Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archive 5
withdrawn by nominator
Line 1: Line 1:
== May 2009 ==
== May 2009 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Panipat (1761)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Korean Air Lines Flight 007/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Korean Air Lines Flight 007/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Loihi Seamount/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Loihi Seamount/archive1}}

Revision as of 02:45, 13 May 2009

May 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 Dabomb87 02:45, 13 May 2009 [1].

Battle of Panipat (1761)

Nominator(s): Zak (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Battle of Panipat I am nominating this for featured article because it has the potential to become a featured article and deals with one of the major battles in the Indian sub continent Zak (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Object - large swathes of unsourced content. POV quotes headlining sections, some by poets not historians. A novel is cited as a source about ten times. Article should not be written with contractions. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. The nominators should save this off to their hard drive(s)... Can someone please tutor these folks in writing? I'm not joking or being sarcastic... Alas, I fear that one or more contributors may be less than fully adept at the task of citing/quoting. I fear this article may be rife with copyvio (?), as at least the bit about "an equal and dreadful concert" is lifted directly from The Fall of the Moghul Empire in Hindustan (Keene), and can be found repeatedly in Google Books... I didn't look for further examples, nor did I check the licensing issues. Perhaps someone else should.. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:00, 11 May 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 22:58, 9 May 2009 [2].

Korean Air Lines Flight 007

Nominator(s): Bert Schlossberg (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it is for the most part demonstrably as well as factually correct, and possessing good indicators for further research on the divergent understandings on the shootdown of KAL 007. The article exhibits very capable treatment that is non polarizing of a controversial and potentially explosive subjectBert Schlossberg (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments It seems the references need some cleaning up
Do references like 8 and 9 have page numbers?
I'm not sure if reference 5 is formatted correctly (pages, spaces, etc.) Could you look and see if it's written correctly?
Some refs like 13 and 15 use "pg". This should be changed for consistency with the rest of the article.
Some refs like 12 and 49 need periods and spaces in regard to the page numbers.
Reference 14 needs the regular template with more information.

I suggest you look at all references at the bottom of the page to make sure there is nothing that needs fixing. Or, if you want, I can point out all problems later. Mm40 (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, fix these 3 disambiguation links. Mm40 (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Per the MOS, titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
  • There are bare urls in the references that should be formatted with link titles.
  • There are books references in the footnotes without page numbers (including Sputnik, and Kleiner, there are many others)
  • Consistency on use of p. or p or pg etc.
  • Please alphabetize the references. right now the Journals and Online sources sections are out of alphabetical order, making it more difficult to find the sources from the footnotes.
  • Current 9 (Kilroy) is referring to an online database, which is currently listed in the books section? What makes this a reliable source?
  • http://www.planesafe.org/books/desiredtrack.shtml deadlinks
  • Current ref 27 (CBS' "60 Minutes" interview, Jan. 3, 1983) isn't given in the references that I can find.
  • Jean Kirkpatrick's Address to the United Nations". New York Times. 2983-09-07. pp. 15 Do you mean 1983 rather than 2983?
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Current ref 46 (Uriel Rosenthal...) needs a page number
  • 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
  • Current ref 72 (The Current Digest of the Soviet Press) I can't find any information on this source in the references
  • Current ref 124 (Associated press and a date) isn't helpful with finding the exact source, as the AP puts out a LOT of information per day
  • This book http://books.google.com/books?id=CcMeKQAACAAJ was originally published by http://www2.xlibris.com/, a slef publishing book company. What makes it reliable?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The links to the notes section should read "Note 1" not "Notes 1".
  • "departed for Seoul at 13:00 UTC (4:00 AM Alaska Time) on August 31, 1983." Give the actual Alaskan time first with the UTC in parentheses. Also, it is not consistent with UTC and GMT.
  • It's not standard to say (Photos of passengers[14]). There seems to be links to photos for other things, but they are in the notes. Also, that cite is a bare reference and needs to be in a template. Ref 61 and 117 also need to be formatted.
  • There is inconsistency in measurements. Sometimes it is kilometer (mi) and sometimes mile (km).
  • There is also inconsistency in date styles: 8 September 1983 vs. September 8, 1983. Pick one and use it throughout the article. There is mostly Month-Day, but there are a few Day-Month scattered in there.
  • Also check periods. You had UN and U.N. in the same sentence. U.S.S.R. vs. USSR.

Overall, this is a very excellent article! It was really informative and is well referenced. Reywas92Talk 21:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is there any better image than File:KAL007747-2.png to use as your lead image? This is a very strange image – what's with the bright circle around the nose, for example, or the fact that the white areas of the aircraft are shaded orange? – iridescent 15:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the other circles (less visible than the one on the nose) I'm guessing it's a lens flare effect. --Golbez (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an artist's rendition, not a photo. I don't know what the plume (?) in back of the plane is meant to be. It could be construed as a flame. If so, the orange tinted white of the aircraft may be meant to be the reflection of the flame. Just a note - ICAO analysis indicates that no wreckage presented as associated with KAL 007 shows burn marks. I'm for getting a better lead imageBert Schlossberg (talk) 10:16, 6 May 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 22:58, 9 May 2009 [3].

Loihi Seamount

Nominator(s): ResMar 21:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criterea. This article has undergone a MASSIVE overhual, from just 5k to 51k.[4] Me and Viriditas have been hitting it pretty hard, and the article underwent a formal Peer Review, although most of the improvement came through disscusion on the talk page. In addition Michael Devore did a comprehensive copyedit, and I think it's finally ready! ResMar 21:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I think. ResMar 01:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images look balanced. ResMar 15:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • There are 0 ref formatting errors, checked with WP:REFTOOLS.
  • There are 0 dead external links, checked with the links checker tool.
  • Fix the four disambiguation links, checked with the dab finder tool.
Fixed, except for the Loihi self-dir. I'll try to find it. ResMar 15:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the self-redirect. It was in the table in the 1996 event section. Oddly, the link sends you to the section that it's located in. —Kal (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references (such as SOEST)
Friends fixed this, according to the highlighter the only place where the abbr is used is in the sources.
Which is precisely where I asked for it to be fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree; the abbreviation is spelled out in the article...ResMar 17:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's an expert on volcanology, and the site has information on thousands of volcanoes, including lesser-known ones. The information is confirmable I'm sure. ResMar 15:22, 22 April 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 15:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I'll save ResMar some sweat with this one :).
[5]
Refers to site
"gives you some very good background information about volcanoes." I should think that about works? Ceranllama chat post 22:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concur with Mattisse here, the first one is from a travel section, and the second one is from a news release that merely says the site "monitors volcano activity". The third one is an opinion column. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys dislike the source, I can remove it. The existance of Nana Vents is confirmed by the other sites, I just need to find the depth elsewhere in order to remove Seach entirely. ResMar 15:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's gone now. ResMar 15:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition I made a table listing the vents. Note that earlier in the article it says "a new hydrothermic vent was found in 1996..." while the table lists five such vents. In reality, two (Ula, Maximilian) are diffuse vents (non hydrothermic apparently), and the other two are located within Pele's Pit. ResMar 16:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support - Coverage and organization is good but prose may have some issues. I'm not an expert in that area but will consider my support conditional to addressing any future comments / objects in that direction. If that does not happen, then consider this a support. --mav (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on-doesn't anyone wanna comment? This is going really excruciatingly slow... ResMar 23:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) As Mav requested, I'll look at the prose:

  • "In 1996, Lōʻihi was rocked by the first ever directly observed eruption of an active underwater " Can we find a better word than "rocked"? Delete the unnecessary "ever".
  • "most likely it will merge and coalesce with the other volcanoes making up the island of Hawaiʻi" "merge and coalesce"—are these not the same actions? "making up"-->that compose
  • "Unlike most Pacific volcanoes which form" "which"-->that
Actually, which is proper, because using "that" sugests that Loihi too formed on a plate rim. ResMar 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you make a mention of around when the volcano formed (in the lead)?
  • "and is monitored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United States Geological Survey for changes." Last two words are redundant IMO.
Someone fixed it, a believe, as I cannot find that line anymore. ResMar 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Mattisse has been doing some very helpful copy-editing. Also, could you not strike reviewers' comments, per FAC instructions ("nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors")? The reviewers decide when a comment is resolved, not the nominator. Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. It's just nice to have this nomination rolling again, after 2 weeds of threadbare activity. ResMar 00:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Hawaii Undersea Geological Observatory (HUGO) provided valuable real-time data of Lōʻihi from 1997 to 2002. Lōʻihi last erupted in 1996." "valuable"—is there such thing as "useless" real-time data?
Point taken. ResMar 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lōʻihi is a seamount (underwater volcano) located on the flank"
Um...I don't see your point. ResMar 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is the newest volcano in the massive Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain, created by the Hawaiʻi hotspot." For chronological purposes, I think it would make more
More what? ResMar 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant to delete that comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "northwest-southeast" En dash.
Can you be more descriptive? I'm not all that familair with the MOS's technical specifications, and I don't see the problem from the information given. ResMar 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I see now. Mataisse fixed it. ResMar 21:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with 200 m (660 ft) walls." What dimension are we referring to? Length? Width? Depth?
  • "western-most pit is the oldest, with the eastern pit being of a younger age and Pele's Pit being easily the youngest (having formed in 1996)" The noun + -ing construction is ungainly. Try "western-most pit is the oldest; the eastern pit is younger and Pele's Pit is the youngest (having formed in 1996)".
  • "Thick walls (about 20 m (66 ft))" Once again, ambiguity on what numbers are describing.

It's not bad, but needs polish. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - In the section "Microorganisms", do you need two pics plus a table? The section does not display correctly in my browser, as the table gets pushed under the pics into the text and sandwiched. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved table to bottom, into its own subsection. ResMar 21:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest using only one of the pix under "Microorganisms" as they duplicate each other a great deal, and the section still remains crowded even with the table moved into its own section. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, okay. I don't personally think so, but the image is not that important anyhow. ResMar 00:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might consider wikilinking to pit crater rather than volcanic crater, but I actually don't think it makes any difference. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ResMar 22:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a very interesting article presenting quite a complete picture of the topic. You have obviously done a a great deal of work. (I am confused that the article does not seem to be on the FAC list. But I don't always understand these things.) One detail, do you have page numbers for all the book references? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:43, 10 May 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 22:58, 9 May 2009 [6].

Dillo

Nominator(s): —Remember the dot (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There's not much to this topic, so the article is fairly short, however I believe it is well-written and meets the featured article criteria. —Remember the dot (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources from the project are mainly used to reference information about Dillo's features and development, which seems fine to me. Are there any specific sources that you'd like to see referenced instead? —Remember the dot (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with the subject matter, so I wouldn't have the first clue how to find something to source information. However, I don't need to be familiar with the subject matter to know that sourcing an article from information by the subject can be a concern. It'd be like writing a biography of Richard Nixon only using his autobiography, while it's possible to write something that way, it may not be the best method. Is there no substantial third-party coverage of this browser in reliable sources? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited the available third-party sources wherever appropriate, and have strived to avoid bias within the article. I think that's the best anyone can do. —Remember the dot (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at this, too, but I am unsure what should be cited to primary sources and what should not in this area. I'm sorry I can't help more. Awadewit (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - This article is clearly written, but I'm wondering if it can be expanded in a few areas.

  • The lead is not a summary of the article. Some of the history of the development of Dillo is presented in the lead and not repeated in the article. For example, the origin of Dillo is only presented in the lead.
    • The lead section is meant to be both a summary and an introduction, presenting background information that will not be repeated later in the article. Repeating the same information about Dillo's origin and goals one paragraph later would be redundant. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, according to WP:LEAD, that is exactly what the article is supposed to do: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only, as may certain quotations. This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body: in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text. Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them." Awadewit (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is what I see in the lead that is not repeated in the body:
        • Dillo's license, the GNU General Public License. This is also given in the infobox.
        • The year of Dillo's first release, its "birthday" if you will, again given in the infobox.
        • Dillo's "parent" Jorge Arellano Cid, once more given in the infobox, and referenced in the "Development" section as well.
        • Dillo's primary goal of democratization, referenced in the "Features" section but not repeated again at length.
      • Facts like these are ideal for an introduction but repeating them a paragraph or two later would be awkward. I do not feel that any of these statements constitute "hinting at startling facts without describing them." —Remember the dot (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The second paragraph of the lead reads this way "Chilean software engineer Jorge Arellano Cid conceived of the Dillo project in late 1999,[5] publishing the first version of Dillo in December of that year.[6] His primary goal in creating Dillo was to democratize access to information. Cid believed that no one should have to buy a new computer or pay for broadband in order to enjoy the web." The "Development" section then continues "Jorge Arellano Cid is still Dillo's lead developer today." - This origin story is only in the lead and the lead is not structured as a summary. There are different ways of reading Wikipedia articles - some people only read the lead and some people only read the article body and some people read both. We need to accommodate all of those styles. Writing a summary of such a short article may be awkward, but that is how our articles are structured. Awadewit (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I compared this article to Opera (web browser) and the "Features" section is much shorter. Can anything else on security and usability be added?
  • What is "in development" for Dillo? Could we have a "Future plans" section?

Thanks for your work on this article! Awadewit (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! —Remember the dot (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will be happy to support after the lead issue is resolved. Awadewit (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose from Cryptic C62. The article does not conform to WP:LEAD and presents some information in a non-encyclopedic way. Details:
    • "other aspects of web pages, such as scripting and styling, it ignores" Awkward sentence structure. Either start with "it ignores" or replace "it ignores" with something more substantial: "other aspects of web pages, such as scripting and styling, are ignored entirely.
    • "Jorge Arellano Cid is still Dillo's lead developer today." This is a bad way to start this section. I realize you mentioned that Cid was the lead programmer in the lead, but the lead is meant to summarize facts that are already presented elsewhere in the article. You should review WP:LEAD. This section should start from the beginning; the sentence in question drops the reader right into the middle.
    • This goes hand-in-hand with the previous comment, but the Development section should probably start with the programming paragraph and transition into the funding paragraph; this is a more logical sequence than the current one.
    • "Work toward supporting CSS started in 2002, but a stable version of Dillo that supports CSS has not yet been released." One-sentence paragraphs = bad. Also, why would a sentence about 2002 come after a paragraph about ~2008?
    • Again, the features section should include the relevant information presented in the lead.
    • "...and home page can be customized by editing a configuration file" Wikipedia is WP:NOT an instruction manual; details such as how to customize things are not necessary.
    • "For both privacy and performance reasons, the web cache and history are automatically deleted upon closing the program." This could be relevant information, depending on how you write about it. Suggested rewrite: "While most web browsers retain the web cache and history after the program is closed, Dillo automatically clears them to improve performance." or some such.
  • More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:23, 7 May 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 22:58, 9 May 2009 [7].

Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's road race

Nominator(s): Tone 16:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article basically follows the standard, set by Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's road race - a FA. The article has passed the GA review and I believe it meets the criteria for a FA now. Thank you for your consideration. Tone 16:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tech. Review
I fixed it by renaming one of them, and renaming all references to that reference. (If you know what I mean...) EdgeNavidad (talk)
Yeah I do ;)--Truco 19:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 11 (Henry Sanderson...) is lacking a publisher.
Fixed. --EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return.
I can't find what this refers to. Should we spell out BBC? The only links that look like abbreviations are AM (ABC Radio) and AOL, but these are the official names. --EdgeNavidad (talk)
I noticed the "OC Press office" publisher. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Together with all the other links to the official website, I changed the publisher to "The Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad", as that is the name the website gives copyright. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 22 (Mat Mackay...) is lacking a publisher.
Fixed. --EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • Current ref 27 (Staff and agencies...) is lacking a last access date.
Fixed. (it was in the template but without parameter, but I accessed the link and it still worked so I replaced today's date.) --EdgeNavidad (talk)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • "where Nicole Cook proved the strongest." Seems like something that would be found in a post-race news story and not an encyclopedic article.
Changed to "they were together until the sprint, won by Nicole Cooke."--EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • "By winning, Cooke earned the 200th gold medal for Great Britain , as well as the first medal for Britain at the 2008 Olympics." "as well as" → "and". Makes it less wordy.
Changed to "Cooke earned the 200th gold medal for Great Britain and the first medal for Britain at the 2008 Olympics." Even less wordy. --EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • Qualification: Move the full name of the UCI to its first use. That one stopped me cold for a second.
Done.--EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • "which was taken from the countries ranked 17 to 24th in reversed order". Replace 17 with 17th?
Done. Btw: is it "reverse order" or "reversed order"?--EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • "The maximum quota of the event was set 67 cyclists". Add "at" before the number.
Done.--EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • Course: "with the Badaling Pass gaining..." is a noun plus -ing sentence structure. To find out more about this hard-to-spot prose error, including how to fix it, please read this guide.

That's all I have time for now, but I'll take a look at the rest later. 204.210.154.189 (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has already been changed by someone else. --EdgeNavidad (talk)
That's my forgetful friend up there. :-) Giants2008 (17-14) 17:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few more prose issues I saw later in the article. Most of these are from the race section, where the most work is needed.
  • Cadel Evans could be linked in the third paragraph of Course.
Has been done. --EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • Race: Comma after Natalia Boyarskaya.
Check! --EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • A citation is sorely needed for the criticism of the course's marking.
I added citations, but they do not refer to other occasions where confusion arose. Perhaps this should be removed. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If sources can't be found for it, then it should probably be removed. Can't imagine that no one in the media would have mentioned it, though. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've limited the text in the article to the Boyarskaya incident, as I didn't see any references that talked about marking more generally. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The chase for Boyarskaya was led by Christine Thorburn, bringing Boyarskaya's lead down to 34 seconds...". To improve the flow of this sentence, try something like, "The chase for Boyarskaya was led by Christine Thorburn, who brought her lead down to 34 seconds...".
Check! --EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • "with 22 km caught Boyarskaya and formed a three rider breakaway." > "caught Boyarskaya with 22 km remaining and formed a three rider breakaway."
Has already been changed. --EdgeNavidad (talk)
Changed! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Question: In qualification, should it be "providing that these athletes qualified" or "provided that these athletes qualified"?

Comments - (I am one of the main contributors to his article, but I think I can still make comments here...)

  • In conditions: "Thunderstorms, resulting in persistently heavy rain and strong winds, resulted in" A different word should be chosen?
    Oops. Fixed. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 22:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In race: "The poor marking of the designated race course led to similar confusion on several other occasions and criticism after the fact." I guess a source should be given for this. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Partly solved, partly addressed in another comment.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


comment - The full classification of racers would be copyrighted property of the IOC, It either needs slimmed down or a fair use rationale Fasach Nua (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can the results be copyrighted? I seriously doubt this is an issue here. --Tone 20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To get this list an olympics games had to be organised, and I would say the organising of this event would not be devoid of all three of skill, labour and judgment. The site referenced gives the claim "Copyright The Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad" Fasach Nua (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This still does not convince me. I raised the question at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. --Tone 21:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From that discussion, it followed that the results are facts that can not be copyrighted. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Images should be alternated left and right per WP:MOS#Images Fasach Nua (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Tone 20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the previous form is better according to WP:ACCESS. I am fine with that as well. --Tone 20:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

query - The title name is very long and unwieldy, I assume this has come form the wikiproject MOS, but is there not a shorter alternative? Fasach Nua (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's long but this is the standard naming for Olympic articles. See Men's race also. --Tone 20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My school teacher would often ask if everyone jumped off a bridge would you jump as weel? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the case, this naming was agreed on in the project. The other possibility of the name would be Women's cycling road race at the 2008 Summer Olympics what is just the same. Any attempt to shorten it would create confusion. --Tone 21:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, consistency is key. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved concerns from Parutakupiu
  • Comments. First of all, thanks for bringing this article to this level. As a member of the Olympics WikiProject, I really appreciate your effort. Nonetheless, here is a rather long list of comments, arranged by section:
    • Lead section:
      • "It took place on 10 August 2008 at the Urban Road Cycling Course; 66 women from 33 countries competed." — the semicolon could be removed and the two parts joined with something like "... featuring 66 women from 33 countries."
      • You have Urban Road Cycling Course linked twice. Unlink the second instance or, even better, remove the first instance completely ("at the Urban Road Cycling Course"), since the venue details are given when the second instance appears.
      • "Cooke earned the 200th gold medal for Great Britain and the first medal for Britain at the 2008 Olympics." — This might shorten it a bit more: "Cooke earned Great Britain's first medal at the 2008 Olympics and 200th gold medal overall.".
      • Don't discriminate nations :P If you wikilink Spain (this could point to Spain at the 2008 Summer Olympics) in the third paragraph, link Sweden and Italy as well, in the second.
      • "... for the event" is unnecessary.
    • Qualification:
      • There is "17–24" and "17th to 24th". It would be good to show some consistency by picking one format.
      • "UCI-standing". Is the hyphen deliberate?
      • Redirect Sung Eun-Go to Gu Sun-Geun. What happened to Hae Ok-Jeong and Thatsani Wichana that, despite qualifying as is stated, do not appear on the results table nor are given as DNF-ers?
      • Mauritius only sent 12 competitors to Beijing, being this event one of the few they've entered. I think the country's name could be linked to Mauritius at the 2008 Summer Olympics. "South Africa" and "New Zealand" could take this train too.
      • That last paragraph with only two sentences (which can be perfectly merged) looks out of place.
    • Preview - conditions:
      • Here is the first instance of Marianne Vos, but it is only linked in the next sub-section.
      • "... high pollution in China Beijing." — Pollution is a problem per se. Also pollution in other regions of China were not important for this event.
      • I'd shift the temperatures note, between em-dashes, to the end of the sentence. Unlink the temperature units, as per WP:OVERLINK.
    • Preview - pre-race favourites:
      • "...adept at climbing..." — climbing experts?
      • Again, the last paragraph could be merged to the remaining text body.
    • Course:
      • This section is about the course, so there's no need to add the scheduled time here. Shift it to the "Race" section, instead.
      • Badaling appears linked only at the word's second instance.
      • Something wrong with {{convert}} because m=1,150 ft.
      • "The final 350 m (1,100 ft) of the race..." — race is already mentioned at the sentence's end.
      • There is a link for Chongwen; Changping is not linked in its first instance.
      • Why is Stuart O'Grady linked and Cadel Evans not?
      • "... request that security restrictions be eased for the time trial to follow, but this plea which was ignored"
    • Race:
      • The text can start with the scheduled time, taken from the "Course" section. Try to merge the first paragraph (less than two lines) with the remaining text.
      • "and subsequent criticism after the fact."
      • "bringing Boyarskaya's the lead". Avoid close repeated names.
      • Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 can be merged as they describe the race dynamics.
      • Link Tatiana Guderzo; both Cooke and Johansson are linked, anyway.
      • "...with 22 km (14 mi) caught Boyarskaya and formed a three rider breakaway." — Perhaps this would do better: "... and caught Boyarskaya with 22 km (14 mi) to go, forming a three rider breakaway."
      • "...with 200 m (660 ft) to go. She claimed, claiming the gold medal with a clear margin.
      • "...rainy weather conditions."
      • "...prior to before the race..."
    • Doping incident:
      • This section is filled with short sentences. Try to connect them more, somehow.
      • Abbreviate "International Cycling Union" to just UCI, already linked before.
      • Do not link words in quotes, as per WP:MOSQUOTE.
    • Final classification:
    • General:
      • Not one single time "Beijing" is wikilinked. As host city of the Olympics, I think it deserves it.
      • I guess it might be an Herculean task but... can't stubs be created to red-linked cyclists? At least for those that appear along the prose.
      • I find mixed formats for dates in references; either YYYY-MM-DD or DAY MONTH YYYY. I guess some consistency should be reached.
  • All in all, it's mostly little things that can be easily fixed. Hope to see this article at the level of (or better than) its "male" counterpart. Cheers. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All my comments have been addressed and this article feels to be FA standard. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I left a note in the middle of my comments above; was it missed? The nominator hasn't edited since April 24, which is slightly concerning to me. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I've addressed that note of yours now. I don't know why Tone hasn't edited recently, but I'm willing to pitch in and try to address any other issues. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am extremely busy these days so I don't have almost any time for WP... Thank you for fixing the issue, are there any more concerns that I've missed? --Tone 07:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Only some comments from Fasach Nua that appear solved to me. I contacted him/her some time ago to ask if he/she thinks these comments have been dealt with properly, but have received no answer sofar. I see no other open issues now, but I don't know what the FA-procedure is and how long we should wait for other comments. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • There is no source for the fact that the extra Chinese and Austrian spots were given away, and why.
      Added source showing that Chinese and Austrian spots went to South Africa and New Zealand. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably need a citation for "Other riders, such as Katherine Bates (who did not finish), prepared by wearing cooling vests before the race and stocked up on ice packs during it."
      Added source for that. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not entirely happy with the prose. I've done a ce on some of it, but I think the article needs another pass.
      I've taken another pass through the prose. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I'd switch the order of "pre-race favorites" and conditions, and I might do away with the subheadings, as each of those sections is pretty short.
      I agree. I've done it. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel like we are missing a few sentences of background. For example, this was the Xth time that the women's race was included. Are there any Olympics-over-Olympics comparisons for number of competitors or distance? How did the distance generally measure up to other women's road race events (longer, shorter, about the same)?
      I've added some of that background. It was 7th time the race was run, it was the longest to date (126 km to 119.7 km), and the number of qualified women was the same as the previous year, though the one dropout affected the actual competitors. I've had trouble finding anything that specifically does a longitudinal analysis, but did compare the distances and competitors from prior races and did cite references for those numbers. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      That is useful background, but some of it only appears in the lead. I've added a new first sentence to the QUalification section to tie it all together a bit better. Karanacs (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 5 May 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 22:58, 9 May 2009 [8].

    John Marshall Harlan II

    Nominator(s): Ruslik (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    The article was written by User:Lord Emsworth (who unfortunately has retired) a few years ago. My involvement with this article began, when I saved it at GAR. Later I added new sources and improved some parts of it. Now I am nominating the article for featured article because I think it is ready now. Ruslik (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tech. Review
    Fixed all. Ruslik (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments a fine article, and kudos to Ruslik for salvaging it. As an attorney, I figured I should review this:

    I'm a bit concerned about the name of the article. I see it was discussed in 2006 but nothing was done. Perhaps John Marshall Harlan (grandson)? To use II implies it was part of his name (a la MLK III) or else, I suppose, king! Now to substantive points.

    First, I find the fourth paragraph of the lede a little weak. The lede is to be a summary of what is to follow. It is not terribly significant to the article that Harlan's papers are at Princeton. The general rule I follow is that the first paragraph of the lede is an overall summary, the next two discuss the subject's life, the final his death and then somewhat of a valediction. Your mileage may vary, but I think more meat is needed there.

    Looking at the references, it is customary to give both the first page of the case and the page that you are relying on to give your point, and also the year. For example 500 U.S. 285, 312 (1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting). (that's an invention, just for an example). This article may be consulted by lawyers and judges, who would expect to see references in the form most useful and familiar to them.

    The section "Supreme Court career" concerns me. I understand that a lot of the material on his career there is contained under "jurisprudence", but cannot more be said about his time on the court? Have you consulted biographies of other justices, say Warren, Black, and Douglas, to see what is said about Harlan and his dealings with his colleagues? Two specific points, I see that he appeared before the Judiciary Committee. The article indicates that this was not unprecedented, yet it was Harlan's appearance who set the precedent? Perhaps a rephrase is in order. Also, the final paragraph reads like someone eulogizing Harlan. Is this a direct quote? If so, it should be attributed, and perhaps done as a blockquote.—This is part of a comment by Wehwalt (of 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]

    His civility is frequently mentioned in various reviews (in Dorsen, for instance). Here I tried to emphasize this fact. So it is me who is "eulogizing Harlan". Ruslik (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably best if you cited the various sentences, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Harlan is frequently referred to as John Marshall Harlan II. See for instance Supreme Court Historical Society. So, I think, the title of the article is OK. I also replaced the last sentence in the lead, with one about Rehnquist. Ruslik (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I copy-edited the lead and added page number as you suggested. Ruslik (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As to hearings before the committee. Before Harlan only some justices were questioned by Judiciary Committee (Stone in 1925, for instance), however it was not an established practice. Beginning with Harlan the committee questioned every candidate. Ruslik (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jurisprudence:

    Equal protection clause: "sided with the civil rights movement". Perhaps that could be rephrased. In each case, there are parties that justices either side with or don't, not movements.

