Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archive 3
archive 5
Line 1: Line 1:
== June 2009 ==
== June 2009 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norton 360/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starvin' Marvin (South Park)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Jacket Required/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Loihi Seamount/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Osteitis fibrosa cystica/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gulfton, Houston/archive2}} {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norton 360/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jackie Robinson/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jackie Robinson/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Synthetic diamond/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Synthetic diamond/archive1}}

Revision as of 19:31, 6 June 2009

June 2009

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:31, 6 June 2009 [1].

Starvin' Marvin (South Park)

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 19:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive/season 1. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 19:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, 1a. I'm sorry but this is a long way from ready. The level of preparedness here indicates that the article required a peer review at the very least. There are basic problems apparent just in the lead; where I started reading randomly throughout the text, I easily located issues. A thorough, substantive copyedit is needed. Some random issues follow:
  • I responded to each item line-by-line. I'm not sure if that's what you were looking for, but I did and of course am willing to continue responding any other objections this way. As with the topic's previous two FAs, I didn't put in for a peer review because I thought the GAN process would serve as an acceptable alternative, but if it's really so bad that it can't be fixed by the FAC process (which I hope isn't the case) I will put in for that. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 02:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In this episode, the boys send money ..." This needs to mostly stand alone as an article. You don't have to list out "the boys" but at least include a link for people wanting context.
    • "Cartman is accidentally sent to Ethiopia himself, where he learned activist Sally Struthers is actually hoarding the charity's food for herself." Mixed tenses.
    • "The episode was written by ... writer Pam Brady." Written by a writer... you don't say.
    • "The episode simultaneously serves as a satire for both American indifference toward the Third World and the humanitarianism industry itself." Mixing up tenses again; you've been writing about the episode in the past tense until now. Also, "both" is unnecessary.
    • "which was then about eight times the channel's average viewership." By now, I've forgotten it was Comedy Central, so it probably bears repeating.
    • "The episode reportedly offended Sally Struthers and made her cry." The last bit is not really of a proper tone. Later on, you could say it "affected her emotionally" or similar but let's not be this familiar. In the lead, cut it after her name.
    • "Cartman is accidentally sent to Ethiopia himself"; "the humanitarianism industry itself"; "In addition to the Starvin' Marvin character himself" All these phrases, just from the lead, demonstrate a penchant for inserted pronouns of dubious value at the end of things. Remove all of them and you haven't changed the meaning.
      • I've removed all of these you pointed out and a few others from the article you didn't. I'll keep this advice in mind for my future writing in general as well
    • "McDaniels, however, thinks he is crazy and ridicule him behind his back."
    • "Despite this however, it was given a PG rating in the United Kingdom."
    • Inconsistency with logical quotation (see WP:LQ). The guideline is under discussion but you need to be consistent.
      • I only found three examples of inconsistency. For the most part I think it's OK (periods and commas outside the quotation marks for clauses, episodes, phrases; inside for full sentences). If you find any that I missed, please feel free to point them out or fix them yourself. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 02:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Hunter Kahn: Thank you so much for addressing these points quickly. I understand your reason for foregoing the peer review, but it seems clear that the GA review was woefully inadequate in this case. GAN should never be considered a substitute for peer review or a good copyedit, in my opinion, for this very reason. I do think it warrants a thorough copyedit, as I mentioned above. --Laser brain (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 13 (Kuypers, Janet...) needs a page number.
  • Is current ref 28 (Williamson..) a newspaper? It seems to be lacking the title of the newspaper.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry. The prose is very poor and the are problems in almost every sentence. Here are some examples:

  • "In this episode, Cartman, Kenny, Kyle and Stan send money to an African charity to get a sports watch, but they are instead sent the Ethiopian child Starvin' Marvin." - hoping to get, or in return for?
  • "Cartman is accidentally sent to Ethiopia, where he learns activist Sally Struthers is actually hoarding the charity's food for herself" -why actually?
  • "The episode simultaneously served as a satire for American indifference toward the Third World and the humanitarianism industry." - the expression is "satire on".
  • "the episode introduced recurring characters Gerald Broflovski (Kyle's father) and Kenny's family members Stuart, Carol and Kevin McCormick." - recurring characters?
  • "After seeing a commercial about starving children in Africa, Cartman, Kenny, Kyle and Stan, not caring about the starving people there but rather wanting the free sports watch that comes with the sponsorship, send money to Sally Struthers' charity organization" - hopelessly convoluted.
  • "The boys take Marvin to an all-you-can-eat buffet, where he is shocked by how much food the townsfolk are consuming compared to his home country" - are we comparing a town with a country?
  • "Back at school, Mr. Garrison announces the food drive is a failure because students have brought in only a cans of creamed corn." - only a cans of creamed corn?
  • "the turkey DNA is growing so rapidly that they might take over the world if they cannot be stopped in South Park." - the DNA or the turkeys? Try "turkeys' DNA".
  • "Cartman, who had previously shown little care for the people living in poverty in Africa, is sent to Ethiopia and is unable to bear the lack of food and horrible conditions there." - but is unable, and horrible is much too vague.
  • "During a prayer to God says he is sorry he made fun of poor people." - Why on earth is God linked?
  • "Sally Struthers encourages viewers to donate money to provide food to starving children in Africa"- provide food for.
  • "The animators enjoyed creating the turkey battle scene, which was animated in widescreen aspect ratio while the rest of the episode was animated normally." I am sure it was not animated in widescreen aspect, it was probably filmed in it.

I could go on and on, but I am in danger of pasting the whole article here. The prose is the poorest I have ever seen at FAC. Graham Colm Talk 17:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess I was too hasty in this nomination, and should have at the very least given it a thorough copy edit myself instead of depending on the GAN process. I'll definitely be putting it up for a peer review after I make the changes you guys have given. I do intend to bring it back after I do that, though, because I think the content is good, even though the prose needs work. Before this gets closed, do any of you guys have any feedback as far as the content? — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the content is good, and most importantly, the sources seem reliable. Please point me to the PR when you are ready. I would like to help in return for your not shooting the messengers. Graham Colm Talk 19:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:31, 6 June 2009 [2].

No Jacket Required

Nominator(s): CarpetCrawlermessage me 03:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, everyone! This is my first ever FAN, so my apologies if I misunderstand anything. I am nominating this article, because I feel that after giving it a huge expansion (This is what the article looked like before I got ahold of it,) over the course of many many months, having received two peer reviews, numerous copyedits, as well as a ton of help from a lot of friends along the way, that this article is ready to be promoted as a featured article. The article has come a long way from what it used to look like, and I look forward to doing my best at addressing any concerns anyone may have over this article. Thank you, and I look forward to any comments! :) CarpetCrawlermessage me 03:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, looks good and meets the criteria. Just a few comments:
  • Using WP:REFTOOLS, I can see that more than one reference is named 'NOR'.
Done, I didn't add those refs, so I assume the original editor accidentally copy and pasted incorrectly. Either way, they're fixed now! CarpetCrawlermessage me 19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 65's retrieval date differs in format from the rest.
Done. Fixed that and properly formatted in. CarpetCrawlermessage me 19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, everything else looks good. Disambiguation links are up to speed, according to the dab finder tool. Pyrrhus16 10:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't believe this currently meets the 1a bar. Examples at random, all from lead:
    • The second sentence: "The album was named after an incident at The Pump Room in Chicago, where Collins was denied admittance to the establishment because of his attire." Weak use of the passive and problematic ambiguity of "after". Why not the simpler, tighter: "The name of the album refers to..."?
    • How exactly is something "based on improvisation"?
    • "Other songs, like "Long Long Way to Go", had a political message." Use of "other" suggests the two are mutually exclusive.
    • Cite your quotations.
    • "Rolling Stone reviewer David Fricke said that the album, "Like his '81 and '82 outings, Face Value and Hello ... I Must Be Going!, No Jacket Required is not an album that waits to be liked"." <-- ungrammatical
    • "went to number one in various parts of the world" Bland, elementary prose.
    • "The record has been certified diamond " Link? "being certified for 6x platinum." Is it certified or certified for?
    • "Many of the songs, including "Take Me Home", and "Long Long Way To Go," also appeared in various episodes of Miami Vice," Also?
    • "Collins embarked on The No Jacket Required World Tour concert in 1985 which was also successful." Another puzzling also. Which v. that (or comma). Why not just "embarked on a successful"?
    • "During the tour, Collins also recorded a song with" Good thing Tony hasn't reviewed this yet...
    • In general, the article suffers from simplistic prose. For example, take a look at how the article strives desperately to achieve narrative flow in the Production section (first sentences of each para):
      • "Some of the songs from the album were works that were originally improvised by Collins"
      • "Another song that Collins created mostly through improvisation was"
      • "Another song based partly off improvisation is "One More Night""
      • "Other songs were written with a more personal message."
      • "Doesn't Anybody Stay Together Anymore?" is another song in which Collins was making a personal message. "
      • "Take Me Home" is another song in which the meaning was originally very vague." (and who knows what "originally very vague" means)
    • This needs quite a bit of work before it meets FA criteria. Might want to withdraw this one. BuddingJournalist 01:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I agree with the above, apart from the suggestion to withdraw. The article requires a thorough copy-edit, and I have made some suggestions. [3] This contribution certainly lacks flow, and this is not helped by trivial sentences such as " The Phil Collins Big Band played this on tour", carelessly inserted into the article, and odd expressions like "collaborator of Live Aid". This is a pity, there is much interesting content here—but more work required.Graham Colm Talk 14:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd withdraw, but I'd rather hear if anyone else has any comments. Honestly, about this needing a copyedit, I had quite a few people copyedit this article, and another user completely guided me through various stages... so I don't know what to say, really. Also, I apologize for the sloppy prose. I am not a good prose writer, which is why I had some many copyedits done in the first place, but oh well. I'd rather see what anyone else has to say before I withdraw this. CarpetCrawlermessage me 20:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So would I. When it comes to copyediting, it is often not quantity but quality that counts. Yes, let's see what others have to say. This is not the end of the world, but an opportunity to improve the article. And, most importantly, please no apology required. We are friends and collaborators working as volunteers on an important project. This article may or may not be promoted on this occasion, but given the content, and providing that the sources are reliable, it will eventually. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:31, 6 June 2009 [4].

