not actionable and RelHistBuff's oppose is based on those comments as well, I'm stuck with non-actionable comments and votes here. There's really nothing I can do and all these comments seem to lack any concrete basis in my opinion. I maintain that the article is well-written and well-researched and it meets all of our criteria. I'm not required to go beyond the criteria, am I? Or should I rethink my goals? FAC has really been a confusing and stressful process for me, it seems to be too much for my common sense and reasoning. Todor→Bozhinov 16:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but how can you assert that my opposition in unactionable? I even gave you sample actions that you could take in response to my opposition. If you choose not to take them and maintain your position that the article meets 1b and 1c, despite the objection of two reviewers I know to be very careful and conscientious commenters, then that is your choice. But, it doesn't mean it's unactionable. I surely understand your frustration! I am working on an article now that, once posted at FAC, has a fair chance of meeting opposition based on the sources I chose to use. I attempted to head it off by building consensus nearly a year in advance about the sources I planned to use. However, most FAC reviewers weren't part of that conversation. I also corresponded with 9 different recognized experts in the field to get their opinions on which sources should be used. Someone could still oppose it—I could disagree with them, but I certainly couldn't tell them their opposition in unactionable. --Laser brain (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I have misunderstood you, but it is unactionable in the sense that it is not actionable within the timeframe of a FAC. I cannot be expected to do all the research again, contact experts and rewrite the article for a few days, and that would be against consensus (and against the stability criterion!) anyway. Archiving a nomination that has a large majority of support votes is simply not a serious suggestion. That's what is causing my frustration. Todor→Bozhinov 16:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - thorough, well-documented, interesting. Much improved since nomination too. It seems unfair to call for "a few academics in the field" to review the article - we hold no other candidates to that standard, and the academic sources speak for themselves. - Biruitorul Talk 18:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1a. Complete rewrite required. I'm unhappy about the "actionable" business for a very simple reason: the whole thing needs to be rewritten, top to bottom. Sure, I could put up a couple examples of unclear English (such as "he propagated his views and developed the concept of his Bulgaria-based revolutionary organisation, an innovative idea that superseded the foreign-based detachment strategy of the past" or "Levski ideologised and strategised a revolutionary movement"), but then the nominators would want to throw a patch over those and call it "done." As I said before, this article takes a ton of information—much or even most of it important—and presents it in a manner that lacks coherence, lacks the kind of organization and clarity that permit the reader to easily grasp Levski's contribution to history... Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't go from violating 1a in your view to undisputably violating 1e. I won't rewrite a piece that I've spent months researching and several weeks writing because of vague comments I do not agree with. I think we really need to reconsider the way FAC works because it may continue to force prominent editors to leave the project. I can't take this nomination anymore: in my view, it should have been promoted long ago, but I couldn't care less if it's not promoted now, I just want it to be over. Todor→Bozhinov 06:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Todor, please. Please stop taking this personally, and please stop this "significant editors will quit" stuff. It's... immature, and it's a form of "office politics": I won't get my way, so me and my friends will raise a stink... Everything I'm saying is the same as what Tony said a while back. It's possible that Tony and I are both complete idiots. I grant that possibility. It's also possible that he and I are complete... jerks, to put it nicely. I grant that possibility as well. Can you at least consider the possibility, then, that we are neither idiots nor jerks, but are expressing opinions based on an unbiased view of the article? Please stop. Please... grow up. I'm sorry, I have to say it. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your opinion, so you might consider accepting mine. This is not a welcoming place, it puts off editors and it's an unpleasant experience, very much like a month-and-a-half-long rollercoaster ride after a hearty meal: I didn't sign up for this. Am I not entitled to an opinion as well? I'm not sure why you're involving Tony anyway, his comments were entirely different and the issues he pointed out have been long fixed. I haven't called you an idiot or a jerk and I'm not even sure why you're using such language to illustrate your point. Now archive this nomination, please, I just can't stand this. Todor→Bozhinov 08:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Please calm down. This is nothing. It is not a crisis. It is not even a major problem. It is not anything at all... Everyone in America is asleep now. No one will archive it until several hours from now. Moreover, archiving it now is... not a mature response by any means. But... well, whatever. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep, I am jerks and idiots in other respects, Todor, but here, all you need to do is to engage with our critiques. I reluctantly changed to "Neutral", so I wouldn't be thrilling myself over that. A few spot-checks:
    • "and began to actualise his concept of an internal revolutionary network"—"Actualise" sounds like Orwell 1984-speak. Can we be plain?
    • "Despite insufficient documentation of Levski's activities in 1870, it is known that he spent a year and a half establishing a wide network of secret committees in Bulgarian cities and villages." There is a ref. three lines later ... is this one of the "insufficient" clues to this claim? It "is known" among whom? The verification is having a bet both ways.
    • "The goal of the committees was to prepare for a coordinated uprising." Remove "for", unless the committees were preparing to fend off the uprising from another source. Tony (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should probably be noted that the nominator has indicated his desire to archive the FAC and has taken a Wikibreak. I agree with the archiving; the opposition to this article's promotion is probably too great to resolve within normal FAC timescales, but I hope Todor will reconsider about not renominating when he's back. Steve T • C 08:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure that this is actually a wikibreak. Todor indicated that he just wants to "relax". I propose that the FAC director or his delegates give the FAC a couple of days. If Todor remains inactive or if he insists on his calling for the nomination's archiving, then just do it. If he (hopefully) changes his mind, then IMO this nomination should start from scratch with a new entry, so as the reviewers to resume their comments, helping the nominator (to engage with their critique), the FAC director (to properly assess the situation), and the reviewers themselves current and future ones (to compare, assess, and further judge).
  • I think that, as it is now, this FA is impossible to follow. By the way, I am sorry to see that Wikipedians, either nominators or reviewers, declare furstrated wiki-breaks, just because of a FAC tension. But I can understand it, because I have also been in the past in similar stressful situations.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Todor has expressed an intent to take a several week wikibreak [31]. There is no point in leaving the nomination open while he is gone; Todor is free to bring it back when he returns. Karanacs (talk) 14:34, 3 April 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 Karanacs 14:25, 3 April 2009 [32].