    • "similar to his grandfather, the only dissenting justice in the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson case." Of course the latter is true, but did Grandpa vote that way in other civil rights cases, or is an extrapolation being drawn from Plessy? What does the source say?—This is part of a comment by Wehwalt (of 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
      I copy-edited the paragraphs. As to older Harlan, I agree that it may be difficult to compare him with his grandson—they lived in different epochs. Ruslik (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Due process clause:

    • The Supreme Court has sided with Harlan: I find phrasings like this, which occur several times in the article, unbearably fuzzy. Harlan wasn't a party. Perhaps "The Supreme Court has since adopted Harlan's approach ..." ?—This is part of a comment by Wehwalt (of 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
      Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Incorporation: The last paragraph has a very confused timeline. If I were to read it as a lay person, I would assume that before Warren got his mitts on the Constitution, the Supreme Court, led by Harlan, ruled that only fundamental rights were incorporated, and then Warren nefariously snuck in and wildly expanded the number of fundamental rights. (I'm exaggerating for effect). That, we know, is not the case. In addition, the first phrase is fuzzy, as I've indicated.—This is part of a comment by Wehwalt (of 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]

    First amendment:

    • "Justice Harlan concurred in many ... " do you mean he noted concurrences, or did he join in the majority opinion? Or did he do both? Same applies in "Criminal procedure"
    • "but felt that the guarantees of the First Amendment applied more stringently to the federal government than the states because of the federalism principle he believed implicit in the Constitution." Technically correct, I guess, but it may be lost on the layman. Can you rephrase and say what the practical effect of the principle applying more severely to the Feds than to the states would be?
    • "Harlan delivered the opinion of the court" Yes, Supreme Court opinions do say that, but unless Harlan actually read it from the bench (which does happen, though more often with dissents), I'd probably say "wrote".—This is part of a comment by Wehwalt (of 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
      Fixed. I rearranged this section to emphasize Harlan's belief that the federal obscenity statues were unconstitutional, while those of states were not. Ruslik (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Criminal procedure:

    • Can you consolidate the two references to Gideon?
    • Katz: You say his concurrence is "often cited", yet surely that is not verifiable by looking at the reference, which is the text of the Court's (and no doubt Harlan's) opinions in the United States Reports.—This is part of a comment by Wehwalt (of 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
      What do you mean by consolidate? I removed "often cited" . Ruslik (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean you mention Gideon, go on to mention another case, then come back to Gideon. It probably would read better if you were to bring the two mentions of Gideon together.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Voting rights:

    • Justice Harlan rejected the theory that the Constitution enshrined the so-called "one man, one vote" principle, or the principle that legislative districts must be roughly equal in population. Citation needed, only cites in section are directly to cases.—This is part of a comment by Wehwalt (of 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
      I added a reference to the lecture of Hickok. Ruslik (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retirement and death:

    Generally a fine article, and I look forward to supporting. It needs closer attention to legal fine points, and also a bit more about Harlan the person. There's very little about his personal life. I see he married and had one daughter, but for all the article tells me, his wife was dead by 1930 (I'm not sure if the daughter's name gives a married name or a middle name). Surely Warren, or Burger, or Nixon eulogized him when he died, and we can get something from that? I come away thinking I know more about Harlan the judge, but not Harlan the man.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    His personal life was not especially remarkable, and I do not have sources except Dorsan, which is a collection of anecdotes about Harlan. Ruslik (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose on criterion 3

    All image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    These issues should be relatively easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • For the first I found artist's name, but not date. For the second I found source, but no other information. Ruslik (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      We still have no information that suggests that the second image is in the PD. Have you checked to see if it is from the Library of Congress? I looked around a bit but could find no additional information myself. If nothing further can be found, this image will have to be removed from the article and deleted. Since Harlan died in 1971, photographs of him looking this old are likely to still be under copyright. Awadewit (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I checked the Library of Congress and found nothing. Well, I asked User:Postdlf (who uploaded it) for a clarification. Ruslik (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you find any PD pictures of the nine members of the Court from that era? Then you could crop it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I replaced the image with one from the Supreme Court collection. Ruslik (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the changes. I will read it again over the next couple of days and also pull the NY Times obit on Harlan and see where we are. How do we know his private life was unremarkable?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments -
    • Current ref 2 (Ariens...) is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
    • Current ref 9 (http://www.harlanfamily.org/book.htm) what makes this a reliable source? First, it's a self-published genealogy book (even professional genaologists don't trust family history books) and second it's a blurb on a family website adverstising the book!
    • Current ref 10 (Leitch..) needs page numbers
    • 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
    • What makes http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=447 a reliable source? Find a grave is user submitted.
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Ariens is "is a Professor at St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio, Texas." He is a publisher of this information.
    2. I got rid of ref 9 and replaced it with ref 10 (Princeton Companion).
    3. I do not know page numbers in the printed version of Princeton Companion, but I added a link to the web version.
    4. Findgrave is only used for illustrative purposes, i.e. to show readers Harlan's grave.
    5. I will fix newspapers titles.
    Ruslik (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On the findagrave, if it's only used as illustrative, it should go in the external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed a ref to 'Find a grave', but added a note to the previous ref stating that the photos can be found at 'Find a grave'. Ruslik (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the problem with Ariens? Ruslik (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's self published, so he needs to satisfy WP:SPS. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I eliminated Ariens. As to Princeton Companion, I can not find page number in the print edition. Ruslik (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So it has no page numbers? How many pages does it have? (i.e. is it a pamplet?) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not have this book so I do not know. Ruslik (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    559 pages, see [9]--Wehwalt (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (outdent) With that many pages, we really do need page numbers for WP:V Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're aware the link is directly to the Harlan entry in the electronic version of the book hosted at princeton.edu? 86.44.26.233 (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Wehwalt:

    Thanks for clearing up those issues. I'm still concerned about the lack of info as to Harlan the person in the article; we don't even know if his wife survived him (or survived very long). Have you consulted newspaper obits? They should not be hard to find. In addition, any info on whether Harlan helped decide any cases of note in his year on the 2nd Circuit? Also, I do not think it is necessary, and just take it as a suggestion, but an image of the nine justices at some part during Harlan's career would be good in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The New York Times did a fine article on him on his retirement, one of the "Man in the News" articles it used to do, on September 24, 1971, it is quite interesting. Did you know he represented Gene Tunney? And the Times did a long obit, four thousand words. I would find someone with access (I do not have time to help out, I am sorry) and get some of this info in the article. By the way, his wife did survive him and died in June 1972. But right now, I would have trouble supporting on comprehensiveness grounds.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I found found only two relatively interesting cases in which Harlan participated as a circuit judge (this and this). However I am not a lawyer and I do not know how important they are. Ruslik (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not cases that I have ever heard of before, but I have never done an espionage or treason case (few have). I don't think they are likely to be important.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just noticed that defendants in these cases have article in Wikipedia (see John David Provoo and Elizabeth_Gurley_Flynn). Ruslik (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to mention those, just to have something to say about his service on the Second Circuit. Please try to get access to those Times articles (another newspaper with the same amount to say about Harlan would be fine. This isn't so great, but at least it is free. Always run a Time Magazine search. They even have a little note in Time about his engagement and they did at least three feature articles on him ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I created a new section - 'Family life' and added some information into 'Supreme Court carrier' and 'Death' sections. I also added a paragraph into 'First Amendment' about his decision on Smith Act as both circuit judge and justice. Ruslik (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) It's better. Still would like to see more on the cases Harlan did as a private attorney. Please see if you can get those Times articles, the cost is not exorbinent if you can't find someone with a subscription.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I expanded this part. Ruslik (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is good. I'll probably try to add a bit myself as time permits. However, please take a close look at your expansion and clean up the typos. It is getting near the point that I think I can support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I find it simpler to simply add the needed material myself. I think the article minimally meets FA standards. It contains all the information it needs to. I'm not thrilled with the choppy prose, and it arguably could use a good copyedit, but it minimally meets the standards, and I think will be promoted once this process is done. Another couple of images, perhaps of the Warren Court or of Frankfurter wouldn't hurt, and if you are completely desperate, the court building will do.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your review and additional information that you added. Ruslik (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing more: please be sure that info in the lede can be found elsewhere in the article, and then you should not have refs in the lede unless there is a very good reason to.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments:
    1. Replaced.
    2. Linked.
    3. Fixed.
    4. I excluded John Gottlieb, because it would require several paragraphs to explain who he was, and unfortunately there is no article about him in Wikipedia.
    5. Linked.
    6. It was a misprint (in the cited source). Should be Root, Clark, Buckner & Howland—law firm.
    7. I linked Circuit Justice.
    Ruslik (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Jurisprudence section
    • Oppose 1a. The problems don't look to be many, but at the very least, this needs a good copy edit for consistency by a third party. For one, comma use to separate parenthetic expressions is all over the map (i.e. "Upon his return to the U.S. in 1923 Harlan worked ..." and "Later he served as ...", but then "Historically, Harlan's family had been ..."). Please get someone to polish it up. Wehwalt characterized it as a low-grade FA, but I'd say high-grade GA is more apt. --Laser brain (talk) 22:08, 4 May 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 15:20, 5 May 2009 [10].

    Stanford Memorial Church

    Nominator(s): Christine (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    I am nominating this for featured article because it fulfills all the criteria to become an FA. It is an accessible article (especially its "Architecture" and "Organs" sections) with an interesting story. As its main editor, the way "MemChu" drew me in was a surprise, and a great joy. Promoting this article would greatly serve the Wikipedia community, since there are relatively few FAs about architecture and even fewer about church buildings. MemChu is a beautiful, awe-inspiring church in a very unlikely location, Stanford University, so beautiful that it was hard to avoid the peacock terms, but I believe that we were successful. Thanks for the consideration. --Christine (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've done extensive research on MemChu, and this is the first I've heard of this. I would agree that the source you cite does read as you interpret it. Not even User:Erp, a Stanford student and/or alum, has brought this up, and she's been my main "researcher" for this article, filling in information and sources I've been unable to dig up. Until there's a source, there should be no mention of this, of course. --Christine (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current policy is only people with an affiliation to the University can be married there[11] (alum, full-time student, regular staff, current faculty, established member of the congregations (catholic or the main church) or child of these). Similar policy also applies to memorial services. Weddings also include mandatory pre-marital counseling. They are having a wedding faire this Saturday which is apparently driving them frantic. My guess is that the policy has always been similar (i.e., it was never solely students and alums) --Erp (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that is what the policy has always been; can it be somewhat clarified that only persons affiliated with Stanford can be married there? It reads as if anyone can "hire" MemChu, which is not the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've modified and added references to more specific info. I didn't go into specifics beyond affiliation in the article as that I suspect is too much detail (plus I suspect there is a bit of give, if a university trustee wants the wedding of his niece in MemChu, I suspect he gets his way).--Erp (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Images The stained glass gallery images should be cropped to remove the dark area of little interest. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess its the difference between what is acceptable and what is best practice Fasach Nua (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Multiple references contain the content "Harvey, p. 7" so a reference name should be used for all of them.
    • Um, according to the search I just did, all of these instances already have a ref name. Could you please list the instances for me, in case I've missed them? --Christine (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that references 6 and 40 need publishers.
    • I fixed #6, but #40 is giving me problems. The code lists the publisher (Stanford Historical Society), but for some reason it's not showing up in the text. Perhaps it's because it's a PDF document? Someone more knowledgeable about this needs to solve this problem, please. --Christine (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm wondering if you can find an author for ref 10.

    Support. Exhaustively researched, engagingly written, lovingly illustrated. Nice work on this one, Christine/Figureskatingfan! Scartol • Tok 21:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This "although" isn't working, and the "as a result" doesn't follow:
    • Although the Stanfords were religious, but not formally committed to any Christian denomination, they viewed "spiritual and moral values as essential to a young person's education and future citizenship".[1] As a result, Jane Stanford decreed, from the beginning of Stanford Memorial Church's history, that the church be non-denominational.

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not sure if it is proper etiquette to give an example of rewording on this page. Would "Although the Stanfords were religious and viewed "spiritual and moral values as essential to a young person's education and future citizenship", they were not formally committed to any Christian denomination.[1] As a result, Jane Stanford decreed, from the beginning of Stanford Memorial Church's history, that the church be non-denominational." work better? (I don't think we actually have in the article the 1966 revision to Founding Grant [which required petitioning the courts] that allowed denominational services such as Catholic or Jewish in MemChu and elsewhere on campus, I'll get the notes to Christine)Erp (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The article text needs close examination for following the structure and phrasing of sources too closely. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches; Awadewit might be able to review for this.) I saw quite a bit of this, just picking one example from the lead and one other:

    Source

    The church itself and much of the original campus was designed by 28 year old architect Charles A. Coolidge, a protege of Henry Hobson Richardson who had championed a Romanesque style with carved natural stone, massive columns, low rounded arch ways and red tiled roofs. The cruciform design (see the church plan) of the church (190 feet in length and 150 feed in width) incorporated an impressive clock and bell tower with an 80 foot spire.

    Article text

    Designed by architect Charles A. Coolidge, a protegé of Henry Hobson Richardson, the church has been called "the University's architectural crown jewel".[1]

    The building is Romanesque in style, with carved natural stone, massive columns, low rounded archways, red tiled roofs, and a cruciform design.

    Source

    The Stanfords, who were religious, but not committed to any denomination, decreed that the church was also to be non-denominational. Adopting such a philosophy, they felt, would permit the church to serve the broadest spiritual needs of the university community. The Stanfords also saw spiritual and moral values as essential to a young person's education and future citizenship.

    Text

    Although the Stanfords were religious, but not formally committed to any Christian denomination, they viewed "spiritual and moral values as essential to a young person's education and future citizenship".[1] As a result, Jane Stanford decreed, from the beginning of Stanford Memorial Church's history, that the church be non-denominational. She believed that adopting this philosophy would "serve the broadest spiritual needs of the university community".[1]