Loihi Seamount

Nominator(s): ResMar 23:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is my second shot. Since the first nominations, we've been tightening the article, and Mattaise has done a great go-over of the prose. Try, try again... ResMar 23:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section on macro organisms had material that was copied without understanding and without quotation marks. Probably the article should be more carefully checked before some author finds their work as a featured article in wikipedia without their permission. It's also useful for the reader of the article if the material copied (although prefer it not copied, but rewritten and developed with proper attribution and expanded and placed in pointed context) is directly related to the article. Data in the table and lists were about species found in general by expeditions to primarily other seamounts, not this one, or were not found at the linked site, or were used in ways that did not show the relationship to this article and its unique sealife that is a function of its historical activity and location relative to the hotspot. Please check sources carefully. Also please read carefully to see if the article makes sense. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, article abstracts should never be used as references (that's where the disputed material came from), only the articles themselves. In any case, 69.226.103.13 offers excellent criticism and I hope it will improve the article. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realize that editors were using just the abstract for the information. My corrections, however, are from the article, not the abstract, and if the reference as is means that only the abstract is used for this section it is incorrect. I will change this to the UH link to clear this up. The 213 species out of 250 taxa photographed, is, yes, for the entire series of dives mostly concentrated at Johnston and Cross and should probably remain deleted until additional information is included about the colonization of the seamount from the surrounding areas. For this last piece of information is an important aspect of the colonization of the seamount. The comment about lack of faunal zonation is also an important ecological description for a young volcano, and an attempt should be made to find the reference and include the information in this section. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Just one observation, if you're only using the abstract of an article as the source, you must make that clear in the referencing. I'm not a scientist, so I couldn't even begin to opine on whether that's good practice or not
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to check out the sources and links.
This particular abstract should not have been used as the source for information because the article was primarily about two other locations, not Loihi. This has been fixed in the Loihi article.
In general, for writing encyclopedia articles, scientific information should be well-established. If it is published as an abstract only, as in the case of a convention, the information may be too new and not as vetted as one would want for an article in a general encyclopedia. Most information should come, also, from within an article, rather than from its abstract, for the same reason: the abstract is the new information, the text contains discussion of well-established information. Within the article, the introduction, relating the basis of the experiment to prior information, and the discussion section, relating the results to prior information, are the most appropriate areas to find usable information for a derivative piece, such as a general encyclopedia article or a popular science or newspaper write-up. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Enough inaccuracies have been found to make me quite wary about this article. Examples include the macro-organism material mentioned above, the seamount's height (diff), and the issues around the 1996 eruption recently discussed on the article's talk page. As 69.226.103.33 suggests above, the article needs to be thoroughly checked against its sources. There is a lot of good work being put in, though, so I'm still hopeful. -- Avenue (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend closing this FAC, for the second time. It isn't ready. One thing I noticed early in the article development was some confusion caused by the reliance on HCV web sites. These sites were, for the most part, using data found in published sources. For example, the paper in the further reading section, "Researchers rapidly respond to submarine activity at Lōʻihi volcano, Hawaiʻi", supports much of the current article. Whenever possible, however, editors should try to review the published literature before using web sites which extract partial data for public consumption, and compare it to multiple sources to determine accuracy. Some of the initial editing of this article was rushed and copied haphazardly from web sites without careful attention to detail and comparative fact-checking from the original sources. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • I've gone through and made a quick round of changes based on things I picked out in the article. Let me know if any of the changes created problems as you see them.
  • Several of the changes I made include adding fact tags where I think a citation is needed.
  • The expression "the most recorded for any historical Hawaiian volcanic activity" in the lead is a bit awkward. Is there a way you could rephrase it to something like "This series included more earthquakes than any other swarm in Hawaiian history"?
  • I'm a little concerned that the fourth citation is used so heavily. For me, anything more than 10 uses indicates that more research could be needed. I'd strongly suggest finding additional citations to replace the multiple uses -- those new citations might reveal new facts about the seamount as well.
  • The caption for the bathymetric map of the seamount uses a period for an incomplete sentence. I didn't change it since there's another sentence there, and you could probably combine the two.
  • In the geology section dealing with Pele's Pit, there's a bit of redundancy and confusion. You mention that Pele's Pit is the youngest pit twice; I'm also not clear what Pele's Vent was -- there's no explanation; also, when you talk about the thick crater walls, is that referring to all the pits or just Pele's Pit.
  • Where are the other two pits located, and what's their structure? You mention so much detail about Pele's Pit, the absence of information about the other two was noticeable.
  • You mention how the rift zones create the "distinctive shape from which its Hawaiian name derives". The problem is that you don't mention what Loihi means until later in the article and in the infobox.
  • In the sentence "transported with the seafloor itself to its location in the Hawaiian Islands", you may need to mention crustal movement, since the natural question is to ask how a volcano can be transported.
  • I hesitate to offer this as a suggestion, since it would be a lot of work: Consider merging the exploration and activity sections into a "history" section and move it in front of Geology. I say this because the Geology section contains a lot of information that is tough to grasp unless you understand the history of the seamount. Forex, the article mentions about how until 1970, it was thought that Loihi was a defunct seamount moved into place by the moving crust and that scientists discovered in 1970 that it was an erupting volcano. You're using historical marks to discuss the geology, and that makes me wonder if it'd be better to move the history of exploration and eruptive history up. For examples of where this worked really well, check out the featured article Jupiter Trojan.
  • The summit depth in the infobox and the one given in the geology section don't match.
  • There are a lot of double and triple-spaced words in the article. I think I nailed most of them, but I'd suggest doing a find/replace for them.
  • In activity, you say the volcano was known to be active before recordkeeping began in 1959; that seems to contradict the assertion in the geology section that it was thought to be a dormant seamount prior to 1970.
  • I like the table of major events. It's a good idea and presents its information clearly.
  • In the activity section, the 1991–1992 earthquake lasted several months? Or did you mean eruption?
  • When you say a "low level" of activity, by what definition is it low?
  • The sentence "detected 10 times the amount of quakes that were to be found on the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) seismic network" leaves me more questions than answers. How many quakes were found by HVO? Is that a lot? What does HVO cover? How many volcanoes? How do those volcanoes compare to Loihi?
  • When you say the swarm was the "largest" recorded for any Hawaiian volcano, does that mean intensity or number?
  • You've got moment magnitude scale wikilinked twice in quick succession in the activity section and again later on in the article.
  • Why were scientists unable to study iron-oxidizing bacteria at any time other than the 1996 quake swarm?
  • What is a "significant" amount of shore-based research? It's not a very clear amount.
  • In the earthquake swarm section, you use the word "event" a lot. The problem is that it's often not clear whether you're talking about the swarm or the eruption that preceded it, especially in terms of the effects. I know there's probably no way to tell in some cases, but the formation of Pele's Pit was a result of the eruption, not the quakes, yes?
  • Calling the volcano "alive" might be a bit too much anthropomorphism. Same for the use of the word "born". Be cautious.
  • "temperatures exceeding 250 °C, a record" ... for Loihi, hydrothermal vents, underwater volcanoes, or something else?
  • In the last sentence of the swarm section, you say "the study" ... which study is this referring to: the quick one in August or the longer ones in September and October?
  • Is there any tsunami danger from Loihi quakes or eruptions? Any danger to human operations of any kind?
  • There's a lot of relative terms in the article: "ideal", "famous" and so on.
  • The iron-oxidizing bacteria information in the exploration section might be better sited in the ecology section.
  • Why is the first mention of Kapo's Vents in the microorganisms section? If it's a significant feature, I'd suggest putting it in the geology section. I'd also suggest moving discussion of the makeup of vent fluids in a similar fashion.

Well, I think that's about it. I don't claim that this is everything, but it should get you started, at least. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:31, 6 June 2009 [5].

Osteitis fibrosa cystica

Nominator(s): Strombollii (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because having recently received GAN, I feel that the article articulately and professionally explains the subject. The article has undergone four intensive reviews and multiple multi-party edits, and I feel meets all FA criterion.Strombollii (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The pathophysiology section could be more in depth and involve a diagram of the process.
  • The section on epidemiology touches on the USA and Asia. Any data from the rest of the world?
  • In the history section it is mentioned that the rate has decreased in the western world with better treatment. What was the rate before and what has it decreased to?
  • It seems that there are 4 causes. I would be best if each cause had its own section rather than being numbered.
  • I have seen some gross anatomy images of these tumors as mentioned at the GA. People will often release images if you ask much like radiopedia did for the images of the hands.
  • It discusses x ray findings under signs and symptoms. Should be moved to diagnosis.

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you removed it? Haha It was a placeholder until I replaced the info.
I didn't remove it. It's still there, current ref 39 "Engel..." Ealdgyth - Talk 11:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed reference: info substantiated in other two references at the conclusion of that sentence.Strombollii (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a cleanup/expand banner in one section.
That was inserted by Doc: I'm trying to find data to change that, but there really isn't anything available as far as I can tell.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw at least one one-sentence section that should be expanded, and noted several MOS issues in edit summaries. I'm concerned that some physicians should look at this article for 1b, comprehensive, as several sections are short and stubby. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - and I hate doing this because the article is from the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008 that I was involved in. I have been watching this page hoping for comments from the medics, but they do not seem interested. There are many problems with the article. First, it reads as though the targeted readers are medical professionals, and, although this is often difficult to get round, no effort seems to have been made. The prose, although generally good, fails on occasions. Simple improvements such as quick redundancy checking for "as well as", "also" and more complex redundancy such as "which is a term used to refer to", would be a start. The deeper faults include:

  • Abnormalities affecting the parathyroid glands cause a surplus of PTH, which, in turn, increases the activity and frequency of such cells. - it is far from clear that "such cells" are osteoblasts and osteocytes.
  • Increased PTH triggers the release of stored calcium through the dissolution of old bone, as well as the conservation of said serum calcium through a cessation in the production of new bone. - "as well as" and "of said serum calcium" - need attention, particularly the latter, I do not understand the need for "of said"
  • Muscles in patients afflicted with OFC generally appear unaffected or "bulked up" instead of diminishing in mass. - why would they be expected to diminish in mass?
  • Often the article seems more about hyperparathyroidism than OFC. This is particularly noticable in the History and Epidemiology sections, but occurs throughout the article; If muscular symptoms appear upon the onset of hyperparathyroidism, they are generally sluggish contraction and relaxation of the muscles.
  • What is deviation of the trachea?
  • The section on blood testing is very poor; there is not enough detail. What do the results of the tests mean, how should they be interpreted, what are their normal ranges, when should they be performed, are they reliable? These should all be explained.
  • There is a big difference between a sign and a symptom. The usage is wrong in the Radiology section, which again is not very good. X-rays may also be used to diagnose the disease - no they aid the diagnosis. Only humans diagnose.
    I respectfully disagree with this point. Humans use x-rays to diagnose the disease. Therefore x-rays are indeed used to diagnose the disease. [Although I accept that re-writing the sentence might be helpful.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, brown tumors, especially when manifested on facial bones, can be misdiagnosed as neoplastic. - this sentence is targetted at medics.
  • skull x-rays may depict - skulls do not emit X-rays; we are writing for medics again.
  • Cysts may be lined by osteoclasts and sometimes blood pigments, which lend to the notion of "brown tumors." - where have these "cysts" come from all of a sudden, this is the first time they are mentioned. What are they, where are they and they important?
  • Fine needle aspiration can be used to biopsy bone lesions, - "biopsy" is not a verb.
    Actually it is used as a verb. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delivered intravenously - writing for medics again, delivered intravenously, with medications - what medications?
  • is the recommended route of treatment - writing for medics.
  • the lesion healed and the autonomous material blended rapidly and seamlessly with the original bone. - does "autonomous material" mean "the transplanted bone?
  • The epidemiology section is about hyperparathyroidism and not OFC, as is the history section.

In summary, I think the article does not satisfy the FA criteria. Much more work is required, which I doubt can be done in a reasonable time. Graham Colm Talk 17:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Graham makes several good points. The image at the top right has bizarrely shaped arrows. Perhaps a standard shape of arrow could be used? The "References" need to be standardized. Please include volume and issue numbers if appropriate. It is preferable to use journal titles in full. The "Bibliography" section uses textbooks that only have a single page number referenced in the article. These books should use standard in-line citation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:31, 6 June 2009 [6].