Criticism of Tony Blair

Nominator(s): Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is an interesting topic and a thorough article. It is an important page as it deals with Iraq war, etc. It has been heavily worked on by many editors. It would be of great interest to anyone reading it.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose. Sorry, but this seems to need a total reworking. The lead is two sentences long; the article at no point even mentions who Blair is; the body text is just a laundry list of assorted complaints, some of which border on outright BLP violations ("Blair continues to be condemned internationally as a liar" and so on), with no apparent attempt made to provide evidence as to whether they're true or to put them into context; I count five "citation needed"s, and one is unacceptable on a controversial high-profile BLP like this; there are some glaringly dated statements ("As of August 2005 Blair had yet to collect the medal…" when five seconds on Google would have shown this is no longer the case, for example). Plus, this is your sole contribution to the entire article. Sorry to be harsh, but I'd strongly suggest withdrawing this nomination now. – iridescent 15:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per Iridescent and bad formatting of references. — R2 16:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article has existed since September 2006, when it was broken out from Tony Blair. A comparison of the article at creation to now shows what might be expected of an article that has had 130 total edits, no more than 10 by any single editor: this is not a comprehensive, cohesive article about significant criticisms, but rather a coatracky list of complaints. It is a little better cited than most, but that is saying very little; many of the sources do not meet WP:RS. Many of the assertions are blatantly NPOV in presentation. Undue weight is a problem throughout, beginning with the "Bush's poodle" comment in the lead. From a BLP standpoint, this is unacceptable on many fronts. Maralia (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Apparently prepared without any knowledge of or concern for FA criteria or for WP policy, this is about the worst featured candidate I've seen. A template for how not to do it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be too harsh, I'm sure the nom was made in good faith. Let's not scare him off. — R2 20:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

OK, I will withdraw the nomination. I agree the way in which it is written is not up to standard, it was really the content which I thought might be of more interest.217.43.238.206 (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Featured Articles are intended to represent the very best work on Wikipedia, not the most interesting..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 3 April 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 Raul654 20:07, 2 April 2009 [33].