    Perhaps Awadewit will have a look. I also see that the sources add a sentence clarifying Leland Jr. vs. his father, founding of the University vs. MemChu; I think that one sentence would be helpful to readers unfamiliar with Stanford, who may confuse father and son. The article alludes to the death of the Stanfords' son without ever discussing it. The article could also benefit from some discussion of the placement of MemChu on campus in relation to the Quad. I'm also wondering why there is no picture of the interior of the church, other than the windows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sandy, I totally get what you're saying. The surprise for me is that you're the first one to say this kind of thing. I admit that when I'm unfamiliar with a topic, like architecture and organs, my writing tends to parallel the original source. Although how else can you say that Coolidge was a protegé of Richardson? And the list you mention: how differently can you describe the church's red tiled roofs? I know that I've read something somewhere about this, but not knowing enough about WP policies, I can't remember where. Do you think that there's plagiarism in this article? If so, that's pretty serious, and something needs to be done about it. That being said, Awadewit participated in this article's peer review, and she never said anything about it. We've all worked hard at making certain sections, like the above-mentioned Architecture and Organs sections, both accessible for readers new to the topics addressed and clear for experts. I believe we've made a good attempt and been successful. --Christine (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As per your suggestion, I added information about Leland Jr. in two places: in a note at the beginning of the article, in the "History" section, and again when he's mentioned regarding the stained glass window that honors him in the "Interior" section. I have also added the church's exact placement. Please understand, though, that I've never even been on campus, so it'd be great if one of you who has could make sure that the sentence sounds coherent. To answer your final question: the reason there are no images of the church's interior was that there are no free images available. The Hall book (which is a great little resource, btw) has images of the interior of the original church, though. Since it was published in 1917, it's public domain, so we could use them. (That's where I got the first image in the "History" section.) Do you suggest that we do that? --Christine (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you asked the church if they will release a current image of the interior? This is the kind of work that went into Ima Hogg and Museum of Bad Art, for example-- writing to them and asking for an image. Without it, the article doesn't do justice to the church. Also, anyone who was married there has one taken from the balcony. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All interior wedding photos have to be done by a professional photographer (Church policy so the ceremony isn't disrupted by random photos) and professionals tend to be very protective of the copyright on their pictures. I'll see what I can do through other means. So we want one general interior picture ideally perhaps taken from the organ loft looking towards the altar and one good picture of the Last Supper mosaic (the best mosaic in the church) behind the altar? --Erp (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Some discussion of the breadth and comprehensiveness of this article in relation to other articles like Beth Hamedrash Hagadol (Manhattan, New York), Congregation Beth Elohim (Brooklyn, New York), Netley Abbey, and St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery would be helpful. The article is about the building and the church; is the congregation/membership well enough covered, as well as construction details and architecture? The discussion of these, and the church interior, seems brief. For example, the many mosaics are mentioned but hardly discussed. What is the seating capacity? The destroyed apostles that used to be in front of the niches around the altar are mentioned, but the niches aren't discussed. There seems to be a focus on staff, mosaics and organs, but gaps in other content. There's very little discussion of the damage sustained in 1989, which was significant. I can find no mention of height; did I miss that? I'm concerned that this article relies too much on what is available from websites and hasn't been thoroughly researched via other sources. By looking at pictures of the interior of the church—missing from the article—one can understand how much architectural discussion seems missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm fairly certain that I can address your concerns here. Yes, you missed the height; it's in the Architecture > Layout section, the final sentence of the first paragraph. Regarding the congregation: this church is different than most because it doesn't have a traditional congregation; it's congregation is the student body of Stanford University. MemChu is part of the ministry of the Office for Religious Life, which serves the students, faculty, and staff. I'd bet if you asked any of the chaplains, like all college chaplains, they'd respond that their "congregation" is everyone affiliated with the school. One of the most exciting aspects of this article, I think, is its "Influence" section, which describes how the chaplains, especially Elton Trueblood, changed a strongly secular university that was antagonistic towards all things religious to an institution with one of the best religious studies programs in the US. That says a great deal about MemChu's "congregation" and its influence on the campus.
    • (the following is my observation) Actually the Sunday morning congregation does contain some people whose only affiliation is through the Sunday morning service (and who also use the chaplains as pastoral advisers); it is not exactly large (except for Easter or Christmas [though Ash Wednesday got a surprisingly large turnout [admittedly that might be in part because the Catholic congregation and the Pentecostals joined in]]). I would guess the Deans see several circles (some disjoint, some intersecting, and some subsets). (a) The regular Sunday morning congregation but no formal tally of who is in it (beyond the choir), (b) The Catholic congregation (who use MemChu, the CIRCLE, and the student union for services), (c) the other religious groups such as Chi Alpha or Hillel or the Islamic Society of Stanford (interesting bit on their history[12]) which mostly meet in the CIRCLE rooms (except Hillel which has its own house), (d) the greater Stanford community (usually gathered for Baccalaureate or at tragedies local, national, or international [there was one for the major Chinese earthquake last year which was well attended, Stanford has students from that region]). One question is whether this article should contain much info on the greater religious community at Stanford or concentrate only on the building? --Erp (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article you cite about the ISSU is interesting, but it says nothing about MemChu, which brings me to my opinion about your question, Erp. This article is about the building, not about the religious communities at Stanford. This article already mentions the church's importance to these groups, as it has influenced them. Perhaps there needs to be another article about the communities, and their histories. --Christine (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article isn't only about the building, art and architecture; there is extensive discussion of staff. Confusing; scope of the article is unclear. If it's only about the building, then more architectural depth is needed. If it's about the church, more breadth is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the "gaps in content": I respectfully disagree. The sources used range from websites (the Office of Religious Life, the Stanford Historical Society) to books to newspaper articles from the time periods it discusses. See, I've always thought that the way that you write a Wikipedia article is you gather all the reliable sources available and construct it from them. There are so many aspects and architectural details to the church; is it responsible to go into excruciating detail about everything? The mosaics are mentioned twice, in the "History" section and in the Architecture > Interior section. Hall lists each mosaic and what they depict; did you want to include that here? (BTW, he also lists all the windows and the inscriptions.) --Christine (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion, yes, a list of each mosaic is crucial. When writing about the Sistine Chapel, for example, it is imperative that each fresco be listed. The same goes for the its lesser cousin. :) If this information is available in RS, it should be included. We don't necessarily need to go into "excruciating detail", as you say, but listing the mosaics is not excessive detail - it is letting the reader who cannot go to the church what kind of art is in the building. Awadewit (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I'll go back to Hall and see what I can add from it. He spends a great deal of time discussing the history of mosaics and how they're made, though, which isn't appropriate for this article. --Christine (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should probably list all the windows also perhaps mosaics and windows by each section of the church (east nave, east transept, east balcony, ...); we might want to use a sandbox until we are happy. I assume we don't want to do all the quotes (though I note the article doesn't mention the quotes at all which it should do). --Erp (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Let's fix the paraphrasing problems that SandyGeorgia has raised above and I have provided more examples of at the FAC talk page. Awadewit (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • So it looks like we need to work on the paraphrasing problem and write up a list of the artwork in the church before we go farther. Perhaps we should close this nom, especially since both issues are major and will require some time. --Christine (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do think there are a number of major issues here. First, is the issue of following sources too closely. Second, the images are just not at FA quality (for example, the stained glass windows ... when the article includes sufficient architectural detail, much better images can be included in each section, and the gallery should be eliminated. An image of the interior of the church is needed, as well ... there is too much left out ... what about the "Faith" "Love" etc. mosaics on the outside? Free Flickr images are available.). Third, the article is simply not comprehensive; it is lacking in breadth and depth. Please compare to the other FAs that I linked earlier in the FAC, and note that these other FAs include comprehensive discussions of the building as well as the church. Fourth, there is a bit of trivia in the article that could be better presented, particularly with respect to staff. A list of every Dean could be better written into paragraphs as History. There are MANY free images available on Flickr; I think that someone who hasn't been on campus might have a hard time envisioning all that could be and should be written about MemChu (for example, location on campus in relation to the Quad, and there is still scanty detail on the 1989 earthquake damage and resulting repairs). This is a very fine start, and an excellent article, but it's not quite where it needs to be yet for FA quality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing that, Elc; in addition to the interiors you uploaded, there are many excellent images of architectural detail on Flickr. Some samples:
    I suspect that better images of the stained glass windows can be found, or the black should be cropped out of those we're using as suggested above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A suggestion: how about bringing in Ceoil (talk · contribs) and Giano (talk · contribs)? With a bit more work, this article can be truly fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are also multiple views of the Dome on Flickr that are superior to the one included in this article's gallery, which isn't really adding anything useful to the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Another question for Elcobbola or Awadewit: does copyright allow us to do this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion, yes. I don't think such a basic floorplan can be copyrighted. Awadewit (talk) 20:08, 3 May 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 15:20, 5 May 2009 [13].

    National Lampoon's Animal House

    Nominator(s): J.D. (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    I am nominating this for featured article because a lot of work has gone into improving this article. It is has achieved GA status and I think is ready for FA status. J.D. (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose per the following concerns:

    • Judging from the length of the article, two paragraphs in the lead section seems short. No way to expand? The section lacks production information and critical consensus as well.
    I have added production info and a bit about the critical reaction.--J.D. (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Plot" section is bloated at 800 words. This should not be a complicated film, so I foresee it at 500-600 words instead. We should just give the reader the broad strokes of the film to have context for the rest of the article body.
    I've trimmed it down some.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Characters" should be "Cast", especially if you're leading off with actors' names. Bold formatting should be removed; with bulleted items this closely clustered here, there is no need for this kind of emphasis.
    Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Animal House Deltas.jpg has no fair use rationale on its page and is too big to boot. Not seeing any established significance through critical commentary in the article, so it should be removed. A cast shot may seem significant, but if there is no critical commentary about the particular shot, the reality is that it is not.
    Removed.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Other significant characters" sounds like a poor section heading, and I doubt that everyone in this subsection had a role that would be considered "significant".
    Changed to Supporting characters as they are all fairly important to the film at certain points.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nix Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic from "Critical reception" since the film is too old for these websites to have made a contemporary assessment. Also, what was the critics' consensus of the film at the time? Was it as popular then as it is now?
    Zapped RT and Meta. And added a bit about how it was received back in the day with citation.--J.D. (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "TV series, sequel" is another poor section heading. Perhaps a term that can describe this kind of follow-up media instead.
    Changed to "Spin-offs" which seems more inclusive.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "DVD editions" is DVD-centric and neglects other home media... surely it was released on VHS and who knows what else. What about Blu-ray?
    Switched to "Home video" and added bit about being released on videodisc.--J.D. (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "Legacy", the AFI recognition information seems rather detached from the initial paragraph. Merge?
    Merged. Actually removed as that info is already included.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "See also" section is pretty sparse; no way to mention Meyerowitz in the article body at all? If not, I recommend pointing to "similar works" (see Allmovie for a few selections) so readers can explore them.
    Thanks for the suggestion. I added a few similar works.--J.D. (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "External links", is the MP3 interview relevant to the film? The description does not seem like it.
    Removed.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering that this was a pretty famous film, is there no serious academic coverage about it? There is no book of any sort being referenced for this article, which surprised me for a Featured Article candidate about a famous film.
    Well, there really isn't much out there that isn't directly tied into the film itself. Chris Miller's book is more of a memoir of his actual experiences as to what happened on the film itself. I think that because it is considered a low-brow, gross-out comedy, there isn't much academic study or attention brought to it outside of pop culture mags like Entertainment Weekly. The Biography Channel ran an excellent documentary on the film but it mostly recycles info. already sourced in this article.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Although at first I chuckled at the idea of "serious academic coverage" of Animal House, lo and behold, this book claims Animal house shaped a generation of films (that's well documented), but also comic actors, and to some extent, the youth of the 1980s. There's also an academic article in Journal of College Student Development called Cinematic College: "National Lampoon's Animal House" Teaches Theories of Student Development. And here, Chronicle of Higher Education ran an article called "Animal House" at 30: O Bluto, Where Art Thou?. So there's academic coverage of Animal House... who knew? I have no idea if it's notable but it's there. You might look into the Google Books/Scholar/JSTOR results though. --Chiliad22 (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! Who woulda thought? Thanks for tracking these down. I'll look into 'em.--J.D. (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    These are my major concerns, and there may be more, likely in regard to writing. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tech. Review
    Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for printed sources, surely some of these [14] would be helpful?
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.
    Some of those sources look like they might be OK but I know that Wired book, the biography about Belushi is pretty notorious and slammed by many people who knew him so I don't know if it's too reliable. heh!--J.D. (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 27 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 22:03, 2 May 2009 [15].

    Inauguration of Barack Obama

    Nominator(s): Aaron charles, Lwalt, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM),


    I am nominating this for featured article because at WP:PR we have addressed most of the FAC1 concerns.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tech. Review
    • The following refs are duplicated and appear in the ref section more than once, use a ref name instead, found using WP:REFTOOLS
    • {{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/17/national/inauguration09/main4729489.shtml?source=related_story|title=Obama Takes Train Ride To History: President-Elect Retraces Lincoln's Route From Philadelphia To Washington; Next Stop: Inauguration|accessdate=2009-03-05|date=2009-01-17|publisher=CBS Interactive Inc}}
    • {{cite news |first=Amy|last=Hamblin|title=The First-Ever Neighborhood Inaugural Ball |url=http://www.pic2009.org/blog/entry/the_first-ever_neigbhorhood_ball/|work=Presidential Inaugural Committee|date=2009-01-05 |accessdate=2009-03-28}}--Truco 23:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review - Before I check all of the images in this article, let's begin by removing some of them. This article is overillustrated. Please be more selective. Many sections are illustrated by two pictures when one would do. The "Ceremony" section, in particular, is poorly laid out. Awadewit (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I changed the position of images that were placed above the section and subsection headings to which they belong so that the images are positioned below their respective headings and "see also" links to other articles. According to guidelines in the Wikipedia MOS, "images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." Source: MOS:IMAGES#Images. →Lwalt ♦ talk 10:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    * I left messages for the person who filed the deletion request and the one who posted the audio file. This matter has been unresolved since January 2009, and it looks like the consensus is keep for now. But, I haven't heard anything back about resolving the deletion request, though. →Lwalt ♦ talk 07:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    Done Matter has been taken care of, and the analysis of the consensus for the audio file is Keep. Someone (administrator?) took care of this per my message on the Administrator's notice board at Commons. →Lwalt ♦ talk 18:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Look here. I found the page for the DoD photo on the DefenseLink site based on the photographer's name taken from the image page at Wikipedia. →Lwalt ♦ talk 22:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Image update I see that the images are changing in this article. Please let me know when they have stabilized and I will recheck all of them. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return. (I noticed NPR, but there may be others)
    It's an astrology blog. You know the drill, you need to show they have a reputation in third party circles (and NOT astrology circles) that they are factual, etc.
    O.K. I do not see any third party sources establishing his reputation in terms of publishing. However, do either of his offices as the president of the Association for Young Astrologers as well as the Research Directory of the National Council for Geocosmic Research serve as third party verification of his credibility?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, no. Surely the official website gives the exact time! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that a very grey area. I think it counts as a recognition by his peers that he is a credible expert. What official site has the times?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're talking astrology here. If you were trying to discuss the astrological aspects of the inauguartion, his abilities as an astrologist would be germane. Since you're using it to source bare facts, the fact that it's astrology is going to count against it. And the official site of the inauguartion is what I'm referring to. Surely there was an official schedule, etc? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tomorrow, I will spend some time reviewing how essential the content is and whether it can be substituted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would welcome some feedback from the other editors. I think it is possible we might be able to replace the first two uses of this source, but unlikely that we would be able to source the last two. I consider all four additive to the article. I have not yet found an alternative and will look tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All the timetables I am finding were the anticipated schedules and not what actually happened.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Timetable and chronology searches came up empty. However, there is hope. I have found live blogs by otherwise WP:RS such as this. This takes care of two fo the four times. I will search for more live blogs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 18:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have found some sources. Some are good and others are decent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 82 (Warren, lowery..) has a formatting glitch.
    • Current ref 93 (2009 gifts) is this lacking a link?
    • Current ref 155 (Watch Barack Obama's ...) is lacking a publisher
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    oppose File:Obama-Biden_Presidential_Inaugural_Committee_logo.png if excluded would not damage the readers understanding of the subject, hence fails wp:NFCC#8 and FAC#3 (if this logo was real I would be stunned if it wasnt the work of the US federal government) Fasach Nua (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is this file not PD? I thought that PIC work was PD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It has a fair use rationale, and a copyright-logo template on the image page. For what it's worth, I also believed it to be PD: The Presidential Inaugural Committee is organized by the US Congress Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, one of the US congressional committees which is a legislative sub-organization of the US Congress. As the Congress is part of the Federal government, first thoughts would be it is PD, but if you read the PIC website's Terms of service, it says everything is copyrighted. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think this article would be well served by a clarification of the distinction between the PIC and JCCIC (or USCJCIC). I will take a look tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. See posting on Talk page for the Obama inauguration article. →Lwalt ♦ talk 02:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This image has been removed from the article. Is that the consensus at this point? Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    oppose FA criteria #3 Fasach Nua (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I mistakenly thought that there were two OPPOSES. There should only be one in bold as it is confusing to other reviewers. Please unbold at least one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the image has been included in the article at this time. Could you explain what you think is insufficient about the fair use rationale? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Committee website [16] says "The entire Website is copyrighted...Please contact us directly for special copyright permissions." Would noted permission resolve the issue? Aaron charles (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sub-Headings. What is the difference in content under the sub-headings "Missteps in administering the oath" and "Missteps while administering the oath?" →Lwalt ♦ talk 22:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Nevermind. I took care of it by revising the section. →Lwalt ♦ talk 23:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment We still have one left side image under a level three header. However, It is in a short section where I am not sure what rearrangement to make to move it to the right.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Perhaps we need to mention in the Planning section the attempts of the event to be "green", as lofty a goal that is for such a big event.