Gulfton, Houston

Nominator(s): WhisperToMe (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Since the first FA nomination, I have replaced old photos with new ones. Also User:Remotelysensed copyedited the article after I placed a copyedit request. With the errors indicated in the first FA nomination corrected, I would like to see how a second FA nomination would do. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:21, 24 May 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.
Still not fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed as many all caps as I could find. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other references are lacking authors, publishers, last access dates, etc. (Check your houston chronicle articles, that's where I especially noted lacking authors, etc.)
  • Five deadlinks in the link checker tool.
  • This was noted in the previous FAC, but not everything needs to be italicised. Websites dont' need to be italicised, only newspaper and journal titles.
still not fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed more italics. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, the only things italicised should be newspaper titles, magazine titles, and book titles. The titles like City of Houston, Harris County, etc. don't need italics. (There are still more, but I'll strike this because it's much improved and will trust you'll get the rest) Ealdgyth - Talk 11:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A concern is that large chunks of the article are sourced to primary sources, such as the organizations, schools, etc. Other reviewers should check the article for inadvertant bias
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Some of the Houston Chronicle articles don't have authors indicated. What should I do in that case?
"Staff" works as an author. On the couple I spot checked, there were authors on the articles, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That works :) - Anyway, I'll look at the remaining references.
I improved some more refs. Are there any more that need attention? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Which ones are dead? I'll have to use web.archive.org to fix the dead links - For publishers, which references do not have publishers? Which ones don't have access dates? (Please use the numbers)
3. Many of the primary sources I used are to source school boundaries and stuff that isn't analytical. Even so, please feel free to look at the sources.
4. Should I un-italicize the websites in the references too, or just in the article body? EDIT: It is talking about sources, so I'll have to un-italicize non-newspaper source names.
Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of the Chronicle citations, I caught one ("Afraid to be counted") that needed more info (author, date, access date) entered. There were two ("Mexican village" and "sports anchors") that needed an access date. There was a Houston Business Journal article that needed author info. There was a Chron article that needed an author info ("Hurricane Rita") - I also caught one all of the dead links with the link checker WhisperToMe (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I de-italicized and filled in info for some sources with incomplete information. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think this needs significant work on its prose (in particular, the organization of the prose) to meet the FA bar.
    • I find the first sentence problematic. In particular, the location of "including" at the very beginning bothers me. Are the apartment complexes the defining feature of Gulfton? The way the first sentence is structured now, Gulfton's location seems to be an afterthought; the focus is on these puzzling apartment complexes. Try perhaps "Gulfton is a community in southwestern Houston, Texas, United States that..."
    • I question the choice of the lead picture (or at least the caption needs some rethinking). The caption is quite specific, but there's no tie to the greater article. Is it a famous landmark in Gulfton? Is it indicative of Gulfton's economic troubles?
    • The lead, which should summarize an article, seems a bit short.
    • "with new apartment complexes " missing a verb here.
    • "In the 1980s, the economy declined and the community became home to newly-arrived immigrants." Are these two ideas connected? Seems odd. If so, might need some further explication here.
    • "and aspects of Latin American culture and recreation." Jarring after a long list of buildings...
    • "the Shenandoah subdivision was built," How does this relate to Gulfton? Explain.
    • "Rice Center" I assume this has something to do with Rice University. Link?
    • What impact did the young northerners have on the community?
    • "DRG Funding" What's this?
    • "Lantern Village" Italicized because?
    • "rent rates at poorly-maintained apartments in Gulfton and other Houston areas were about the same as at well-maintained apartments in other areas of Houston" I thought the previous sentence mentioned that landlords reduced rates in Gulfton?
    • "pouring money down a perceived rat hole." Citation for quotation?
    • "Goodner lobbied for services such as a satellite health department clinic for apartment renters." Does not fit well with the rest of the paragraph.
    • "In July 1989, members of the Houston Resident Citizens Participation Council...did not like to see funds" Odd, awkward construct.
    • So the HRCPC did not want to see funds diverted...what actions did they actually take?
    • What's the implication of being designated a "Community Development Target"?
    • "Public Life in Gulfton: Multiple Publics and Models of Organization, a 1997 article," If this is an article, it should not be italicized.
    • "Robert Fisher, a professor and chair of Political Social Work..." This paragraph seems rather out of place, and breaks up the chronological flow.
    • I stopped reading at the end of 1980 through 1992...I got really bogged down by the organization and flow of the prose. I think you'll need to rethink how you're using your sources to build a cohesive story. The 1950s through 1979 led me to wonder about how the development of Gulfton was related to the development of Houston as a whole. Where did it fit in with that story? How did this influx of northerners affect the community?
      • The jumping from description of the history to description of the sources used is particularly jarring. For example, "In that article, Gaines" <-- why do we need to know that Gaines said this in a particular news article? That's not the important or interesting part. You're using footnote citations...that's their purpose. I'd suggest, "According to Gaines, the complexes in Gulfton began to cater to illegal aliens, and landlords allowed renters to "double-up" housing, with several individuals and/or families sharing the same unit."
    • Cite your quotations.
    • Not really related to FA criteria, but the first two maps need some work. Both are zoomed out a bit far, and hard to make out what is important to note. The first one seems awfully busy. Think about your data-ink ratio... BuddingJournalist 05:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll look at the rest of these later, but for right now I'll start with these:
      • 1. You said: "I question the choice of the lead picture (or at least the caption needs some rethinking). The caption is quite specific, but there's no tie to the greater article. Is it a famous landmark in Gulfton? Is it indicative of Gulfton's economic troubles?" - This particular complex is discussed in the history section of the article. It became well-known in television advertisements featuring Michael Pollack, who had an over-the-top advertising style. It is indicative of the economic troubles because this complex became bankrupt and foreclosed (it says so in the caption and in the main article). Is there a way to make this more obvious/clear to the reader?
      • 2. You said: "Cite your quotations." - The quotations I used come from the citation afterwards. I.E. the quote "double-up" is to citation #5, "conservative" is to citation #13, "lost its focal issue" is to citation #15. Each block of text has its citation at the end, with everything sourced from the citation. How should I modify the citation structure?
      • 3. The instance of the italicized Lantern Village was changed to quote marks
      • 4. Regarding "with new apartment complexes" - This is the full sentence: "Gulfton was developed in the 1960s and 1970s, in the midst of an oil boom, with new apartment complexes geared towards young singles from the Northeast and Midwest United States who came to work in the oil industry." - The verb is in the previous part of the sentence.
      • 5. You said: "Are these two ideas connected? Seems odd. If so, might need some further explication here." - The sentence referred is from the lead of the article. Does the lead need more explanation taken from the body of the article? The body explains that, since the previous group of tenants left since there was the oil bust, the owners of the apartment complexes needed new tenants and attracted immigrants. - Since the lead needed more content, I decided to add an explanation.
      • 6. You said: "How does this relate to Gulfton? Explain" regarding Shenandoah - The later sections explain that Shenandoah became threatened by the deterioration of Gulfton and tried to block its streets; this connection is regarding events that take place at a later time (mid-1980s) than the beginning of the development of Shenandoah (1950s). Here's my question: What should I add to this sentence?
      • 7. Regarding Rice Center, the Kim Cobb article doesn't give any further explanation to what Rice Center is. Rice Center is a part of a name. (the point is that the person is from the "Jesse H. Jones Center for Economic and Demographic Forecasting at Rice Center") - Should I explain what the Jesse H. Jones Center is?
      • 8. You said: "The 1950s through 1979 led me to wonder about how the development of Gulfton was related to the development of Houston as a whole. Where did it fit in with that story? How did this influx of northerners affect the community?" - The 1950s through the mid-1980s was an economic boom time for Houston and there was a need for housing for the many white collar workers coming from the north. The apartment complexes were built to house these workers. The community of Gulfton did not begin until the apartments opened. Regarding "What impact did the young northerners have on the community? " - The young northerners were the Gulfton community. Of course Shenandoah, the adjacent subdivision, had no problem with them. It was only when the demographics changed in the 1980s when the Shenandoah subdivision began to react.
      • 9. Regarding the construct about the funds being diverted, I decided to alter the order of the sentences and explain what a "Community Development Target" is.
      • 10. You said: '**"rent rates at poorly-maintained apartments in Gulfton and other Houston areas were about the same as at well-maintained apartments in other areas of Houston" I thought the previous sentence mentioned that landlords reduced rates in Gulfton?' - Neither statement conflicts with the other - One can reduce rent rates in X neighborhood, but people in Y neighborhood can reduce their rates at the same time.
      • 11. I explained what DRG Funding is. It is headquartered in Washington; I don't know which Washington the article is referring to.
      • 12. As for the maps, I got them from a U.S. Government website and pieced them together from screenshots. Do you know of any GNU or public domain map services I could use?
      • 13. Regarding the Goodner sentence not fitting; the whole sentence is "John Goodner, a Houston city council member representing a district including Gulfton at that time, said that more changes occurred in his district in the several years leading up to 1988 than in any other area of Houston; Goodner lobbied for services such as a satellite health department clinic for apartment renters" - What I am saying is that his city council area changed, and then he lobbied to serve the new population of the area.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs. I read about half the article closely and skimmed the rest. Therefore, the comments listed below are not comprehensive; the whole article needs to be looked at from the perspective of these examples. Overall, I thought the article wavered between including too much trivial detail and not including enough relevant background information - I think it would be difficult for someone not familiar with the Houston area to understand all of the history section, for example. The prose is adequate but needs improvement to meet the FAC standards, and the sourcing could definitely be improved (although I was pleasantly surprised at how much you were able to find in journals and newspapers).

  • Lead issues:
    • Is the image of the apartment complex really the most suitable for the very top of the article? I would expect to see the map of the neighborhood's location, as people unfamiliar with Houston would likely be confused by just the text description.
    • Vagueness (example from the lead: the schools were increasingly overwhelmed; - what does that mean? overwhelmed by what?)
    • The chronology of the third paragraph in the lead is off. Why discuss 2000 information then go back to the 1980s? Some of the information in the third paragraph also seems much too detailed for the lead.
    • The lead does not adequately summarize the article. What about the government section?
  • History section
    • The focus seems off. The first paragraph is geared more towards the Shenandoah subdivision. Much of this information is probably useful, but it could be reworded to keep the focus on Gulfton rather than making it seem like we are backtracking into a different article.
    • The chronology is off. Why do we hear about Shenandoah's future clashes before we ever even hear of anything happening in Gulfton?
    • Watch capitalization -- White people?
    • The history section never actually tells when the neighborhood of Gulfton was created - when did it gets its own name? Why wasn't it part of Shenandoah? Who was responsible for first developing the area? Did its boundaries always match what they are now? Who designed the "widely-spaced grid road pattern"? Was this done on purpose to attract apartment complexes (and if not, why use that type of road)? If it was always intended to be apartments, what did the Sheanndoah people think at the time - were there any protests or grumblings?
    • the development of apartment complexes was not well planned or coordinated, and there was often little interest in building a quality product. -- is this specific criticism directed at the apartments in Gulfton or is this more vague - apartment-building in general in this timeframe?
    • Might want to put in a bit more background on what caused the decline in the economy in the 1980s.
    • Why include the trivia on the advertisements for the Colonial House Apartments? If they were only well-known through the Houston area, then this doesn't seem that important to the article, especially since Michael Pollack is not exactly a well-known name (I've never heard of him, and no wikilink).
    • Why such a focus on the Colonial House Apartments, that they get an entire paragraph? Is there a reason they are singled out over other apartments? Was this the largest complex?
    • Why didn't the new residents have easy access to government services? There needs to be a bit more background tieing this in together.
    • Did the Central American Refugee Center target its work at Gulfton, or was its reach much broader and it was just based in Gulfton? If the latter, it really isn't worth mentioning in this article - that is essentially more trivia.
    • I'm still not understanding why the merger of the GANO and the GAAC affected relations with the Shenadoah Civic Association. This needs more detail.
    • Did nothing happen between 1992 and 1998? Any more details on the apparently growing difficulties between Shenandoah and GANO?
    • The paragraph on the Navarro killing needs to be totally redone. Lose the irrelevant details (do we care about the time?), and include more background - this paragraph does not tell someone who didn't follow the case what was actually going on and why this was a big deal.
  • Is it normal to have a history of elementary schools in a neighborhood article? This seems inappropriate to me. The information would be better placed in a school district history article.
  • Sourcing