Terri Schiavo case

This article went through several FAN's in 2005 but never made it. It has since been renamed from Terri Schiavo to shift the focus more towards the historic legal case, not the person, and the amount BLP-ish information has been reduced. The prose of the lead section back then suffered from a vagueness that has been overcome with the move away from BLP. The article has just had a terse but constructive peer review and the issues raised have been addressed. Please note that all FAN's and PR's were under the old name, but naturally, the ArticleHistory template on the talk page is comprehensive. The previous FAN is here.--Lagelspeil (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow,I remember when this happened, especially that the disconnection from life supported happened on my fourteenth birthday. I took a look at the article a few days ago coincidentally. I have some nitpicks on the inline sourcing:
    • concerned with cognition, perception, and awareness. - Need a source.
    • Electrolyte imbalance can be caused by losing fluids. Her medical chart contained a note that "she apparently has been trying to keep her weight down with dieting by herself, drinking liquids most of the time during the day and drinking about 10–15 glasses of iced tea." Iced tea is a mild diuretic; that is, it is a food that causes fluid loss. However, the low potassium could have been a spurious result caused by the intravascular administration of fluids during the attempt to resuscitate her. It is unclear whether she was bulimic. - Need a source.
    • Schiavo remained comatose for two and a half months. When she emerged from the coma, Schiavo regained a sleep-wake cycle, but did not exhibit repeatable and consistent awareness of herself or environment. While initially fed by means of a nasogastric feeding tube, she eventually received a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding tube—inserted through the abdominal wall. - Need a source.
    • where she received neurological testing and regular speech and occupational therapy until 1994. - Need a source?
    • Schiavo's husband trained and became a respiratory therapist and emergency room nurse. In 2004, he was hired as a nursing supervisor at the Pinellas County Jail in Florida. - need a source.
    • From 1998 to the end of 2002, the Schindlers were locked in a struggle in the courts, first to decide if Schiavo should be removed from life support and then the appeals by her parents to block this determination. This legal struggle received no significant publicity. This phase started with her husband's initial petition to have the feeding tube removed and involved four legal decisions of note. Michael did not directly make the ultimate decision about whether Terri should live or die: he petitioned the court, asking it to act as Terri's surrogate and determine what she would decide to do if she were able. The court determined that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. While Michael remained interested and visible in the proceedings, he had conceded control to the court and the Schindlers now faced the decision of the court. In many ways, the legal status at the end of these five years was the same as immediately after these initial court decisions, but up until the end of this time, the story had received little coverage in the media, and thus it was still a family affair. During this time, some legal discovery occurred as to Terri's medical situation, but, none of that new information had much bearing on the legal case since her PVS diagnosis was the decisive element. - need a source.
    • (2nd DCA) and came to be known by the court as Schiavo I in its later rulings. - Quick source needed.
    • care and treatment for Terri. The Schindlers further suggested that he was wasting the assets within the guardianship account by transferring Schiavo to Pinellas Park, Florida hospice "after it was clear that she was not 'terminal' within Medicare guidelines" for hospices. By this time, while still legally married to Terri Schiavo, Michael was in a relationship with Jodi Centonze, and had fathered their first child. Michael denied wrongdoing, stating that the Schindlers had actively encouraged him to "get on with his life" and date since 1991. Michael said he chose not to divorce his wife and relinquish guardianship because he wanted to ensure her final wishes (not to be kept alive in a PVS) were carried out. The court denied the motion to remove the guardian, allowing that the evidence was not sufficient and in some instances, not relevant. It set April 24, 2001 as the date on which the tube was to be removed. - needs sources.
    • "2.5 Schiavo III & IV: PVS diagnosis challenge" - needs sources in the entire section.
    • The Schindlers' other attorney, Pat Anderson, was concurrently challenging Michael Schiavo's right to be her guardian, and, on June 16, she made a petition for writ of Quo Warranto, a pleading that asks "by what right" someone acts in an official capacity. - Needs a source
    • It is contempt of Congress to prevent or discourage congressional witnesses from testifying. The purpose of the subpoenas was thus to postpone the feeding tube removal. - source?
    • Although Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Senator Rick Santorum, and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay brought the possibility of sanctioning Greer on charges of contempt of Congress, Congress did not attempt to enforce the subpoenas or take any action against Greer. - Source?
    • Sections 4.3, 5 and 6 need better inlines.
As a favor, I won't oppose you, I'll just leave them as comments, but I suggest you fix up the sourcing fast.HurricaneCraze32 :  Chat  April Fools! 10:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I have incorporated most of it into the article. I will attempt to make section 6 "Public opinion and activism" a bit more terse. It has always been a problem child for this article.--Lagelspeil (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, the prose is also very choppy due to the number of short short paragraphs. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 2 April 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.
  1. ^ a b c Yü (1986), 421.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/April_2009&oldid=283198482"