    Thoughts? (I am looking for feedback) Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done
    • I am not sure that we need the pics of "Entertainers at the President Obama Home States Inaugural Ball" The pics of the Obama, Biden and their wives could suffice.

    Done.

      • Personally, I would have kept the Common picture because it is very sharp.
    Removing the picture of the entertainers is fine with me...no other entertainer (not to mention, Beyonce, who serenaded the Obamas) appear in the articles and including the picture here with the performers here seem to elevate them over other notable ones. →Lwalt ♦ talk 00:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would love to see a picture of Beyonce, but since we don't have one that does not mean you can not add another lesser performer.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the image of the parade route is better suited to the United States presidential inauguration article, since the parade followed the same route for previous inaugural parades. I did not find in the news coverage of the inauguration any mentioned changes in the usual route for the inaugural parade. My view is that a picture of the parade route is relevant to inaugural parades in general, not to a specific president, unless changes in the parade route occurred because of security concerns. →Lwalt ♦ talk 10:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's there for the viewing...click the third black and white photo in the first column of two on the left side under the red heading "Photo gallery." The image shows a diagram of the route on the "Parade Route & Stand Location Plan" featured in the photo, and the caption refers to a review of the 1961 parade route by Edward B. Foley, Maj. Gen. C.K. Gailey F. Joseph Donohue. This photo and the one posted in the Obama inauguration article would be ideal for contrast and more relevant for the United States presidential inauguration article. Although the planning sometimes changes as logistics become complex, the parade route seems to have remained static over time, with the route starting from the east side of the Capitol, traveling down Pennsylvania Avenue, NW DC, and ending at the White House, usually somewhere near the Old Executive Office Building on the 17th Street, NW side). →Lwalt ♦ talk 13:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look a little more closely. That one starts on a diagonal. I think it must have started on the West side of the Capital on Pennsylvania. Our year started with a northward jog from the east side of the Capitol. I think the image you are pointing to supports inclusion in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image review was completed this afternoon. However, I still support my earlier recommendation and the one offered by another editor about this issue. I'm only here as an encyclopedist to help the WP community elevate the quality of articles under principle of good faith, not to WP:WIN over degrees of a starting point. →Lwalt ♦ talk 00:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point is that in some years the inauguration has been on the east side of the Capitol and in some years it has been on the west side. This year, with it on the west side the parade route started on the east side. I doubt it always starts on the east side in years the inauguration is on that side. Thus, I believe the route differs from year to year although it always generally goes from the Capitol to the White House along Pennsylvania Avenue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have just noticed this removal, which came before my argument above. I have reverted it for the reason above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have linked to the map as "Further information". Could this be a compromise? Awadewit (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Compromise is not the issue. I have had at least a half dozen images I have created removed from the article and agree with almost all decisions and thus have not pressed any points. I disagree strongly with the removal of this particular image due to its encyclopedic content. The average reader would not look at the image and say "I already knew that was the route". Furthermore, as I explained above, the route almost surely has varied throughout the course of history in non-trivial ways although they all probably went up Pennsylvania. The map serves to teach the reader the general route (up Pennsylvania) and this particular one starting from the east side of the building. Do you think the average reader already knows the route or do you think the map has instructive value?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the map has enough value to be included in the article. The route of the parade is not that significant, especially since nothing important happened on the route that needs to be identified as happening at a specific place (an assassination attempt, for example). The reader does not gain any significant information from the map that is not already in the article, for example. Note also that in my version, the image is not totally removed - it is linked clearly for the reader to access, if they want to see the map. Awadewit (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a lot of value to a new map that I just included in the article. It presents the reader with information about several events in one map.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are good additions, but I continue to think that it is not vital to know precisely where the buildings are located in relation to each other (the purpose of a map). I think linking would be sufficient. Other thoughts on this? Awadewit (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree strongly. I think a picture is worth a thousand words. In addition numerous secondary sources include a map of the parade route, which should clue us in to the fact that it is something the reader wants to see.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that the map of locations be posted at the top of the "Planning" subsection as "further information", similar to how the parade route map is posted in its section. Let the reader choose to click or not. Aaron charles (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like odd placement to me. Many articles get tagged requesting maps. This should almost be in the infobox, IMO. The problem with linking the image is that it loses much of its value without a legend that would be in a WP:CAPTION. I don't see how we caption it without including it in the main article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering there is a "strong oppose" by Karanacs below, I suggest the editors work on addressing those issues and return to this one (which is only standing in the way of FAC because it is making the article unstable) at a later date. Awadewit (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey guys, read MOS:IMAGES. There are two competing rules that we seem to be bucking up against. One says: "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." and the other says. "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two." I keep moving the images to be in line with the second and you guys keep reverting to be in line with the first. I am going to make an attempt to be in line with both.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Both rules were likely suggested in the MOS guidelines to limit a sub-heading appearing as an orphan line in the printed document in cases where where a left-aligned image is placed on the first line of the first paragraph for that section. The only way to know how the printed article will be presented to the reader is to do a "Print Preview" of it in the browser (FYI - audio infoboxes are not included in the printed and preview versions of the article, and multi-images aligned side-by-side are instead aligned atop one another).
    One or both of the other rules (I say the second one) that handles placement of left-aligned images needs to be clarified by adding "where applicable" to the guideline - perhaps a suggestion to post as a comment on the Talk page for the MOS?
    I went back to move down the picture in the Luncheon section because the subheading was the last line on the page as previewed in portrait orientation within the browser as I looked at the article in preview from a reader's perspective. Now...how to handle orphan headings without images is another story.
    Also, I moved down the right-aligned image of the Obamas and Bidens to the paragraph starting with CIC Ball to allow the single line paragraph beginning with "The nine other official balls..." (13 words) to display as a full line across the page when the article is printed on paper or previewed within browser in "print format." This edit allows keeps with the same presentation of the single-line paragraph lead (18 words, counting each part of the date as a separate word) to the bulleted paragraph for the Obama Staff Ball. '→Lwalt ♦ talk 01:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong oppose by karanacs. This article still needs a great deal of work to meet the FAC criteria. I only read about 1/3 of the article closely, and I've listed examples of the issues below. In general, the prose needs significant work and the article needs to be better focused on its topic; there is too much trivia and other unnecessary information. Please note that in most cases fixing only the example I listed will not satisfy the underlying objection.

    • The table of contents is completely overwhelming (that is a violation of 2b). There are quite a few very small subsections that don't really need to be set off as their own section.
    Recommended breaking the international reaction section in a new article for this reason. See article Talk page. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm having trouble understanding the paragraph on bars in DC. If senators were concerned that extending the closing times was a safety issue, why was that legislation passed?
    Rewrote paragraph to address concerns. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I added back some color that got lopped off along the way to make it clear that the original legislation called for 5AM closing for liquore and twenty four hour food service.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image caption says that 1 million public invitations were issued. I don't see this info in the article, so it would need a citation in the image caption.
    • Might it be useful to have at least a sentence or two at the beginning of the article that has a bit of background about inaugurations in general? Perhaps define what an inauguration ceremony is, and for how long the US has done so, and perhaps when the election was?
    Not relevant to subject of article. Info would be more relevant, as discussed in general terms, in the article about United States presidential inauguration. A link to this article already existed at the time of your reading at the beginning of the Events section. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence doesn't make sense to me "Apart from its commitment, the committee did accept donations from individuals, who had active lobbying interests but were not classified as registered lobbyists"
    • To cover the projected shortfall, the mayor of the District of Columbia and the governors of Maryland and Virginia - we haven't been told that there will be a shortfall, just the estimates of how much they think they will need to spend.
    • Did Congress agree to pay DC, MD, and VA for their security costs? The article says they asked, but didn't say what happened.
    • Probably need a citation for Obama departed from Philadelphia on the Georgia 300, a vintage railroad car used by past presidents and the same one he used for touring Pennsylvania during his presidential primary campaign
    • lots of white space in Oath of office section, likely due to stacking of files.
    Fixed. 01:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • There is a lot of what is unnecessary informqation in the article. Some of this is essentially trivia. Some of this might not be considered trivia if it had more explanation. In other cases, the information is probably useful, but it does not really belong in this article. I feel as if the article content is not focused enough on the topic. For example:
      • Do we care that the inauguration schedule didn't use the full middle name? Unless we know (and can document) the reason why not, this seems very, very trivial to me.
    Yes. Obama made a deal of it, as widely reported in news reports. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Closing hours of bars in DC is worthy of mentioning here? That seems to have little bearing on the inauguration activities.
    Disagree. The planners over at the Senate made a media event of the move because of public safety and security planning for the inauguration. DC City Council reconsidered the temporary law to address these and other concerns. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think somewhere in the mix we lost the fact that the original plan was for 5A.M. closing for liquor and twenty four hour service for food. Without that detail, the complainant has a point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do we care that some of the tickets had silver borders? Since the article doesn't mention any other colors, I think we can leave out some of that specificity.
    A mention of the colors for the other tickets - orange, yellow, purple, blue, are mentioned in this section at the time of your reading. The silver tickets, in particular, were mostly issued by the U.S. Congress to the general public by lottery or on a first-come, first basis. This story became the subject of wide media coverage because of the unprecedented demand for them - not to mention that some in Congress were begging for more silver tickets to the reserved areas for the general public because of the demand. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do we really need to know how much was spent on GW Bush's second inauguration? I don't think that belongs in this article.
    For comparison and contrast, it does matter, given the widely-reported news that emphasized money raised and spent for this inauguration compared to the previous (and other) presidential inaugurations. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we aren't going to hear about the "special stories" of 16 of the 41 people, do we really even need to mention them?
      • Why so many details about the train ride? I think the core information that is important to understanding this section could be given in two relatively compact paragraphs.
      • I still don't understand why we need to know to the minute what time activities occured (and their duration) during the inauguration ceremony. Does anyone care about that now? Will anyone care in 5 years? (probably not) The only exception to this would be the fact that the oath finished after Obama officially assumed the presidency.
      • Do we need the transcript of the oath? The article has already spent several sentences explaining what happened, and we have the soundbyte in the article. It seems redundant to have the exact wording transcribed again.
      • The menu at the luncheon? That is sooo overly detailed.
    Disagree. Paragraph also places in context that the historical practice of basing the menu on foods from the states of the new President and Vice President. That, you know, changes from one President/Vice President to the next. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The prose is still not where it needs to be. The following are EXAMPLES ONLY.
      • Watch for redundant wording. EXAMPLES only "Relying on the inaugural theme, Obama marked the occasion of his inauguration" -> inaugural/inauguration twice very close together
      • Watch for overly wordy sentences. Example: "Relying on the inaugural theme, Obama marked the occasion of his inauguration and the anniversary year of Lincoln's 200th birthday[3] "to give Americans reassurance that today, as in Lincoln's time, the country would find its way through any crisis," both on the economic and foreign policy fronts.[13]"
    Revised sentence to address concerns. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Watch for agreement between various parts of a sentence. for example, this sentence Unlike political campaigns, an individual or company can contribute to an inaugural celebration without legal restrictions on the amount of the donation, is actually comparing "political campaigns" to "an individual or company" rather that to the inauguration celebration, which I don't think is the intent.
      • There needs to be a good comma audit. There are commas in some places where there should not be.
      • Watch for redundancy within paragraphs. In one sentence, we are told the total amount of money that DC, MD, and VA budget for security, then we are told in the next sentence how much two of the three named entities individually estimated. Why the duplication?
      • I don't like that the article occasionally refers to things as "notable". We shouldn't need to point out specifically that something is "notable"; we should instead strive to show that it is notable.
    Revised to address. Aaron charles (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Overlinking: march, poet, minister, etc.

    Karanacs (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As used in the article, the terms "march" (a piece of rhythmic music; "Hail to the Chief" is called a march), "marching band" (group of musicians and dancers on team that perform outdoors in events, such as parades) and "March on Washington" (a historical event where Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech) have distinct meanings. Each of these terms is linked only once in the article. Could you provide details on where exactly each of these terms are overlinked? →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean that the terms themselves are linked multiple times, but that it is unnecessary to link to many common terms. If you think march is necessary to differentiate between the different ways that word is used, fine, but there are a lot of other words that shouldn't be linked at all. Karanacs (talk)
    Note about trivia: I noticed in the comments given above that one of the reasons for including things is that it got covered in the press. The press covered many pieces of the inauguration in excruciating detail. That level of detail is not necessary to an encyclopedia coverage of the event. We should be taking the whole of the press coverage and distilling out the most important pieces and leaving behind the excess detail. (As an example, after expanding Battle of the Alamo from my sources, I trimmed about 1/3 of the article out - some to subarticles/other articles, and some info completely left out - because the detail got in the way of seeing the big picture. This article could benefit from a similar large-scale cut.) Karanacs (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK...here's what I think:
    • Delink common, words typically used in an everyday context (cello, violin, manure, and so on). However, two editors had a debate on the merits of linking/delinking links in the caption (looks cleaner without most of the linking, though). That concern must be addressed.
    • I definitely think that the international response section should be in a new article. This section is becoming rather long in terms of the weight the section adds to the article. The title that I had in mind (International reaction to Obama inauguration) redirects to this article. Apparently, someone else likely had the same idea, but may have been vetoed in some discussion that I'm not privy to.
    • Since the transcript of the oath flub has been documented elsewhere, only links to the sources are sufficient. The article already covers the missteps in administering and reciting the oath.
    • The image of the parade is not germane to the subject of the article; therefore, the parade image should be moved to an article for the U.S. presidential inauguration.
    Have more to cover and tighten up, but will be back at another time to do that. →Lwalt ♦ talk 22:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments I will start by listing concerns, as it ia a long article with a lot of research (kudos on that). I only have a short amount of time right now, so I will come back to this a couple of times, most likely:

    • "and an inaugural prayer service that featured religious diversity." Surely that is an odd phrasing. A prayer service no doubt features prayer, or devotion to God, or some such. Perhaps "conducted by clergy from several religious denominations"?
    • "which led to a retake on the day after the inauguration." Why be so wordy? What's wrong with "which led to a retake the following day."? And isn't retake a little informal? Why not "Due to the variance, the oath was readministered to President Obama the following day."?
    • "In contrast to a larger than usual celebrity attendance at official and unofficial ceremonies, the Presidential Inaugural Committee increased its outreach to the public to encourage greater participation in inaugural events by ordinary citizens compared to those of the recent past." Problem here. The contrast is between a large celebrity attendance and the PIC's outreach. Maybe start the sentence with the PIC's efforts, then mention the celebrities last? Continuing the Lincoln theme, to evoke a phrase attributed to Lincoln, (though he never actually said it, though Nixon alleged he did in the Checkers speech), God must have loved the common people, he made so many of them. Put them first. I think the paragraph will flow more easily as a result.
    • Also, just looking at the article, the constant drumbeat of repetition of "Obama" is a problem. I tend to do the same thing, actually, constantly repeating a given name, and have to go back and spice it up later. Suggest eliminating about one in three usages of the name "Obama" to refer to the Prez and substitute "he" or "the President-elect" or "the President" or even "President Obama".