Karanacs (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • I'll explain more about some of these points in a sec. But first:
          • Regarding "the schools were increasingly overwhelmed" - Overwhelmed with excess students. I'm going to correct that now; it shouldn't be vague.
          • You said: "The chronology is off. Why do we hear about Shenandoah's future clashes before we ever even hear of anything happening in Gulfton?" - That was from a suggestion by BuddingJournalist. I'm going to get the two of you to talk about that one, because to be it seems like what he suggested seems contradicts what you suggest (maybe I'm wrong, but what I wrote was a direct result of his comments).
          • The name - First, it didn't become a part of Shenandoah because Shenandoah is entirely made of single family homes and Shenandoah refers to the homes. "Gulfton" refers to the apartment complexes. The area simply got the name by the 1980s; there is no story involving one group suddenly deciding that this community needs the name "Gulfton"
          • Schools - On the contrary, the history of the elementary schools is very important to this neighborhood. The sudden filling of the area elementary schools is one of the main points of the development of the neighborhood. Also moving this info to the school district article would be worse because this would seem off topic. Remember that the Houston Independent School District is the largest in Texas and has many schools, so a specific history detailing individual schools would be very long and drawn out. What is here is specific to the neighborhood. Considering that many of its residents are children and that the filling of the schools has been detailed in newspapers, I feel that the section is vital and must be kept.
          • METRO: You said: "Why source info on the new Metro lines to the Metro website? - I know that has been widely covered in the Chronicle, and there is no reason to be going to the self-published Metro site instead. The Chronicle will at least give additional background and reactions" - The source "Public Life in Gulfton: Multiple Publics and Models of Organization." mentions that a group lobbied for an increase in METRO lines. That is one thing. Two, the Houston Chronicle mentions people asking why Gulfton doesn't have a stop on the proposed University Line. For specific lines going through the neighborhood, I feel that primary sources are appropriate for this particular piece of information. I would like to check the archives of Houston Chronicle more regarding METRO specifically in Gulfton, though.
          • Regarding Rice, I'll have to see if there is a source that talks about Rice's headquarters. BTW the website source is used for the **address,** which confirms the location.
          • The primary sources are generally used to confirm basic details and not analytical details. The analyzing comes from reliable sources.
          • WhisperToMe (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why addresses should be included in this article at all. That is overly detailed information. I also highly disagree that primary sources are satisfactory if secondary sources exist, and I still think the school chronology is overly detailed and out of place here. We don't need (and the majority of readers of this article won't care) that X school opened in Y year. Karanacs (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with removing addresses on the page. What I discussed above was using an address as a source. Anyway, I feel that the "X school opened in Y year" is actually very imporant in three places: When Gordon re-opened in the 1980s, Benavidez opened in 1992, and when Rodriguez opened in 2003, as they directly were responses to the results of the socioeconomic changes in the Gulfton neighborhood. On the other hand, the opening dates of Cunningham, Braeburn, Long, and Lee had little effect on the neighborhood. I could remove the opening dates of those schools. Also I could remove the opening dates of the charter schools. How does that sound?
You said: "Did nothing happen between 1992 and 1998? Any more details on the apparently growing difficulties between Shenandoah and GANO?" - Stuff did happen between those years, but they are mainly mentioned in specific subsections. I would have to look at that source to see if it has any other information.
Regarding: http://www.escapesexpo.com/speakers.asp?id=1 - The only way in which this was used is to state what Rice Center is; Budding Journalist suggested that I explain what Rice Center is. For what it is being used for it should be reliable. An official website of an EXPO would take care to say the truth, no?
http://www.neighborhood-centers.org/uploads/gulfton1_english.pdf - Only being used to confirm that these three elementary schools were connected to Gulfton.
Regarding primary and secondary sources, Wikipedia:Primary_sources#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources states "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." - So therefore one has to use the different sources in appropriate matters. I feel that simply using primary sources to state that these particular METRO routes go through the community would be a good usage of primary sources.
The information for the exclusion of Gulfton from the rail line was sourced to a source. I'll have to see when the Chronicle covered some basic details of the METRO new line and if any details need to be backed up.
I revised the Oregon paragraph. I'll have to see when the lawsuit concluded.
The press used the fate of the Colonial House as an example of what every Gulfton apartment was going through in the 1980s, so having Wikipedia repeat with using Colonial House as a fate, with sourcing directly from the Chronicle, would be appropriate. Also that is why I used the Colonial House image at the top, as it represents a typical Gulfton apartment complex.
So far I cannot find any press sources which describe the Rice Epicurean HQ as being "in Gulfton" - So far I only have the address, which puts it in the area. There was an article that described the Fox News Center, located in the same area as the Epicurean HQ, as in the Gulfton area.
The guidelines about primary sources do not say use them as little as possible - They say to use them properly. There is a difference. If you wish to contest primary sources, please state how the reference is not appropriate.
You said: "Might want to put in a bit more background on what caused the decline in the economy in the 1980s. " - Sounds like a good idea. There is a wider oil bust that may even merit its own article. I could ask the people at the Houston WikiProject for help.
WhisperToMe (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until my colleagues' issues are fixed, and it's generally better written. The sheer number of critical comments above indicates that this text has not undergone the appropriate level of copy-editing and scrutiny WRT the other criteria. This is unfair to other nominators and to our overworked reviewers.

  • Is the huge caption at the top all relevant to the pic? Can't some of it be in the main text?
  • 1950s–1979? 1980–92? Much neater.
  • 1992–present is a "quickly dating" problem. When is the present in two years' time? Delimit by stating 2009.
  • Why is "US dollars" linked? Is it exotic, like the Tibetan razu?
  • Parts of it are overcited. Here's a doozler: "The attendance boundaries of Benavidez Elementary School, Braeburn Elementary School, Cunningham Elementary School, and Rodriguez Elementary School cover sections of Gulfton.[4][118][119][120][121][122]". Really contentious statement, that one. Can it be conflated into ONE ref. note?
  • Acres convert to hectares, please, not square metres.
  • For pity's sake, why is "English language" linked?
  • No hyphen after -ly adverbs. See MOS.
  • What a desert. Those pics make me depressed. (This is not part of my review.) Tony (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:25, 2 June 2009 [7].

Norton 360

Nominator(s): Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 11:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now meets the criteria. It is a software by one of the largest security software company Symantec. This product is widely used by many people worldwide. Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 11:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose,
  1. missing publish dates some sources do not have publish dates, however are reliable
  2. incomplete titles for references did not find any problems
  3. missing author names no author mentioned sometimes
  4. ref 15/16 are duplicates done
  5. screenshot is of trial version true
  6. where's the reception/reviews/criticism section? incorporated in article; still need to expand
  7. version/date releases with source? Is that information likely to be contested?
  8. if it contains a number of security features, why is it classified as an Antivirus in the infobox? done
  9. browser dab link ?
  10. http://www. can be removed from address in infobox. done
  11. If it is so widely used then why isn't there more coverage information available?--Otterathome (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now - it's good but i really need properly formatted references and maybe a release and reception. I.e. what did reviewers think were its best features, how many units were sold etc. --Thanks, Hadseys 01:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Working on the reception section and researching market share
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. You really should put the authors of the references first and not italicise them, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done
The suggestions are great

Replies from User:TechOutsider

I did not reach a consensus with User:Tyw7 before nominating this article for FAC; we never even discussed it at all. However, now that the article has been nominated, the pointers given are very useful. Thank you.

  • Some of the articles used do not have publish dates.
  • Comments – Change Version History section header to Version history, because "history" isn't a proper noun. Also, reference 25 has a linked date, which has been discouraged in the Manual of Style for some time. References shouldn't be in all capital letters, either. If this does end up not passing, I suggest another peer review. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wish Tyw7 gave me some time to consider and improve the article beforehand. I don't really have the patience to sit down and do all this in one day, however it has to be done in a timely manner. Too bad Tyw7 is taking a wikibreak ... TechOutsider (talk) 12:47, 31 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 14:25, 2 June 2009 [8].

Jackie Robinson

Nominator(s): BillTunell (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because...

This article was nominated for FA status back in December 2008, unsuccessfully, but retained “Good Article” status. IMO that was itself probably a stretch at the time I noticed the article, in early April 2009. The following week I substantially reworked the article, which now has grown to a 850+ edit process. A summary:

I’ve inserted about 50 internet references, about 30 of them unique. The major sticking point at the last FA review was a lack of book reference sources, given the published information on Robinson. I’ve done a comprehensive review of all web-accessible books and added six new book sources as well as citations to the others already cited. Some non-web accessible books exist that are not cited. There were also some non-web-accessible books (particularly the Rampersad book) that were previously cited for a lot of claims. Instead of eliminating theses unverifiable citations, I’ve left them in place (except in one instance where there was a patent misquote of the Duberman book), and instead double-sourced and reworded the claims as necessary. I think there are only a couple vestigial claims in the article unverifiable on the web. Some of the web-accessibility book features scroll through pages occasionally, so it might take some time (or cache clearances) to see various pages of a book.

This article went through peer review which is now archived. I notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball and the prior FA nominator user:Peregrine Fisher and prior contributor user:RyanCross, although they are now wiki-retired and did not respond. Thanks to user:Killervogel5 and user:Timpcrk87 for substantive suggestions.

The FA nomination administrator might want to review the status of the article for WP:peacock claims, which have been hashed out by myself and user:Timpcrk87 during peer review. Also note the claim under the Pasadena Junior College sub-section about a prior run-in with police that may be overboard by user:Timpcrk87‘s standards.

A lot of content has been moved to Paul Robeson and Jackie Robinson and Racial integration in baseball, so check there if you contributed any information. As a sidelight to this article I’ve substantially reworked those sections as well as added/improved a number of other articles including Bullet Rogan, Chet Brewer, Marques Haynes, Johnny Wright, and others.

BillTunell (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger comments
OPPOSE for the unresolved issues below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've made all these changes with the exception of the "Pasadena Star-News" reference. I agree that this is a teaser comment, but it was written by another contributer, and cited by reference to the Rampersad book, to which I do not have access. As such, it is one of the "vestigial claims in the article unverifiable on the web" to which I refer above. I have not deleted this because, although unverified, it is potentially useful information that hopefully some other contributor can flesh out during the review process. If it ultimately becomes a barrier to FA status I will remove it. BillTunell (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DocKino comments
  • Comment This is a very good article. It requires some copyediting, which I'm happy to pitch in with when I can over the next week, and I'm sure we can get it to FA standard. One issue that leaps out at me at first glance is that the two photos in the "Negro Leagues" subsection severely crowd the text in virtually any screen size and configuration. I'm afraid one of them has to go. As the KC Royals picture already has a prominent home in the baseball Featured Article, I suggest dropping that and retaining the image of Robinson with Paige.DocKino (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the above discussion and let me know if the most recent work-around looks acceptable. I'll delete one of the photos if necessary, but between re-sizing and further staggering, I think there is no more left-right overlap. Not sure about all screen sizes, though. BillTunell (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing, and this is important. In editing the "John Muir High School" subsection, I came across an instance of inadvertent plagiarism. Here is how the passage in question read before my edit:

His older brother, Matthew "Mack" Robinson, inspired Jackie to pursue his talent and love for athletics.