    Anyhow, I'll be on later. A hasty read shows it to be very comprehensive, and kudos for bringing it up on such a timely manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose. Although the quality of the content is very good, the sum of its parts are not. The most concrete example of my objections is the ten inline references in the lead, none of which appear to be justified by the spirit or the letter of WP:LEADCITE. This issue is symptomatic of a larger problem in that the article has evolved from a gush of news media coverage that gives no consideration to the historical value of particular facts. This has overwhelmed the article with opinion and commentary from every direction capable of turning news media heads without any explanation of why any such opinion is of relevance, especially encyclopedic relevance, to the event itself. I'm aghast at state of the lead section's final paragraph. Conservatives had reservations about the speech and liberals liked it? People in general liked the overall event? It's like ending the Forrest Gump article with "audiences generally felt warm inside after leaving the film". The peril of staving off a barrage of biased editing is that you can forget that articles are not written to pass judgement on "how good" something is. Sometimes things just happen and they get reported, and this article is hopelessly naive of this. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • More comments. Planning: Why is "a new birth of freedom" a particulary historic phrase? It certainly isn't the best remembered quote from the GettAddr. I'd strike the word historic.
    • I would come out and say why Lincoln is relevant to Obama. You assume people know.
    • "His middle name had caused some controversy during the election campaign when detractors tried to imply falsely that he was a Muslim". Well, don't know about the controversy. I'd say "During the election campaign, Senator Obama's detractors tried to use his middle name to falsely imply that he was a Muslim."
    • "scooping up manure from horses used in the parade to sell at a farm" The farm sold manure? Surely this is "to a farm"!
    • "Invitations and ball tickets for the inaugural events were produced using recycled paper, and recyclable and biodegradable products." I'm confused by the final phrase.
    • I agree the extended bar hours should be in the article, but I would delete the various proposals, and simply state the outcome. Slows down the read. Similarly, I would just say "extended Metro service was paid for by ..." and pipe "Metro service" or "Metro" to WMATA. This isn't the CTA, you know, people just call it Metro. Even the buses.
    • Invitations. I'd insert the words "ambassadors and other ..." before "chiefs" in the first sentence.
    • Fundraising: The first paragraph is ambiguous. It could be read to say that the 2009 committee was trying to raise less money than the 2005 committee; I don't think that is the case. I understand what you mean, unfortunately you don't say it clearly. Easily fixed though.
    • "To underscore its commitment to change business as usual" A little POV there. Probably non-members of the Obama nation would disagree.
    • "The federal government contributed a budget of about $49 million" Strike "a budget of". And does that include FEMA funds?
    • Lincoln's train trip: Philly to Washington was not whistle-stop for Lincoln, read the last paragraph of the reference, he was snuck through Baltimore. Perhaps make it Springfield to Washington whistle-stop, and rephrase the second sentence to eliminate the "Springfield to Washington", I believe that would be accurate.
    • More later. This is such a sprawling article that all I can do is a section at a time.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ledbetter: Obama signed legislation to overrule the SupCt decision very quickly in his presidency, might be worth a mention.
    • Biden: Worth mentioning that he was well known for commuting on Amtrak between Wilmington and Washington?
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither Obama nor Warren made references during the inaugural program to issues of direct concern to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community. Unsourced, and well, so what? And a bit of a laundry list. Can you consolidate?
    • Lowery used both humor and sincerity as he delivered the benediction, including messages of sincerity Too much sincerity. You might do better with a direct quote from coverage on the humor and sincerity anyway.
    • U.S. Congress for its approval. Senate.
    • Luncheon: Since you mention the attendance of former presidents and VPs, you might want to start the paragraph with "As former President and Mrs. Bush began their journey to their Texas home ..." to stress they did not attend.
    • "A luncheon at the U.S. Capitol has been part of the inaugural program since 1953 (before that time, the luncheon was usually held at the White House and hosted by the outgoing President and First Lady" OK, but the last time they had an outgoing President and First Lady before 1953 was 1933. What'd they do for the four intervening Inaugurations, which saw an incumbent taking the oath of office?
    • Parade: in the new armored limousine "the" would only be justified if the limo has been previously mentioned, which it hasn't. Perhaps a quick mention that it was new for 2009?
    • "Vice President Biden and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden" OK, by now we know who she is. I realize she's a pain to keep introducing because "Vice President and Dr. Biden" looks funny. I'd strike the words "his wife,", though.
    • "eight-time finalist " In what?
    • "Biden's alma mater, the University of Delaware Fightin' Blue Hens, known as The Pride of Delaware" He graduated from U of D, not from the Fightin' Blue Hens. I'd laugh more, but as I have a graduate degree from NYU, home of the (presumably Fightin') Violets, I'm not in a position to. I'd rephrase slightly so that alma mater clearly refers to U of D, not the Fightin' Blue Hens (I can't help it) or the Pride of Delaware.
    More later. Pass the cream glace, Senator Byrd.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    non free content - How wer the licences for File:Barack_Obama_inaugural_address.ogv File:Inaugural_invitation_2009.jpg and File:44_CongInvitation.jpg determined? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The tickets (silver one posted here) were issued by the Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies for admittance to reserved areas on the Capitol grounds for the swearing-in ceremony and distributed to the general public by members of Congress (this one was provided by Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). The Presidential Inaugural Committee and the U.S. Joint Congressional Committee for Inaugural Ceremonies issued invitations (pictured in the article) to constituents from the general public who received tickets to reserved areas at the Capitol. The video program of the inauguration has been released to the public through the website of the U.S. Joint Congressional Committee for Inaugural Ceremonies here. Only the relevant clips of the Obama swearing-in and inaugural address appear in this article. Therefore, these items were products of the U.S. congressional committee that planned the inauguration.
    About the video clip of the Obama swearing-in ceremony - This version may be the one released by the White House which contained title cards that mentioned it as the source (picture for video clip was once a featured picture candidate). →Lwalt ♦ talk 01:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments continued:
    • Barack's tuxedo. Borderline trivial.
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "breaking with tradition". Two First Ladies are not enough for tradition. How about "breaking with the recent practice of Hillary ..."
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "was also reserved". Lose the word "also". Also, the list of inaugural balls "included", past tense, unless some are still going on.
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Commander-in-Chief's Ball, National Building Museum, held only for the second time in history, " If the first time was 2005, then lose the words "in history". It's just a recent creation.
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On January 21, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. EST," Why is "EST" needed? And if it is, shouldn't it be linked?
    • "and his wife, Hillary Clinton, in the front pew" Give her her dignity. Either call her Secretary of State-designate, or say, *"who would be confirmed as Secretary of State later in the day"
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "who delivered inspirational scripture readings and prayers throughout the service" Who says they were inspirational? A little POV.
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "also drew in part passages" Huh?
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The featured sermon for the inaugural prayer service was delivered by Reverend Sharon E. Watkins, general minister and president of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the first woman to deliver the featured sermon for the inaugural prayer service.[137] In her own sermon, Watkins integrated passages from a variety of interfaith sources, such as passages summoned from sources rooted in the Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Cherokee faiths.[136]" Featured sermon used twice in penultimate sentence, "own" in final sentence not needed, "sources" used twice, and I'd strike the word "interfaith" as not really needed in view of the laundry list at the end.
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • airline crew: People will probably associate it more quickly if you mention that it landed on the Hudson River.
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 16:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Operation Iraqi Freedom. As this is a redirect, why not just say serving in Iraq? Also some might consider it more neutral.
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 16:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Celebrity guests included the actors Dustin Hoffman, Samuel L. Jackson and Denzel Washington, talk show host Oprah Winfrey and director Steven Spielberg, among other celebrities. The Department of Redundancy Department orders you to lose either the first or final phrase.
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • the ceremony was the highest attended event ever held in Washington, D.C. Unless marijuana was distributed by the PIC, suggest saying "had the largest attendance".
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crowds: Consider combining the last two paragraphs, and also combining the last two sentences.
    • "The Obama inauguration is the first one of a president since the September 11 attacks." F-ck yeah, W in 2005 didn't count, he was just a resident! Oh, that wasn't what you meant to imply? Never mind. Umm, maybe a very slight tweak here?
    Revised per suggestion, I think...let me know. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • had to stretch their imagination to anticipate unthinkable security threats, Slight contradiction here, perhaps "previously unthinkable"?
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The District of Columbia police force temporarily doubled in size" Were the police around the US members of the DC Police? Perhaps "the police presence in the District of Columbia temporarily doubled, augmented by ..."
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Federal Aviation Administration maintained airspace restrictions over Washington, D.C. on January 20, 2009 from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m." There are always airspace restrictions over D.C. Suggest rephrase.
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the fact that no arrests were made by any agency during the inaugural events was unheard of for a record crowd of the size that gathered in Washington, D.C. for the Obama inauguration." But there had never been a crowd that big (which doesn't diminish the point, I simply suggest a rephrase is needed).
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, that's all for now, I'll finish later in the day. I don't see anything hopeless.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    More stuff:

    • "The Raleigh-Durham market had the largest TV audience" Probably not, perhaps "highest TV rating"? Similar fix needed in the sentence about the top 10 TV markets.
    • "In addition, schools and workplaces across the country allowed viewing of the inauguration because the event occurred on a weekday." I'd say something like "In addition, schools and workplaces across the country allowed students and workers to watch the inauguration of President Obama."

    International reaction:

    • "the president of Kenya, Mwai Kibaki extended his congratulations to Obama for the inaugural occasion." Perhaps "to Obama on his inaguration".
    • "Office of the Prime Minister of Canada released a statement:" perhaps add "on behalf of Prime Minister Harper" with a pipe to Stephen Harper.
    • "Obama was honored for the inaugural occasion by the retired principal of the school," Odd phrasing, and how was he honored?
    • North Korea: Both sentences seem to have similar content and can surely be merged.
    • Australia: The U.S. embassy and consulates in Canberra, Melbourne and Perth, in addition to the United States Study Centre at the University of Sydney and the American Australian Association. Very confused laundry list there.
    • UK: "the United Kingdom, which is home to 300,000 Americans." I would hope the US is home to them ... suggest "where 300,000 Americans reside".
    • "Another citizen commented that "Obama won't get the same treatment,' ... 'But he won't have too long to prove himself to us.'"" Why the close single quotes and reopen after the ellipsis? combine into one. And remember that a nonbreaking space is used before the ellipsis. Also, Israeli President should be piped to President of Israel. Please check to ensure you aren't having too many redirects.

    That's about it. I'll wait until I see changes made. Also, is the international reaction being spun off or not?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 1 May 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 22:03, 2 May 2009 [17].

    British Cypriots

    Nominator(s): Cordless Larry (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the criteria for FA status having recently achieved GA status and remaining stable since. I believe that it is well written and thoroughtly referenced. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tech. Review
    Have done. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose on criterion 3 - File:Stelios launches easyOffice.jpg - This image needs OTRS approval. The release on the website is not under a specific license nor explicitly into the public domain. See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission for help on this matter. Once this image has been approved through OTRS, I will strike this oppose. Awadewit (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide an example of where Template:Citation is used in the article? I can't find it.
    I will look for an alternative source for the Leon Osman point as the source used doesn't state a publisher. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need a new source, just state it's his personal website on the reference. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the citation template, it shows up as a template in use when you edit the page, but I can't find it either. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that it is his personal site though. It states at the bottom of the page that "DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL SITE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL. This is a purely informational site about the individual and it is not affiliated with, or endorsed by, the individual. This information on this site was obtained from public sources, and may not be accurate, complete or up-to-date." Cordless Larry (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then, yes, you need a new source. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Found and added. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    question the caption for the image is notable British Cypriots, what is the definition of a notable British Cypriot? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Good quesion. I didn't add the images, User:Pankration2008 did. They are notable per WP:NOTABILITY, but why they were chosen above other potential candidates, I can't say. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, it fails FA criteria by containing original research, that fails WP:VERIFY Fasach Nua (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so do you have a suggested solution? Should I remove the image? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be more concerned with a whole section of WP:OR than the single image. As for images, perhaps a map of geographic distributions of B. Cypriots, Cycpriot Orthodox churches in Britain (if there are any), Cypriot food shops/restaurants in Britain, or other physical objects in Britain, rather than images of indiviuals may be more appropriate. Fasach Nua (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By which I presume you are referring to the notable individuals section? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Fasach Nua has not replied, does anyone else have any views on whether the notable individuals section constitutes original research? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Fasach Nua's suggestion is a good one - the selection of individuals does seem arbitrary. Awadewit (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So shall I remove the images and the notable individuals section? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, at least for now. I have a some concerns about the coverage of this article, which seems rather thin to me.
    • The article discusses only Greek and Turkish Cypriots, but there is also a significant population of Armenian Cypriots living in the UK. One of my oldest friends is an Armenian Cypriot, born in Nicosia and now living in Surrey.
    • From the lead: "Migration from Cyprus to the UK has occurred in part due to the colonial links between the islands ...". Which islands are these? The UK isn't an island.
    • From History: "Before the First World War, very few Cypriots migrated to the UK and the British Cypriot population at this time was around 150 ..." Before the First World War is an awful long time to call "this time". Was this an estimate of the population in 1913, for instance?
    • What impact have the British Cypriots had on the areas they settled in? I know, for instance, that the Bank of Cyprus at one time had five or six branches in London catering almost exclusively to the Cypriot community, perhaps it still does. Any cultural impact? Any restrictions on British Cypriots, such as branches of the military or security forces they're not allowed to join?
    --Malleus Fatuorum 13:09, 2 May 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 22:03, 2 May 2009 [18].

    Robert Hues

    Nominator(s): JackLee –talk–


    I am nominating this for featured article status because I think the article is good enough to deserve that accolade. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tech. Review

    Oppose on criterion 3

    Crucial image issues have been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    These issues should be easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments -
    • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments This is looking good—I'm leaning toward supporing. I had some initial reservations about comprehensiveness, but after searching for a while I'm confident you have made the best use of the sources available. Could you humor me and look at the following issues?
      • "In 1594, Hues published his discoveries in the Latin work ..." This whole sentence in the lead is confusing. "that had been made and published" sound like they go together; however, I'm sure you mean the globes were made but the Latin work was published?
        • Comment: Hello! The articles I have read seem to use the term "published" in relation to globes as well (perhaps because globes are essentially maps mounted on spheres?). But if this is really jarring to you I don't have any problem changing it. — JackLee, 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "travelled on the Continent" is probably too colloquial, requiring a wikilink (in two places, and an easter-egg one at that) for reader comprehension.
        • Comment: I would have thought that "the Continent" was quite a well-known expression, particularly when used in relation to an Englishman (Hues). I added the wikilink (admittedly an Easter egg) out of an abundance of caution. Doesn't "travelled on Continental Europe" sound a bit stilted? — JackLee, 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • This may just be a matter of opinion—I won't be upset if it's not changed. Although, I'm quite sure almost no one in North America is familiar with this phrase. Your second example does sound stilted. I would prefer "travelled through Europe" but that may be introducing ambiguity. I've talked myself out of it by now. --Laser brain (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "This has been disputed for lack of evidence." Avoid using the ambiguous "this" to refer to a prior concept. Instead, restate the concept: "This <whatever> has been disputed"
        • Comment: Since this sentence comes immediately after the disputed fact, I would have thought there was no ambiguity whatsoever. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You'd be surprised. ESL readers are routinely confounded when "this" is used to refer back to something that isn't explicitly restated. --Laser brain (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: The relevant sentences are: "Wood stated that Harriot, Hues and Warner were Northumberland's 'constant companions, and were usually called the Earl of Northumberland's THREE. They had a table at the Earl's charge, and the Earl himself did constantly converse with them, and with Sir Walter Raleigh, then in the Tower'. This has been disputed for lack of evidence." Honestly, I don't know much clearer this can be. Wouldn't it be unnecessarily repetitive to change this to, say, "Wood stated that Harriot, Hues and Warner were Northumberland's 'constant companions['] ... The fact that they were Northumberland's companions has been disputed for lack of evidence"? — JackLee, 12:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    --Laser brain (talk) 20:40, 29 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 22:03, 2 May 2009 [19].

    Para Siempre

    Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    I am nominating this for featured article because I think is ready to do so. It is about a Mexican traditional music album, and this genre is often despised since the main market for this kind of music is older people (at least in México) and this album approached a diferent audience. Para Siempre is already a Good Article but I see potential on it to become FA. Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: I left some edit summary samples of things like WP:DASH fixes needed. Please have a look at WP:V#Non-English Sources and review WP:FCDW/Plagiarism for a discussion of caution needed to avoid too closely paraphrasing text on translations. For example:
    • The late Tex-Mex performer Selena was the only performer to achieve this feat, when her album Dreaming of You replaced her own Amor Prohibido at the top of the chart in 1995.
    • Selena era la única que había logrado semejante hazaña, cuando en 1995 “Dreaming of you” sustituyó a “Amor Prohibido” en la primera posición.
    Re-arranging the words on a translation doesn't avoid plagiarism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did some rewording for that part. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Has this issue been completely resolved? I cannot read Spanish so I can't check it myself. Awadewit (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tech. Review
    • Comments -
    • Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference (current ref 3 (Biograffia...) which seems to lead to a deadlink page also?. Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I passed this article for GA. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose I have some concerns about the comprehensiveness and organization of this article.

    • Copyediting - I would suggest finding a good copyeditor to look over this article. There are a few infelicities that seem to stem from the article being written by a non-native speaker. If you cannot find one, I would be happy to finish the copyediting I started once the other issues I raised are resolved.
    • I'm not sure where the third paragraph of "Recording" goes in the chronology. It seems to come after the events in the second paragraph, but I am not sure. Also, the paragraph begins with a quotation, but the reader is not sure who is saying it.
    • I would suggest creating a "Composition" or "Musical style" section. As this is a musical album, one of the major areas of interest about it is going to be the music. There is some material in "Recording" that could be moved into such a section, but some additional research might be required. You could also include a short audio clip. (See Adore (album), for example.)
    • The "Reception" section is mostly a listing of awards. Are there more relevant reviews that could be added?
      • Did not find any. Latin albums are not reviewed by many critics, and for regional mexican music, the reviews are very, very few.
    • We usually don't include "Controversy" sections but rather include the information where it is most appropriate in the article. I would suggest moving this information into the "Commercial release" section. I'm not quite sure why the song was prohibited in the first place - could you make that clearer as well?
      • Fixed. Neither Fernández and Sebastian release an statement about the issue. I though the note was interesting enough to appear in the article, but I didn't find their opinion about it. Jaespinoza (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose, 1b, 1c. I concur with Awadewit that some material seems to be missing. At the very least, I would expect more prose about the album's style and quite a bit more detail about the musical elements of the songs and album as a whole. More research is needed. --Laser brain (talk) 18:59, 29 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 22:03, 2 May 2009 [20].

    Typhoon Tingting

    Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit 19:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article meets FA criteria. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit 19:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments
    until dissipation near the international date line on July 13 - until it dissipated near to the international dateline
    That makes the wording awkward. Cyclonebiskit 20:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be a Twenty day gap from the governor of Guam submitting his request to it being signed off by George Bush which i find strange.
    US Government = fail :P Cyclonebiskit 20:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The differences between warning centers section is that operational or BT data - it should mention both IMO
    Would referencing with the BT be OK? Cyclonebiskit 20:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    more later Jason Rees (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since Cyclonebiskit has adressed my comments and ive had a read over i now Support this articleJason Rees (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
    I've fixed the disambiguation link. Thanks for the ref/dab review. Cyclonebiskit 22:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose because article has zero references in the lead. This is very bad style. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm....There shouldn't be any references in the lead since it's supposed to be a summary of the article, meaning there is no new information requiring a reference. Cyclonebiskit 01:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, references are discouraged within the lead if the information is already cited in the body of the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've put no new information into the lead, so I don't need references there. Cyclonebiskit 02:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments (it may look like a lot, but the article is decent and is close to FA status). I think the biggest problem (but it’s not a huge problem) is the met. history. I feel it is a bit scant on good details. For example, what were its origins? (monsoon trough? ITCZ? Tropical wave?) What meteorological events allowed the typhoon to intensify? (warm waters? Strong anticyclone? low shear?) Be sure to emphasize how favorable the conditions were, or were not, as opposed to mentioning them passing. You mention “further strengthening was anticipated” after you mention its peak, but you don’t say how strong it was forecast to be. That would be a good addition. Why did it eventually turn to the northeast? As you mentioned when the eye formed, when did it dissipate? When/why did the extratropical storm eventually dissipate?

    • ’’ Around that time, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) issued a Tropical Cyclone Formation Alert for the storm, classifying it as Tropical Depression 11W at 1200 UTC’’
      • That implies that the TCFA and the first warning were issued at 1200 UTC, which generally doesn’t happen.
    Done Cyclonebiskit 13:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ’’ Twelve hours after being classified a depression by the JTWC, the JMA upgraded…’’
      • I find it weird to cross the warning centers like that. Since the JMA is gold, I think it’d be better to give the amount of time after JMA labeled it as a depression.
    Done Cyclonebiskit 13:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ’’ At 0600 UTC on June 26, the JTWC classified Tingting as a tropical storm’’
      • I suggest adding “also” between “the JTWC” and “classified”. As an overall suggestion, you should put the emphasis on the JMA when it comes to stuff about classification.
    Done Cyclonebiskit 13:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ’’ This followed development of outflow in all directions.’’
      • That is pretty unclear, and is a poor way to start a paragraph. Perhaps something like, “As Tingting continued northwestward, it continued to develop outflow in all directions.”
    Done Cyclonebiskit 13:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ”The ridge which was steering Tingting towards the northwest was forecast to strengthen and cause the storm to travel more to the north”
      • This is unclear and awkward. Did the ridge actually strengthen and cause the storm to travel more to the north? If so, avoid the “was forecast”, as the tense stuff makes it confusing. I see it later says “Around this time, the storm also began to turn towards the north”, so see if you can avoid the redundancy and confusion.
    Done Cyclonebiskit 15:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ”At 0000 UTC the next day,”
      • I assume it means June 28th, but since the previous sentence didn’t mention a date, I would add the date to that for when JTWC upgraded to typhoon.
    Done Cyclonebiskit 12:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ”within 95 km (60 mi) of Iwo Jima”
      • Which direction did it pass by the island?
    Done Cyclonebiskit 12:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ”The next day, the JTWC downgraded Tingting to a tropical storm”
      • Again, bad way to start a paragraph. You need to mention the date.
    Done Cyclonebiskit 12:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ”After becoming an extratropical cyclone, Tinting”
      • Be careful with typos. I spot you using “Tinting” instead of “Tingting” three different times.
    Done Cyclonebiskit 12:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ”as a strong Category 2 or Category 3 typhoon on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale”
      • I’d avoid calling it a Category 2 typhoon on the hurricane scale. Why not just say the person estimated those specific winds?
    Done Cyclonebiskit 12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a general comment, all of the damage figures are in 2004 USD, but you don’t specifically mention that anywhere. Maybe when you mention the damage total in the lede, you could put a note saying that all damage figures are in 2004 USD.
    Done Cyclonebiskit 12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ”A total of 300 people evacuated” – really? Was it exactly 300 people?
    Done Cyclonebiskit 12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first two sentences of the Preps/impact section don’t mention any locations. Sure, the sub-section is “Marianas Islands and Guam”, but you still need to mention a location. Also, wouldn’t “Marianas Islands and Guam” be redundant? I’m typing this review offline, but IIRC the Marianas Islands include Guam, whereas Guam is a separate territory from the commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. Try re-writing the first paragraph of the preps/impact, as it’s confusing jumping between “the islands” and “Guam”. You should also explain what “Tropical Cyclone Condition of Readiness Four” means.
    Done Cyclonebiskit 14:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second paragraph of preps/impact also feels disorganized. You’re jumping around, and since you already mention every island’s peak wind report, why not just say “Tingting produced strong winds throughout the region”, rather than “TS conditions on X, Y, Z, and when it became a typhoon, typhoon conditions on W and V”.
    Done Cyclonebiskit 14:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically, for the impact, I think you should go island by island, rather than by each type of impact. While it’s nice seeing all of the rainfall totals in one paragraph, I’d rather see the impact from the record-breaking rain on Guam, rather than waiting to see the lesser rain on Saipan and Rota.
    • That’s it for now. The content seems decent in the article. I think it needs some cleaning up. Let me know when you get all of this done, as I might be ready for a support by then. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have one issue with the dissipation of the storm as the JMA doesn't state how it dissipated, it just says that it was last mentioned near -location-. I've changed it so it says that it was last mentioned to the west of the Aleutian Islands. For the impact, do I have to put it island by island? Some islands had little impact and it would make confusing stubby paragraphs. IMO, it's better to keep it the way it is, especially since it's how most articles are laid out. Cyclonebiskit 14:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked the Tropical Weather Outlooks from the JTWC and it doesn't say anything other than the pre-Tingting LPA developed out of an area of convection. Cyclonebiskit 15:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I think I've gotten most of what you've mentioned above (other then the ones I've commented about). Thanks for the review :) Cyclonebiskit 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found the dissipation (sort of) through a link Hink showed me on IRC. Hopefully that's most of the issues now. Cyclonebiskit 00:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally think it would look best to have preps and impact separated for each of the islands, which is more how Typhoon Pongsona is, and Pongsona is the closest analog to Tingting. I just don't think it's appropriate to lump the islands together, as they're all distinct geographic entities. For the shorter ones, as with Pongsona, they could be merged together, but at least Guam, Saipan, and Rota could probably be better organized as separate paragraphs.
    • As I mostly looked at just the met. history, I haven't gotten too much into the impact. I'm a little worried about the "Bonin Islands" section, specifically that no damage was reported. Well, the source doesn't directly say that - the source didn't know of any damage in the path of Tingting! I'd try finding a local report from there, or at least get another source confirming the lack of damage. Get back to me if you decide to switch up the order of the impact (which I strongly suggest). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I weakly supportoppose, as there is still more work. Watch out for unit consistency in the impact section. If one unit is rounded to 2 digits, then the other one needs to be as well. The writing isn't quite up to par, so even if you keep the format how it is, it needs work. I still think organizing it by each island would be better, since you say each island name a lot of times; Guam is mentioned 12 times in the impact section, vs. 4 for Tinian, 7 for Saipan, and 4 for Rota. Also, in the last paragraph, you mention the Guam death, but that was the first time in 9 lines that you mentioned the island.
      • Due to the lack of sufficient observations on Tinian, the highest sustained winds recorded were suspected to be lower than what they really were. Winds of 56 km/h (35 mph) were recorded several times with gusts to 84 km/h (52 mph).
        • Really, did you have to say that much? That could easily be one sentence, in which it would be much better organized. I suggest you find a pair of outside eyes to see how much you can eliminate. Remember, it's not how many words you can use to say something - it's how concise you can.
      • The highest winds during Typhoon Tingting throughout the Mariana Islands were recorded on Pagan Island where 106 km/h (66 mph) sustained winds were recorded along with a gust of 212 km/h (132 mph)
    There's only one Japanese source for Tingting in the Bonin Islands, which I added now :P Cyclonebiskit 23:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the source check Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit 21:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

    • "Typhoon Tingting (international designation: 0408, JTWC designation: 11W) was a relatively weak but destructive typhoon which produced record-breaking rains in Guam." "which"-->that
    • "Tingting originated out of a tropical depression "-->Tingting originated from a tropical depression
    • "traveled towards the north"-->traveled northward
    • "breaking both the "
    • "A total of 71 homes were destroyed and hundreds were damaged by the storm throughout the Mariana Islands with total losses amounting to $11.2 million." Several things wrong here: "A total of" is redundant, so but we can't start sentences with numerals, and writing out "seventy-one" is rather laborious to read. "by the storm" is unnecessary as readers will know this by now. Also, the noun + -ing (gerund) structure is ungrammatical. So, try this: "In the Mariana Islands, 71 homes were destroyed and hundreds were damaged throughout the Mariana Islands; total losses amounted to $11.2 million."

    That's all I have time for now. These issues were from the lead only. Please go through the rest of the article (or better yet, get somebody else to) and audit for wordiness. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak oppose.