And here's the pertinent passage in the cited source:

Robinson's older brother, Matthew Robinson, inspired Jackie to pursue his talent and love for athletics.

Even with the citation, this is impermissible. Please see this wonderful essay on the practice of proper paraphrasing and how to avoid inadvertent plagiarism: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches (see "Adapting sources: paraphrasing and summarizing" subsection). Then please go through the entire article and see if there are other places where you've followed source text too closely. I'll hold off on further copyediting till you've done that.DocKino (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Understood. I've re-phrased tons of stuff in the article, but apparently missed a couple expamples. I've taken another comprehensive look, and made one additional paraphrase – at the end of the "Minor Legaues" subsection, to avoid plagiarizing note 10 (SportMag.com). Let me know if you see anything else. BillTunell (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found another case in the first note I happened to look at (I was interested in a factual detail): note 73.DocKino (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see the KC Royals image has moved down to the "Minor leagues" subsection. That takes care of the crowding problem, but now it's totally out of place (the Royals were not a minor league team) and out of time (the picture is from late '45; the text of the subsection begins in spring '46). It really is OK to lose the picture: (1) It depicts a very brief part of his career; (2) it appears prominently elsewhere on Wikipedia; and (3) there's clear pictures of his face in the article already from 1944 (Army photo), 1945 (Dodgers signing photo), and 1951 (comic book cover). See below for why I struck this a few minutes after writing it.DocKino (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Doc? Regarding one of your comments, I requested a photo of the City Hall sculpture years ago. It's of monumental proportions and situated in a location of particular honor. For a city that has had many famous residents--not just Hollywood celebrities but also five Nobel Prize winners including Albert Einstein--it's noteworthy that they express this much civic pride in Robinson. DurovaCharge! 18:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, Durova. If there were no available free images to illustrate the section in question, I'd have no issue with the image's inclusion. But there are free images available. This image is undoubtedly superior in informative value to those free images, so if we could find a reliable source that says something along the lines of what you just said, that would resolve the issue. I imagine there are newspaper reports from when the sculpture was unveiled that could serve this purpose. DocKino (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May 21

Oppose – Criterion 3. Normally I'm not an image reviewer, but I can't stay silent when I see five fair-use images in an article, and at least four have wholly inadequate rationales. What's puzzling is that we have free images of Robinson in the article, so why are these fair-use images even necessary? Giants2008 (17-14) 02:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably these images were submitted by me -- let me know the ones to which you refer, and why you think the rationales are bad. BillTunell (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image review I've looked them over. Here's my appraisal:
      • The images of Robinson at UCLA and in the army are both of significant historical value and fully pertinent to the article's text, but need full rationales.
      • The photo with Satchel Paige should probably be cut. The rationale is inadequate, and there is another image in the article that is also representative of Robinson's days in the Negro Leagues that is both free and provides a much clearer view of his face.
      • The photo with Branch Rickey is a historic image, and fully justified per policy. But the current rationale is, indeed, wholly inadequate.
      • The image of the Pasadena sculpture fails our NFCC policy in the absence of discussion of that sculpture. In addition, the "Awards and recognition" section already includes two free images relating to posthumous recognition. The image should probably be cut.DocKino (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks to Doc for the more detailed review. For more on writing acceptable fair-use rationales, please read Wikipedia:FCDW/September 22, 2008. While I'm here, there are still issues with referencing. The "staked a claim" bit sourced to reference 122 is a very close paraphrase (I happen to have the book), and some sources are shaky. Reference 29 is to Hoopedia (a wiki, which is unacceptable as a source), and I see other facts cited to the Baseball-Reference Bullpen (another wiki), his official website and Brittanica. No distinction is made in the citations between the Jackie and Sharon Robinson books (adding years to the citations would do it), and some references, such as numbers 43 and 45, need further formatting. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • In response to both you and Doc, I'v done the following: (i) cut the Kansas City Royals photo (since does not illustrate the Negro Leagues), (ii) updated the fair use rationales/summaries on all the non-free picture pages, (iii) mentioned the pasadena sculpture in the Awards and recognition section, (iv) re-worded the claim behind (prior) reference 122, (v) elimianted the Hoopedia reference (which had also been a sticking point in peer review), (vi) double-sourced the baseball-reference.com wiki citation, (vii) added Jackie's first name in the autobiography template citation. I think I've also addressed your concerns about additional citation information, but let me know. I'm not sure why there is an objection to citing the official website or Brittanica, but let me know if I'm missing some policy or another. BillTunell (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Bill, I'm sorry but this response on the images falls short. As I'm sure many habitués of this page will confirm, I'm a strong defender of the proper and judicious inclusion of fair use images, but your explanations for the retention of the Satchel Paige image and the sculpture image are insufficient. What in the world, by the way, do you mean when you write that you "cut the Kansas City Royals photo (since it is the only one that illustrates the Negro Leagues)"?
            • Look, we have two images that represent Robinson's days in the Negro Leagues: one is free, one is not free. In addition, the free one offers a much clearer image of his face. While his time with the Monarchs is more significant than his brief tenure with the Royals, there is little question that per our policy the free image takes precedence--that's the image of Robinson alone, as a Royal, not the image of him and Paige as Monarchs.
            • As for the image of the Pasadena sculpture, how does this significantly help us understand who Robinson was and the depth of his significance? As I noted, the relevant section already contains two free images that, in different ways, depict the extent of his posthumous recognition (one shows the president of the United States!). On the basis of image glut alone, there's no need for a third image in this section, let alone one that is not free. Furthermore, that non-free image is of a public sculpture--it unquestionably falls into the category of "readily replaceable" by a free equivalent.
            • There is no way I can support the article while the sculpture image is included; unless you have a much better defense up your sleeve for the Monarchs image, I can't consider supporting while that's included either. The proper and judicious use of non-free images brings great value to our encyclopedia and its mission of excellence—this kind of injudicious, weakly defended use does that cause a disservice.DocKino (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think I misspoke before. The Kansas City Royals photo does not portray the Negro Leagues. I can't find a free Negro League image despite multiple efforts at finding one. as such, I care about the inclusion of the Monarchs image. By contrast, the Pasadena sculpture image is not one I care much about. But it's been there for going on three years, and was not a bone of contention in any other peer review or nomination in the past. I can't see any policy that prohibits its inclusion. If there is, please direct me to it -- I could easily be missing something. IMO your suggestion of an alternative "free" image isn't really possible in this case since, by nature, any such image would be a derivative work. BillTunell (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • The photo of the sculpture is a simpler matter, so I'll start there. First off, it's obviously irrelevant to our policy whether or not it's ever been "a bone of contention." Next, you are correct--under U.S. copyright law, any photo of the sculpture would be a derivative work and non-free. However, in the context of an article on Jackie Robinson, the photo pretty clearly fails criterion 8 of our policy on non-free-content: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." The overall topic Is Jackie Robinson--I can't see a reasonable argument that an image of a posthumously created sculpture significantly increases our understanding of him. The specific topic is the recognition his life and career have received--the article already includes two free images that illustrate the topic; a third, non-free image can hardly be claimed to significantly add to our understanding of the recognition he's received. The photo would be acceptable in an article on the sculpture itself, and probably in an article on the artist who made it or on Public sculpture in Pasadena, but it is not acceptable here.
                  • I think I understand what you're saying now. I thought your objection was that the image itself was not free and you wanted soemone else to submit a non-free version. user:Amble had created the image and submitted it under the GNU license, so that didn't make sense to me. Assuming it still requires a fair use rationale because of the derivative work issue (which might be debatable, but user:Raul654 has expressed his opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_FAQ/Archive_1), I don't really have a problem with removing the image. But I'll let user:Amble know in advance, as a courtesy. BillTunell (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Whoa. There's no debate. Under U.S. copyright law, that image is unquestionably under copyright. It is not free. Our policy requires that it have a fair use rationale. Period. DocKino (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Thanks for the notice. Yes, the sculpture itself is copyrighted, and only my part as photographer is freely licensed. I tagged it with the "Non-free 3D art" template to make this clear. User:Durova, who is an admin on Commons and very knowledgeable about image copyright issues, had requested the image here, so I trusted that it was probably valid fair use. You might ask Durova if she now believes it's justifiable. --Amble (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • As for the Monarchs photo, I appreciate that you care about it. But you need to make a stronger case for it. From my reading of the literature, it strikes me that barnstorming squads such as the Kansas City Royals were considered part of the "Negro Leagues"; they were unquestionably part of the black side of the ledger of segregated baseball, which is what's most significant here, I believe. Why exactly is it so much more important to show Robinson in the uniform of the Monarchs--for whom he played only 47 games--than that of the Royals? Why is it so very much more important that its importance outweighs the fact that it is non-free, while the Royals image is free? If those questions can not be clearly and convincingly answered--not just in this venue, but also in a way that would work in the rationale on the image page--then the image fails criterion 1 of our policy: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available...that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"--or, more precisely, it fails the combination of criteria 1 and 8.
                  • BillTunell (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)I respectfully disagree. The California Winter League is just not the same as the Negro Leagues. If it were, the whole integration issue would be moot, because white players participated in it. I think illustrating the Negro League era in the article is more than a mere nicety. That being said, I understand your point, and if the FAC administrator says otherwise, we'll lose the image. I will supplement the image page to more clearly state the no-free-image-alternative issue. BillTunell (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Okay. I certainly don't feel as if the inclusion of the image warrants an oppose on its own. I did a little research to see if the ways in which respected institutions in the field define "Negro Leagues" would include the Royals or not. The Negro Leagues Baseball Players Association? Pretty clearly not. The Negro Leagues Baseball Museum? Probably yes. So, your position has an edge there. But, if you care about presenting your strongest case here, see my last observation below.
                    • Finally, you should be aware of how the process usually works here. It is very unlikely that the FA director is going to jump in with a thumbs up or down on this specific image. But silence, in this case, does not equal consent. Sandy and Karanacs will analyze the reviewer critiques you've received and your responses to them, and make a judgment based on that. While possible, it's still unlikely that either of them will engage in specific image review. In other words, as you craft that rationale (and I've already seen that it has a glaring error--"No other known free image is available which portrays Jackie Robinson in the Negro Leagues"), I wouldn't sit around waiting to see if an administrator bothers to object. It's wise to keep your focus on bringing the issues raised in the review to a resolution--in the review. DocKino (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Please refrain from the argumentative claim that I've committed a "glaring error." If you want to submit a free Negro League image, please do so.BillTunell (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Watch it, Bill. I have made no argumentative claim. You have made a glaring error. Period. In describing a non-free image, you have written, ""No other known free image is available which portrays Jackie Robinson in the Negro Leagues." Do you see that "other" that you wrote, Bill? That "other erroneously indicates that the image under discussion is free. It is not. In the context of a rationale for an image that you profess to care deeply about, a rationale whose quality is crucial to the image's retention, that's not just an error, that's a glaring error. I gather that this is all too much trouble for you, so I'll simply register my opposition now and withdraw from further input until and unless I see all the problems with the article's images resolved. DocKino (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • For your edification, here's a pretty hardcore (so to speak) fair use rationale I did: File:RotJonesMatCook.jpg. For yours, I would seriously consider citing the Negro Leagues Baseball Players Association link I provided above to support the position that the Kansas City Monarchs were the one and only Negro Leagues team Robinson played for. Also, here's a widely published and, I believe, superior fair use image of Robinson with the Monarchs: [9] (and contextualized with info: [10]). DocKino (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • A reminder: the inadvertent plagiarism associated with note 73 has still not been addressed. DocKino (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I thought I had addressed that before, although the numbers may have changed. I've paraphrased what is now under note 73. In the future, please quote any offending language so there's no misunderstanding. BillTunell (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It's interesting to note how your paraphrase reads: "In late September, he signed with Chet Brewer's Kansas City Royals, a post-season barnstorming team of the California Winter League, which competed against other Negro League teams..." You do realize that phrasing suggests that the Kansas City Royals were a Negro Leagues team, don't you? DocKino (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Changed. At this point, however, I don't see that you are proceeding with the conversation civilly, so this will be my last commentary in the string.BillTunell (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I fail to see what's uncivil about making sure you see how you're undercutting your own argument on a matter that you consider crucial, but so be it. I'll find it painless to devote my time elsewhere. DocKino (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward support