    • What is the JMA? Used in the lead but no link or explanation
    Done. Cyclonebiskit 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is diffluence? Not wikilinked or explained in first section
    Linked Cyclonebiskit 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what this means - it was retired because the name did not represent Hong Kong and China, being that the name was contributed by Hong Kong
    The name was retired because it only represented China but since Hong Kong and China are one county, it needed to represent the two together. Cyclonebiskit 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That still doesn't mean anything to me. Why did it need to represent China? Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but that's all I really know about it, there really wasn't much of a reason. I think they just felt like retiring it. Cyclonebiskit 21:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not an appropriate answer. There is a reason given in the article, it just needs to be clarified. You may have to find additional sources that explain the naming conventions. Karanacs (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I find myself agreeing with Cyclonebiskit here. They usually don't give a rationale for retiring storms; it can be presumed that it was a result of the severe damage, but that would be original research. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally, I would agree with you, but the article did list a reason (the name didn't represent China), and I don't understand what that reason meant. Karanacs (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as i am aware it doesnt have too represent China (ie Dolphin 2008)- i think the reason the HKO gave for retiring Tingting was an escuse so they could go around Hongkong and raise awareness of the Tropical cyclone signal system that the HKO use for TCs. Jason Rees (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is still a lot of wordiness in the article that could be trimmed. That would make the sentences flow a little better. For example (example only) Most of the northern areas of the island received more than 510 mm (20 in) of rain but the southern areas of Guam could easily be changed to eliminate the last part of the sentence "of Guam" for being redundant
    • Watch for consistency in spelling out numbers. For example, when discussing the number of homes destroyed, one sentence uses four, 24, four, 71, and 101. This is not consistent within this little list.
    • I wonder if it would make sense to pull a lot of the rainfall amounts out into a table. Currently, it makes for a very dense paragraph that pretty much lists X island got YY mm (ZZ in) of rain...
    There aren't enough rainfall totals to do that. There's already a rainfall map which, IMO, eliminates the need for a table. Cyclonebiskit 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tables don't have to be very big, if they are just tucked into the side of the text. My biggest concern there was that the paragraph was extremely dry and difficult to get through because it was jam-packed full of numbers. Generally, a table is a better way to display those things, but I'm open to other ideas you may have for improving the paragraph.. Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Prose needs a good cleanse. Here are examples from the lead. Can you find someone else to do it?

    • Opening para: can the first "intensity" be removed? It works without, I think, given the subsequent sentence. "a few days"—can't we be more precise? "for two to three days"?
    • "a combination".
    • Why a straight link to "Japan"? Surely pipe it to the "Geography" section in that article.
    • "a record 554.99 mm (21.85 in) of rain fell in a 24-hour span, breaking the daily and monthly rainfall totals for June.—"fell in 24 hours". "totals" should be "the records".
    • "One fatality occurred during the storm as a result of flooding and nine others resulted from rough seas produced by Tingting." Why not bin the last three words? Perhaps smoother with a comma after "flooding". Tony (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Due to my upcoming trip, I wont have access to a computer for roughly two weeks. Because of that, I'm going to have to withdraw this nomination unless someone can fill my spot and make the corrections for the article during my absence. Another possibility would be to allow this nomination to remain open until I return, which I would greatly appreciate. Cheers, Cyclonebiskit 17:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    i dont mind keeping an eye on this FAC on Cbs behalfJason Rees (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I'm encountering enough issues with the prose that to list them here would be counter-productive and only serve to dissuade other reviewers from participating. I've no issue with the sourcing, presentation or the editorial choices made, and I made several minor modifications myself because at a very quick glance I felt this could reach FA status pretty quickly. Closer inspection while doing this unfortunately revealed that the writing needs more in-depth work before the article will be suitable for promotion. I strongly advise going through each section to eliminate redundant language that tends frustrate the reader, who only wants to get to the next piece of information without getting bogged down in sentences that have finished telling them all they need to know. Some random examples: "traveled towards the northwest"; "fairly common"; "located to the south of"; "under Tropical Cyclone Condition of Readiness Four, the lowest level of readiness"; "as Typhoon Tingting approached. As Typhoon Tingting approached..."; "The highest winds during Typhoon Tingting throughout the Mariana Islands" (implicit); "to the northeast of"; "In the span of 24 hours" (perhaps "Within"); "but the southern areas of Guam"; "a total of 287.78 mm"; "over a 30-hour span" ("over 30 hours"?); almost every instance of "a total of" (there are lots). As I say, these are just examples, but they are fairly representative of the rest of the article. Other quibbles (some minor):
      • Mild overlinking. If a term is already linked, in an article this short it probably doesn't need to be again.
      • "With low wind shear and favorable diffluence, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) issued a Tropical Cyclone Formation Alert for the storm." Dangling modifier; the storm had low wind shear and favourable diffluence, not JTCW. In addition, "favorable" sounds odd in this context; it was favorable, so JTCW issued a warning?
      • Pet name or a name for pets?
      • As the article seems to use AmE, "toward" is more common usage than "towards", or so I'm told.
      • Inconsistent use of eastwards / north (sans "wards"), etc.
      • "a counter-clockwise loop though July 10".
      • The {{Clarify me}} template.
      • "Tingting was 150 km/h (90 mph) 10-minute sustained, or 160 km/h (105 mph) 1-minute sustained." I'm assuming that this means the top speed measured over 10 minutes, and that over 1 minute. I think an addition to the "Notes" section might make this clearer.
      • "near Paris, France." Doesn't seem relevant.
      • "Due to the lack of sufficient observations on Tinian, the highest sustained winds recorded were suspected to be lower than what they really were. Winds of 56 km/h (35 mph) were recorded several times with gusts to 84 km/h (52 mph)." Clumsily-phrased. Perhaps just state the recorded speeds, before mentioning that these were suspected (by whom?) to be lower than the actual top speeds due to the lack of sufficient monitoring/observation.
      • Inconsistent use of "Japan Meteorological Agency", "Joint Typhoon Warning Center" and "JMA", "JTWC"; if the abbreviations have already been stated and defined on first use, their use for the rest of the article would be better.
    • Again, these are just random examples that are representative of issues throughout the article. None are irresolvable, but added to those outstanding issues from other reviewers might mean the FAC has difficulty gaining support this time around, especially with the nominator on holiday for another week or so. Steve T • C 11:26, 28 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 21:50, 2 May 2009 [21].

    Atlantic blue marlin

    Nominator(s): Grander13 (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    I am nominating this for featured article because I want to make this article as good as it can be.--Grander13 (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tech. Review
    • zoo is a ref name that is used more than once, it should only be used once: checked with WP:REFTOOLS.
    • Fix the four disambiguation links, checked with the dab finder tool.

    I think these are fixed.--Grander13 (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is it not a reliable source?--Grander13 (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have never used Zipcode zoo in my FAs because it is not a reliable source. It is not an on-line version either of a book or of a peer-reviewed journal, nor is it published by a source that would itself confer reliability (for example, I've used the European Zoo and Aquarium Association as a reference on the captive breeding of Northern Bald Ibis because they clearly have dependable expertise in that specific area, similarly the BTO for egg details). Some of the zipcode stuff is referenced, but not the bits you have used. That's not to say it's wrong, but it's not properly sourced. jimfbleak (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 20 (Understanding...) is a book and should be formatted as such.
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I will address that. --Grander13 (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC) I think I fixed it.--Grander13 (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • When mature, Atlantic blue marlin primarily feeds on a wide range missing the or should be feed. What's the point of primary does it eat things other than those stated?

    It should be "feed." The point of "primarily" is because blue marlin will eat just about anything if it is available to them. --Grander13 (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it doesn't really make sense as written. I would either lose primarily or rephrase something like When mature, Atlantic blue marlin feed mainly on a wide range of fish (such as tuna and mackerel) and cephalopods (such as squid), but also take.... jimfbleak (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • rod and reel because of the catch's rarity. if it is rare, why does not currently consider it a threatened species.?

    Of all the ocean species targeted by fishermen, atlantic blue marlin are probably the rarest. It is really good to catch just one in a full day. A lot of days you may not have a bite. --Grander13 (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • The distribution of Atlantic blue marlin expands in a northerly direction during the warmer months and contracts towards the equator during colder months. I'm not clear what happens at the southern limit of its range

    I'm not sure I know what you mean?

    • It's confusing to me. First, what are the warmer months - this fish straddles the equator, so are we talking about the warmer months in the northern hemisphere or the southern hemisphere? Assuming the usual US-centricity, I suppose it's the northern summer, but that's not explicit. If it it is the northern summer, I understand that the northern edge of the range expands north as it gets warmer, then contracts as the seas cool. What is happening at the southern edge of the marlin's range? Does that contract north in the southern winter (northern summer) or does it stay put? Again, there is an implicit bias in that it only seems to be the northern range, accessible to the US, that matters, and what is happening south of the equator doesn't merit a mention.

    First of all, this is more of a general statement, since the migrations of this species as a whole have not been mapped out very specifically. Either way, the "warmer months" are warm whether they are in the southern hemisphere or northern hemisphere. They are just at different times of the year. I am talking mainly about the northern hemisphere because almost all the good and famous blue marlin spots are located in the northern hemisphere, except for Brazil. I could mention this I guess. I still don't understand what you mean by what happens at the southern edge of the marlin's range. Do you mean where do they move to? or how they behave. I don't really know for sure how they behave in the southern hemisphere since I have not seen it mentioned in any articles. I assume the opposite of northern hemisphere fish. move south in the warmer months and north in the warmer months.--Grander13 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you are probably right, but if it is just an assumption could you state that movements in the southern part of the range are unknown/have not been studied? jimfbleak (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The movement between the Caribbean Islands and Venezuela and the Bahamas is presumably not a seasonal movement since it's a completely separate paragraph, but it's unclear when it is happening. Also the phrasing is unclear. First time I read it I assumed the movement was from the islands south to Venezuela and north to the Bahamas, whereas you probably mean from the islands and Venezuela north to the Bahamas jimfbleak (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You are probably right about the direction of travel, it makes more sense. Also, I say there is currently not enough information to determine when the "migrations" occur.--Grander13 (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I can make it part of Taxonomy and naming. Should it be under a sub-heading or just be a regular paragraph?--Grander13 (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I personally don't like one para sections, so I'd be inclined to just add as is jimfbleak (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The refs are a mess
    • 6, 7, 14 at least have both the binomial name and the English text italicised - this can't be right. If the English text needs to be italicised, the binomial should become Roman jimfbleak (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 14, 17, 18 why does every word start with a capital? - not MoS, not consistent with other refs
    • 15, 17, 19 urls visible because of white space/breaks in the ref text - I've fixed 17 to check what the problem was, but not the others, (and I've not fixed the caps in 17) jimfbleak (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The map is a problem. The map description claims that it is based on a tiger shark map
    • the map it is sourced to does not exist
    • Is it saying that the range is the same as the tiger shark's. If so, it needs a reference
    • If the non-existent Tiger Shark map has been adapted for this species, you need to say that with a source for the changes jimfbleak (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Sasata (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I failed this article in its first GA review, and the article has improved by leaps and bounds since then. But at the FA level, I'm going to have to oppose on the basis of 1(c) "well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic." Unfortunately, the article fails in this respect, as no attempt has been made to review the scholarly literature on this creature, and provide an overview about the research that has been done; instead the article relies largely on easily-accessible web sources. A Web of Science search turns up close to 150 papers that haven't been mentioned here; the judicious addition of choice cited tidbits from some of these article would make this a much better article, in my opinion. I realize of course, that I have the advantage of being able to access most of these articles with a couple of mouse clicks, and the work involved is going to be much more difficult for a high-school student, who would likely have to make multiple trips to a University library to access these papers. But that doesn't mean that the FAC standards should be lowered... There are some other minor issues like the length of some paragraphs, and reference formatting, but those can be dealt with later once more content is added.

    I would just like to say that there is no University library anywhere near where I live or any library that is reasonably nice. Therefore, I do not have access to most papers of interest. However, I agree that the standards for FA should not be lowered.--Grander13 (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's too bad. How about you withdraw this nomination, I'll help the article by adding the information I have easy access to, and we can resubmit as co-nominators in a couple of weeks? Does that work with your class schedule? Sasata (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a very good idea, I was beginning to feel that there was too much to do to get to FA this time, but it can get there with with a bit more time. I've no expertise or sources for fish, but I've written many FAs, so I'm happy to help with the technical and prose side if that would be of any value jimfbleak (talk) 06:26, 30 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 21:43, 2 May 2009 [22].

    Phineas and Ferb

    Nominator(s): —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 05:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    I am nominating this for featured article because the page is full, completely sourced, long, of high quality, and has very good writing and images. The page was a hard work from me and the community, and displays the great quality that it can reach. The sections are all right, the images are not cluttered, all comments are sourced, etc. I don't see any issues with it in it's current state, which I just rewrote. —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 05:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment just looking at the lead:
    References should always be after punctuation, so an example sentence should read like: Blahblahblah.(reference). Please fix this.
    Link B-Plot as some readers may not know what it means
    There is an extra period after reference 5 in the lead
    In the last sentence of the first paragraph, I think boy's should be boys'.
    As I said, this is just the lead, but it seems the rest of the article is better. Mm40 (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed all of the points you mentioned, except for the first one, as I wasn't very sure of what you meant. I, as well, removed a red link, as I realized that might not be good. Also, for some reason a "copyright image" tag is up, saying there's to many of them. Does it mean that I instead need to hotlink to the same image on Wikimedia, or, what? —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 15:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, let's start with references. References should be formatted using the citation templates ({{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, etc.), not just left as bare URLs. In addition, while I admire the intensive amount of information you added, I feel that there is something more that could be added. Compare this article with .hack//Sign or New Cutie Honey, for example: There is simply a great deal more information in the .hack//Sign or New Cutie Honey articles than in this one. I am unsure if this is because there are not very many sources (it happens), but even Avatar: The Last Airbender has ~4,000 words of readable prose; this article has just around 2,000. Are you sure that the article is comprehensive enough, and that you couldn't write a bit more with the sources at hand? I can't really point to anything specific, but I just got an overall impression of incompleteness after I finished reading the article. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, encourage withdrawl. 1st - It's not even a Good Article yet, how is it supposed to be Featured? 2nd - I see grammatical errors skimming the article. 3rd - One section is labeled as needing expansion. 4th - Way too many copyrighted images. 5th - Not a fan, barely knew the series existed, but the article seems like doesn't have enough information to be a Featured Article. Congratulations on your work so far, and I hope you can get this article to Featured Status. Good luck and שלום, mynameinc 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • From what I can see, those pages have just as good amount of information as this one. I suppose I could search around and find some more information about the merchandise, add characters, and expand the writing and artistic styling. Would that help? Now, onto mynameinc's comments, all of those tags were added after I made it. Nothing I read ever mentioned GA being needed, so I never tried it. What grammatical errors are you talking about? What is wrong with a couple of copyrighted images. They are all tagged correctly, I don't see why it's such a big issue. The Simpsons has plenty of images, one of which is huge and clutters it's section. I also guess I can add more info, I just thought it had as much as other FA Emma Watson. Anyways, I guess if I get another opposal I'll withdraw this, fix points, try for GA, then FA. —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 20:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all of The Simpsons' images are copyrighted. And it helps a lot if the community agrees to GA first, a traditional steping stone to FA. I said I wasn't a fan, so I wouldn't know if this article could be considered done. Those tags are there, my response was not dependent upon the time when the tags were added. I think copyrighted images in an FA is a "big issue", because our FAs are supposed to be the best our community can offer, and I think there could be a lower copyrighted picture/word count density. FA is supposed to be the absolute best. If you see an obvious way it can be approved, it isn't FA material. The amount of information for an FA is dependent upon the subject, but, regardless, this page has less information than The Simpsons for Emma Watson. mynameinc 20:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I explained on your talk page, and it is good to compare to other FAs, preferably more than one, so that editors new to FAC and you can see the standard. mynameinc 20:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:FAC/ar and please leave templates in place until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 2 May 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 d "Overview". The Office for Religious Life at Stanford University. Retrieved 2008-10-13.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/May_2009&oldid=289601823"