  • I'm very glad the quality of sourcing in this article is improved from its previous FAC. I believe the meat of the article is ready to support.
  • There are some MOS issues all through the article. The images are overlarge, and at least on my 1200 px wide browser, the article, aesthetically, is not pleasing. Try using the upright tag on the portrait-shaped images. I suggest merging the Post-military and Death sections into ones above or below them. Watch for overlinking: terms should ideally be linked at their first occurrence and not again. There are several ambiguous links and a dead ref link at UCLA today. She's not going to like it, but I'm going to suggest you ask User:Maralia for assistance in cleaning up some of the MOS issues. She's a stickler and much more accurate than I am. You know what works well with her? Whining. A lot. If there's one good I can do today on my time on Wikipedia, it's point users to her talk page to whine. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've taken out all the size-specfic tags on pics to reset them to default size, and put in |upright directors in the appropriate picture tags. Let me know how it looks. I've also invited user:Maralia What are the "ambiguous links" to which you refer? I'll consider merging the shorter subsections, althgouh I'm not sure how to deal wtith the "Post-military" section because it doesn't fit neatly anywhere else. Thanks BillTunell (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Fails criterion 3. Rationales for each of the five fair-use images remain wholly inadequate, with little or no attempt made to explain how they meet the NFCC #8 test. Rationales aside, the use of one image clearly fails policy, as described above. Another has a serious NFCC #1 challenge to handle--again, no serious attempt has been made in the rationale. DocKino (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Plagiarism Changes

Since we've had a number of complaints of inadvertent plagiarism in the article, I did a comprehensive review over the long weekend, and changed the following (in the order they appear in the article) as a result:

  • Note 52 (Tygiel article): “black officer’s wife” and “believing that his companion was white”; in addition to being extended quotes, these statements contain subjective assessments, the racial identity of the woman is not verified by the source material, and the whole thing has little relevance.
  • Note 52: ‘including insubordination, disturbing the peace, drunkenness (despite the fact that Robinson neither drank nor smoked), conduct unbecoming an officer, insulting a civilian woman, and refusing to obey the lawful orders of a superior officer” the list is probably too long to be quoted in full.
  • Note 52: “the actual incident on the bus that had precipitated his prosecution was mentioned in neither the charges nor at trial” This is kind of redundant anyway.
  • Note 68: “Rickey wanted a man who could restrain himself from responding to the ugliness of the racial hatred that was certain to come” This direct quote is now re-written.
  • Note 4: “The nation was initially divided on whether Robinson should be allowed to play. Virtually all blacks and many whites applauded the decision as long overdue, but a large number of whites also objected, as did many major league players. Most newspapers supported the move. Robinson's integration and subsequent high level of play was a major blow to segregation and caused racial barriers to fall in other areas. Robinson criticized hotels that did not allow him to stay with his teammates, and a number of hotels and restaurants that the Dodgers frequented integrated as a result.” Part of this was an (unattributed) quote from the sportmag.com article, so I reworded and resourced the first phrase, and relocated the second phrase below to a more topic-appropriate location.
  • Note 88 (History Channel) “During his first season with the Dodgers, Robinson encountered racism from fans and players, including his own teammates” Reworded and moved to an adjoining paragraph for topical consistency.
  • Note 4: “He anticipated that some pitchers would aim pitches at his head and that other players would try to hit, tackle, and even try to push him off the basepaths” Reworded and placed in a different paragraph setting.
  • Note 98: “Asked by sportswriters what Greenberg had told him, Robinson said:’He gave me a few words of encouragement.’” Reworded.
  • Note 111: “although two studios turned the project down when the film's promoters refused to include a white man teaching Robinson how to be a great player” Reworded and clarified.
  • Note 114: “Robinson stood with hands on hips and watched Thomson's feet in case he failed to touch all of the bases” Close paraphrase of the source cited for the next sentence. Reworded.
  • Note 117: “That year, Robinson accused the Yankees of prejudice and challenged general manager George Weiss to prove him wrong” Close paraphrase; reworded and consolidated with later sentence.
  • Note 73: “but, according to the New York Post, Commissioner Happy Chandler withheld his approval, forcing Robinson to cancel his plans.” This one is my fault. Re-worded.
  • Note 120: “That year, he served as editor for ‘’Our Sports’‘ magazine, a short-lived periodical focusing on coverage of "famous Negro athletes in every field of endeavor" and "Negro athletes in your town among your own neighbors". Topics included "What White Big Leaguers Really Think of Negroes" and "My Toughest Fight", an article by boxer Joe Louis about golf course segregation.” Close paraphrase. Edited down.
  • Note 121: “He also succeeded in getting the five-star Chase Park Hotel in St. Louis integrated. He and Don Newcombe approached the hotel's manager and asked why blacks were not allowed. The manager said, "It's the swimming pool ... a place where everybody socializes." Newcombe explained that they were ballplayers, not swimmers, and the manager relented. That season black players had their meals delivered to their rooms and were not allowed to use the Chase's dining room, but the next season the dining room was fully integrated” A lot of issues here; the extended treatment of the Chase Hotel issue is kind of ancillary, anyway, so I’ve removed the extended discussion in favor of a brief mention of Chase Park Hotel and and secondary link in the prior section's treatment of the hotel issue.
  • Note 174: “Mets owner Fred Wilpon said that the club and Citigroup would work with the Jackie Robinson Foundation to create a Jackie Robinson Museum and Learning Center in lower Manhattan and would fund scholarships for ‘young people who live by and embody Jackie's ideals’.” The non-quoted part passage has been reworked.

This plagiarism check should be comprehensive. But if I've missed anything, let me know. BillTunell (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pasadena image resolution

Per User talk:Durova's opinion, the image of the Pasadena sculpture is defensible as fair use, provided there is a more substantial treatment of it in the "Awards and recognition" section. I've fleshed out this portion of the article, and moved it to proximity with the image. Thanks to user:Amble for contacting user:Durova. Let me know if anyone has any contrary opinions.

The source cited for the discussion of the Pasadena sculpture is We Heart Public Art. This is a personal blog and does not meet our sourcing standards. DocKino (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is double-referenced. The blog reference is there for image illustration purposes in case the image in the article gets removed. I'm still ambivalent about that issue, but since there's a difference of opinion I've left it as-is.BillTunell (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. As both of these are unique sources (i.e., only referenced once), they can be brought together into a single citation. This reduces visual clutter in the article. Placing the L.A. Times article first in such a merged citation should also help clarify that the primary source is of WP:V standard. DocKino (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidating multiple references in a single footnote would be stylistically inconsistent with the rest of this article. But I have re-ordered the Pasadena sculpture-related footnotes so as to place the LA Times link first.BillTunell (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedits

More than a few users have contributed copyedit help recently. Thanks to all, especially user:Maralia.BillTunell (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the Congressional Gold Medal link with one from the House of Representatives Clerk. For both the Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal, I've inserted archived webpages as sources, and tagged today's date as the access date (of the web.archive.org search result site). For all the other wesbite footnote references that didin't already list access dates, I've clicked on them this morning and added 2009-05-27 as the access date (no other web links are dead at this point). I haven't done that with any of the books – let me know if I should.BillTunell (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's any more changes you want, let me know. To help summarize the above discussion for you, there's only four suggestions from reviewers that I haven't implemented (each of which has a rationale):
  • While I've inserted current-dollar templates in two places, I have not taken user:TonyTheTiger's suggestion of restating the resulting current-dollar amount from the first template in monthly terms (in order to facilitate comparison with the yearly salary referenced by the second current-dollar template later in the article);
  • I've not inserted any material from the Walter O'Malley article into the Jackie Robinson article – also a suggestion by user:TonyTheTiger (material would be duplicative, plus the underlying source for any of the unique clims about Robinson form the O'Malley article is a non-web-accessible book that I do not have);
  • I have not removed the image of the Robinson Pasadena Memorial statue, instead fleshing out the article's description thereof (conflicting opinion by reviewers as to whether this image qualifies for inclusion under WP:NFCC);
  • I have not removed the historical image of the Satchel Paige and Jackie Robinson with the Kansas City Monarchs (I claim it meets WP:NFCC, over the objection of user:DocKino).
Everything else I've dealt with (or meant to and simply missed something). Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you have missed is dealing with the primary basis for my !vote of oppose above. You have not gone into the source pages of the first four fair use images and made sure the rationales are of FA standard. (The rationale for the sculpture image is about as good as we can hope for.) I don't want to see this article promoted and then return to it in a few months to discover that it's been stripped of its fair use images for inadequate rationales. I offered you an example of a more rigorously presented rationale for a fair use image which comes from an article, like this, that also has several free images of the article's subject(s) and that, like you wish for this, is Featured. (There are other such examples out there, if you care to look for them.) This has been ignored.
Specifically, I do believe that the Paige–Robinson image can pass NFCC--like the others--if it is accompanied by a suitably strong rationale. I gave you specific advice on how to make it stronger, which has been ignored. Given the current conditions, it is easy to anticipate the following scenario: Someone comes along; finds the K.C. Royals picture somewhere; says, "Gee! Here's a free picture of Jackie in the Negro Leagues"; checks out the existing rationale for Paige–Robinson; says, "Oops! Guess they didn't know about the Royals pic"; and moves to delete your beloved image. Similarly, for the other images, none of the rationales deal with the problem that Giants 2008 originally raised--there are several fair use images in the article that show what Robinson looked like. So what's the particular value of also including these non-free images? Look: You believe they're valuable to the article. I believe they're valuable to the article. Now write rationales that will help keep them in the article. DocKino (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comments, re-worked each of the fair use image pages accordingly, and told you of that fact. You simply don't like the extent of my edits. While that may be the basis for a criticism, that is not the same thing as saying that I have been unresponsive, or have ignored your suggestion. FWIW, I have looked at your Sex Pistols image example, and I can see that you go into more wordy detail in the template data cells. But I am using the same fair use template as you, and filled each of them out with all the substantive information I know. All of these images (for quick reference, the four we're talking about are: UCLA Track, Army uniform, Robinson with Satchel Paige, and Robinson with Branch Rickey) have survived the deletion hurdle for over a month. If there is some specific piece of information you want me to add for a particular image, please let me know. I am willing to do the work.BillTunell (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bill, that's simply false. It's very easy to see from the record that you didn't do a single thing with the rationales in response to my previous round of advice. If you've done something now, someone else can spend their energy dealing with you about it. I'm through wasting my time on you. DocKino (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The history pages for each of the four images clearly document my revisions of May 21 and 22, 2009, in response to the suggestions on those dates by yourself and user:Giants2008. I doubt anyone else cares, but in case they do, for the record here are the history pages for the four images:
If you do not like these changes, that is fine. But denying that they were made is a false and disparaging personal claim directed against me. I can only conclude that you are not acting in good faith, and are instead deliberately attempting to subvert the FAC process for reasons ulterior to the article itself. For the life of me I can't figure out why, since I don't know you from Adam. But I think we can both agree that your further comment here is a waste of both our time.
FWIW, I updated these image pages again yesterday with supplemental information as a follow-up to your renewed suggestion. I do not want you to comment on whether these changes are satisfactory, but I remain open to discssing the issue with any other reviewer having a similar concern. BillTunell (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May 28, 2009 -- Reliable Source check

Per WP:RS, I've double-sourced using third-party sources (the Eig, Falkner, and Lamb books) for any potentially controversial claim previously attributable only to a (potentially biased first-party) Robinson family source. In doing so, I've decided to revise the substance of the text/footnote dealing with the reason Jackie left UCLA. The first-party citations also now follow the corresponding third-party citations, to indicate the third-party sources as primary (with only one exception to keep footnotes in numerical order). A couple of family sources were wholly replaced with a third-party source, both dealing with statistical issues. The only things left that are atributable solely to family sources should be relatively uncontroversial events like Jackie's marriage, early life, etc.. BillTunell (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to criteria 3 as follow:

  • File:JackieRobinson UCLA1941.jpg, File:Jackierobinson army.jpg: what parts of this photo cannot be readily imagined by any reader with just text itself? Is Robinson not readily identified by his free photo above?
    • File:Jackie robinson longjump.jpg: the possible significance of this photo is better than the previous, but not much better. "To illustrate his athletic career" is not needed with this image. However, the significance of the image can be enhanced by reporting on Robinson's athleticism at UCLA. Evaluations, reports, biographies, comments (coaches, trainers, reporters) that talk about Robinson's performance should be in the article (and should be to the effect of talking about how good Robinson's physical performance was). The photo could then be used to illustrate his performance that elicited such praise (which should be related to his long jump). As of now, there is no such commentary in the article (Robinson's UCLA stint is simply reported matter-of-factly). Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is already over 100,000 bytes long, and is stretching the summary style barrier as-is. Rationalizing a photograph isn't really the purpose of a namespace page. We've done it with respect to the Robinson Memorial statue image, because of the specific WP:Non-free content requirement under Images" No. 8. But otherwise I'm loathe to put in more distracting text. In any event, I don't think any amount of words can demonstrate to a reader how high Robinson could jump.
      • Moreover, additional text wouldn't change the more basic dispute here, namely whether the image serves to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." As I understand it, you interpret the "topic" as Robinsons's UCLA long-jump career, which leaves no room for comparative historical photographs to have any useful basis. I interpret the "topic" as Jackie Robinson, an understanding of which is benfitted by representative phtographs of historical periods in his life. Whichever of us is right, the additional text you propose isn't going to change the resolution fo the matter, as I see it. BillTunell (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Jackie robinson signature.jpg: as said earlier, a military career does not require illustration. Being in uniform serves nothing, unless it was a particarly defining issue for the subject. Creating an example, in a biography about an author who was a soldier, a sentence such as "Although non-descript in civilian attire, Ahdooday impressed many in his military uniform, projecting a steely aura and commanding presence." could warrant a photo of the man in uniform that inspire such praise (of course the smiley version would not qualify). Getting back to this photo, Robinson might be signing a piece of paper, but what does it serve to illustrate "the breaking of the baseball color barrier"? As mentioned earlier, a newspaper article that broke the news or a photo that shows a warm and hearty reception of Robinson by white fans (or the baseball club) would be better to illustrate such a moment. Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is another point of departure for us. Nothing in any article "requires" illustration, if there is no limit to the narrative description allowed. But this is not possible in a summary style format. On the military/signature photo specifically, the fact that Robinson chose to memorialize the signature in his military uniform, which was not necessary, says a lot about the public-relations lengths he and the Dodgers had to go to to smooth over potential resistance to the signing. That goes to the heart of Robinson's historical significance. Again, this could be described narratively with a bunch of gratuitous unsourced commentary rather than an image, but which is more efficient and helpful to the reader? BillTunell (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Robinson paige monarchs.jpg: what significance (if any) of this photo cannot be rendered with words?
    • At a minimum, the relative physical stature of Robinson. But again, the heart of the issue, as i see it, is whether the image, in contexxt with all the other images showing Robinson's aging, etc. gives a better understanding of Robinson in general, whci is the subject of the aticle. BillTunell (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Robinson-contract.jpg: I fail to see how a significance of inter-racial barriers is expressed with just this photo. If this was a scan of a newspaper article with a headline that screams "Major break: first black player" or something, then there would be some context to this photo, but as it is...
  • File:Jackie robinson memorial pasadena.jpeg: it is just his head, how can that not be simply explained with words, especially since free pictures of his mug have been displayed twice. Is there something metaphysical or critical about his head that requires illustration? What is significant about this statue? For reference, please refer to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ozzie Smith for Ozzie Smith's statue.

I was called to offer advice on this subject.[11] Fair use images must comply with ten criteria. The first three images fail significance (8) and replaceability (1). Very little is gained from looking at Robinson going through wardrobe changes. If one wishes to illustrate his athleticism, surely a photo of him in action (ignoring significance for the moment) would be better than him standing around in track uniform. Does one need to see him in uniform to know that he was in the military service? Does one need to see him with Satchel Paige just to know he played with Paige? A photo of a person is signficant if it is highly publicised and has become representative of the subject, i.e. the person has become associated with that persona (portrayal) by the public (media). (Even so, a copyrighted photo might be disqualified on Wikipedia if it can be replaced by a free equivalent—debatable.) None of these photos qualifies on the signficance front: a general reader does not need those pictures to know what they show Robinson was doing. Note: for best use of the fair use rationales on the image pages, the "whys" of the image's significance and non-replaceability should be clear. Plain "identification of subject" is a straight fail unless it is the sole identification photo (Infobox/leading image) of a dead subject. Jappalang (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I can understand the concern about mere wardrobe changes. I've done two things in response to your comments:
  • Replace the UCLA track photo with an "action shot" from the Bettmann archive, whic I agree is more informative than a posed shot.
  • Delete the miliary photo and the Rickey-Robinson signature photo and replaced this with another image, which portrays the follow-up contract signature from October 23, 1945 with Robinson in military uniform. The photo therefore comnsolidates two items of historical significance (his military career and breaking the color barrier). In addition, the reolcation of the image takes away a prior criticism related to the placement of the Robsinon-Rickey image within the article.
Since there is a difference of opinion about the statue photograph, I've left his as-is for now.
I've looked at a lot of other articles' commentary about NFCC#8 by now, and the only constant theme I can glean is that there is a subjectivity about the "significance" requirement that different contributors look on very differently. The changes above are meant as a reasonable accomodation. My take on a comprehensive life biography like this is that images teken throughout an entire subject's life aid significantly in the readers' understanding of the topic for many reasons. In this case, the images left (even though I've deleted a net one picture) portray sdeveral things: how a Robinson character aged, his relative physical statutre to otehr persons, his athletic performance, etc. I'd agree that NFCC#8 requries more than images to simply "spice up" the text. But in a case like this I think at least a few images are warranted. The converse, of ocurse, is that eliminating the images doesn't make free transmission of information any ess possible; it simply puts the onus for someone who wants to transmit the non-free images, in addition to the text, to make their own fair use decision.
I'd submit that under your hard-caore interpretation of NFCC#8, no non-free images are would be permissible, because readers can always imagine the text being described. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong on this isssue, but I just have a different slant on it. As I've noted before, if an adminsitrator feels differently on the NFCC#8 issue, I understand. If the non-free image concern is the only thing holding up FA status, I'd appreciate the administrator pointing that out. If so, I don't think the article would be best served by FA status. BillTunell (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I'd submit that under your hard-caore interpretation of NFCC#8, no non-free images are would be permissible,. because readers can always imagine the text being described." Please read Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ozzie Smith, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Street newspaper, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noël Coward (Featured Articles with fair-use images) for an inkling of my "hard-core" interpretation of NFCC#8. Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through your previous submissions, which I actually enjoy reading. I'm learning more about these issues as we go along. Although I do not necessarily disagree with your take on NFCC#8, I do note that there has been quite a lot of give-and-take in the prior FACs you reference, and I just don't see that any one contributor's interpretation is authoritative. As a nominator, I feel the obligation to balance approaches, even if they aren't my own.
I've also noted that the Noel Coward article has a parallel to the Jackie Robinson article, in that it contains a freely-licensed but "derivative work"-image of a bust/sculpture of the subject. That should support, at least in part, the inclusion of the sculpture image in the Jackie Robinson article. That being said, I realize that FA elevation isn't necessarily a determination about any given image. BillTunell (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
June 2

Thanks to everyone for their input. This nomination is headed for archive over the issue of inclusion of non-free images. I've become convinced the article can't reach FA consensus without removing all non-free images, and that the article won't be elevated while there are any pending non-free-image-related complaints. At the end of the day I care more about an informative, well-illustrated article than I do a star at the top, so I am not going to pursue the FAC again after it dies. But if any contributor wants some low-hanging fruit for a successful FAC-elevation feather in their cap, this would be it. Thanks again for your input. BillTunell (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:25, 2 June 2009 [12].

Synthetic diamond

Nominator(s): NIMSoffice (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article NIMSoffice (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is an official web site of a scientific project started around 1997 or so.NIMSoffice (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And? It needs a publisher listed in the article, as do a few other references. Mm40 (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now from Cryptic C62 · Talk:
    • "is diamond produced in a technological process, as opposed to natural diamond, which is produced by geological processes." First instance of "process" uses the preposition "in". Second instance uses "by". These should be consistent; my !vote is for "by".
      "Produced by a man/woman IN technological process" and "produced BY geological process" might not need unification. 3rd opinion needed. If unify, my vote is for "in".
    • "Synthetic diamonds should not be confused with" Wikipedia is WP:NOT a diamond buyer's guide. This sentence should be reworded to avoid the abuse of the phrase "should not be confused with". I think the inclusion of enhanced diamonds is unnecessary at this point. I suggest that the section be reworded to emphasize the difference between synthetic diamond and diamond simulants.
      done Actually, I have deleted this part before, but some copyeditor restored it.
    • Throughout the article (including the lead), you switch between "synthetic diamond is" and "synthetic diamonds are", where the singular is used to describe the material and the plural is used to describe the gemstones. I realize that these are different, but in situations where you have a choice between the two (such as the very first sentence), consistency would be helpful for the readers. Although the plural seems more intuitive to me, I suppose it makes more sense to use the singular, as this makes it clear that the article is not limited to jewelry, but to the various applications of this material.
      done
      Striking for now. I'll let you know if I catch any other instances. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second paragraph of the lead begins with "Synthetic diamond is made using two major processes: chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and high-pressure high-temperature (HPHT) synthesis." There are several instances in this paragraph in which there are apparently comparisons being made between the two processes without making it clear which ones you are talking about: "some synthetic diamonds" and "Certain synthetic diamonds". What is the point of introducing the two processes if they aren't included in the discussion? Conversely, what is the point of discussing the processes if it isn't made clear which one(s) you're discussing?
      done
      Erm, not really. Simply cutting out material and adding "(either HPHT or CVD)" doesn't quite cut it. I'm particularly concerned with the following statement: "Its properties depend on the details of the manufacturing processes, and can be inferior, similar or superior to those of natural diamond." I assume that the broad spectrum of possibilities is due primarily to the variety of ways in which synthetic diamond is produced. If this is the case, and if you are keen on keeping this somewhat useless sentence, you should elaborate upon which properties are better/worse for each process. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Notes: mentioning those two major production processes is essential for the lead. However, the spectrum of possibilities does not hinge on the process (i.e. imagine one process does not exist - most applications would remain). Properties do depend on the process. The questioned sentence "Its properties depend .." is for introduction only. It is detailed by the next sentence. Comparing all properties of CVD and HPHT diamond is beyond the scope of the lead and the article. Please reconsider or explain what is needed.NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps I am being mislead by the fact that you've essentially lumped a summary of Manufacturing technologies with Properties. I suggest splitting this paragraph of the lead into multiple paragraphs. This would also allow you to expand the manufacturing technologies bit to include explosive detonation and ultrasound cavitation.
      I've reformulated the lead as requested. Please check. If style comments, please propose a sentence or rewrite yourself.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I tend not to rewrite material unless I am certain that I fully understand it and that I won't change its meaning by rewriting it. When I am not certain, but have a good idea, I'll propose a replacement sentence. It is when I really don't understand the purpose of a sentence at all that I do neither. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Their advantages for electronic applications have been demonstrated." If I were a Spartan, and my wife begat this sentence, I would have left it on the hillside, as it appears to be entirely useless. "have been demonstrated" is ambiguous and WP:WEASELY. "Their advantages" is vague. That this sentence appears after the bit about heat sinks is also odd, as heat sinks are often used in electronics.
      done
      The replacement sentence is still (perhaps even more) awkward, and you response to my next point says that electronic applications don't exist yet. This has not been made clear in either version of the sentence. Also, heat sinks are used in electronics, aren't they? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, heat sinks are used in electronics, but not only. I feel this comments hinges on writing style and now tried to carefully separate "passive" and "active" electronic applications. NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Detectors of UV light or high-energy particles, made of synthetic diamond, are being applied at high-energy research facilities and are already available commercially." The use of "already" implies that the reader should, at this point in the article, be somewhat familiar with the timeline of synthetic diamond UV detectors, which won't be true for the vast majority of readers.
      "Already" leaned on the previous sentence, saying that electronic applications are not here yet, but detectors are already available. No slide to knowledge of detectors.
      See my response above; it is relevant to this issue as well. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      see response above and in the text.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps instead of just saying "electronic applications", you should actually list some potential applications. This would be more useful for the reader and might make this section flow better. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Done.NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Because of a unique combination of thermal and chemical stability, low thermal expansion and high optical transparency in the wide spectral range, synthetic diamond is becoming the most popular material for optical windows in high-power CO2 lasers and gyrotrons." Why "the" wide spectral range? Shouldn't it be "a" wide spectral range? Also, avoid the use of the indirect "a" for "unique combination", as it leaves some ambiguity as to whether the unique combination belongs to synthetic diamond or to optical windows.
      done
    • "either clear white or colored yellow, brown, blue or even green or orange" This is a very poorly constructed list: It uses "either" despite there being more than two items in the list. It uses "or" three times. "Or even" is unnecessary unless you go on to explain why green and orange are unusual colors.
      done
      Not yet. Please reread the last sentence of my comment. It still applies to this version. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Done.NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This creates major concerns in the diamond trading business" What creates major concerns? The wide variety of colors? Or the mere fact that synthetic diamond can be cut into gems? Also, "creates" implies that these synthetic gemstones are a source of perpetual consternation for diamond traders, but the rest of the paragraph implies that these concerns have been taken care of by the "special" spectroscopic techniques.
      done "Techniques" were introduced to fight the problem; they did not take care of it. The problems is serious and remains.
    • A few little things: I'm fairly certain that "et al" is supposed to be italicized: et al. Non-breaking spaces should be used between numbers and abbreviated units; see WP:NBSP. All ranges of numbers should use endashes, not hyphens; see WP:DASH. I've corrected a few instances of each of these problems in this diff.
      done
      Looks good for now, I'll keep my eye out for others. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:LEAD states that the lead must summarize all of the main sections of the article. Unless I am misreading, I don't see anything in the lead which pertains to the History section.
      done.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Numerous individual attempts are documented to grow synthetic diamond, dating between 1879 and 1928, but none of them could be confirmed." If the attempts have been documented, why cant they be confirmed? Also, "could be confirmed" implies that the person who did the research (you) could not find the sources, which doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist.
      I can't find a better word for "confirmed". "Reproduced" would mean diamond had been grown, which is not. Many claimants later retracted their own claims (e.g. ref. [9], C.H. Desch (1928)). Further, there was a series of investigations into success of those early attempts, analyzing the conditions and products. Trying to be as neutral as possible, they carefully selected respected and neutral scientists (talked to one of them). No single report could confirm the diamonds were produced (e.g. ref. [5] K. Lonsdale (1962).NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, I see. I interpreted "none of them could be confirmed" to mean "none of the attempts could be confirmed by secondary sources", but what you meant was "non of them could be confirmed to have been successful." Suggestion to reduce ambiguity: "Numerous individual attempts are documented to grow synthetic diamond, dating between 1879 and 1928, but it is unclear if any of these attempts were successful." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose because every attempt was investigated later (unique history, demonstrating the power of diamond business world) and was found unsuccessful. I slightly rewrote. Please have a look. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) (former NIMSoffice - changed name)[reply]
      Valid. I also slightly rewrote for grammar. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The first reproducible synthesis, by the HPHT and possibly CVD methods, was reported around 1953." The "possibly CVD methods" bit tells me that there may have been some discrepancy between the sources. Readers who are less familiar with research might misinterpret this. In any case, this piece of information isn't really critical to the lead. Suggested rewrite: "The first reproducible diamond synthesis was reported around 1953."
      Done.NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In this method" Which method? It would be helpful to include the name of the process.
      Done.NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The fourth diamond synthesis varity" Uh... what?
      Typo. Should be variety. Has no name yet. NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Caption:"Synthetic diamonds of various colors grown by the high-pressure high-temperature technique, the diamond size is ~2 mm" Improper comma use. Either incorporate the diamond size into the sentence or split into two sentences. Also, what dimension does "diamond size" refer to? Height? Radius?
      Tried to fix, meaning the longest measure of the largest diamond in the picture. Please reformulate if needed. NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Hrm. On second thought, it might be better to simply include a scale in the image itself.
      Done.Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Yikes, that's a pretty pathetic scale bar. The image should be able to exist on its own without requiring a caption to explain the purpose of the white smudge. I'd be happy to try to try making a scale bar myself in MS Paint, but you've brightened the original image. I'd like to preserve that change, so if you upload a brightened non-smudgebar version, I'll make a scale bar. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Done.Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moving on to the History section: "many attempts were made to alter the cheaper forms of carbon" It's not entirely clear what the goal here is. What exactly does "alter" mean? Were people trying to make diamond exclusively, or were they trying to replicate the various allotropes of carbon?
      Reformulated.Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ruff claimed in 1917" The first instance of a person's name should include that person's first name(s). The person's profession is also helpful.
      Name added. A previous sentence said that Ruff was a scientist, not much more is known. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "were the result of seeding by well-intentioned co-workers" What is "seeding"? "well-intentioned" seems somewhat speculative and fanciful. Even without that bit, this seems to be an unusually specific conclusion. Surely the sources must present some other ideas, or at least a more general one.
      Reformulated.Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm glad that the sentence is clearer (although somewhat informal), but it is still fundamentally flawed. I read through Ref 6 (Lonsdale 1962), and there is no mention of the possibility of seeding by frustrated technicians, and with good reason: This is too specific a conclusion to make based on such old and unclear information. I don't have access to Ref 7 (O'Donoghue 2006), but I suspect that if it does indeed mention this idea, it treats it as just one possibility. Assuming this is the case, I suggest either rewording the sentence to make it clearer to the reader that it is speculative, or just deleting it entirely so as not to mislead the reader. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Deleted.Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 5 (Lonsdale 1962) is just a list of citations. Perhaps I can't see the whole article because I don't have access to the subscription-only database. Assuming that it is indeed just a list, I don't quite see the point of including it.
      Seeing only reference list universally means you don't have access to full text; the latter is available at http://67.50.46.175/paperspdf/lons-k1962.pdf (no, not my server, and I don't know how comes its free there. By far not the first case though). Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The most definitive duplication attempts were performed by Sir Charles Algernon Parsons" Suggest "replication" instead of "duplication". Also, approximately when did his work begin?
      Done. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He devoted 30 years and a considerable part of his fortune" Not very neutral language. Suggest swapping out "devoted" with "spent". Suggest including some sort of numerical estimate like "over $300,000" instead of "a considerable part of his fortune."
      Swapped. No info on money spent. Parsons was a Knight and had a fortune from his steam turbine invention; might well be he never disclosed the amount (at least, he did not have to).Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "as well as those of Hannay" Who? Also, the note after this sentence, Ref 7 (Hannay 1879) is authored by Hannay. It seems to me that instead of using the ref to verify the statement, you are using it as an example of Hannay's work. While both uses of the citation system are acceptable, they should not be mixed. Separate lists should be used: one for "further information"-type notes, one for references.
      I'm glad to fix, but don't see a problem: the sentence in passing mentions another diamond synthesis attempt (by Hannay) and the reference supports the fact of that experiment (not the fact of its reproduction). Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not how I interpret it, and I seriously doubt any reader will see it that way either. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Hannay moved up with his ref, which is actually more fair for history and text, and should solve the problem.Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However in 1928 he authorized C.H. Desch" Who is C.H. Desch? A student of his? A journal editor?
      Dr. Desch. Scientist. No further information. Not assistant or student of Parsons. Unusual - yes, but so was the whole story. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It was believed that on one occasion a diamond was produced, but since experiments could not be reproduced such claims could not be maintained" Several problems. "It was believed" is a weasel phrase. That section should be more definitive: Was anything published about this supposed diamond? Also, does "experiments could not be reproduced" mean that the experiments were attempted again but were unsuccessful? Or does it mean that, because of the inherent complexity of the apparatus, it was impossible to reproduce the experiment at all? Does "such claims could not be maintained" mean that the authors of the claim later retracted it?
      Reformulated. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Better, but it still includes the weasel phrase. I suggest trying to incorporate "the team reported" or something like that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Done.Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His breakthrough was using an elegant "belt" press" What is meant by "elegant"? Large? Energy efficient?
      Deleted (technical weasel). Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "which raised the achievable pressure from 6 to 18 GPa and the temperature above 2400 °C" It is unclear to which apparatus what you are comparing the belt press. The tungsten carbide anvils? The 1941 experiment?
      Explained. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His breakthrough was using an elegant "belt" press apparatus which raised the achievable pressure from 6 to 18 GPa and the temperature above 2400 °C, using a pyrophyllite container, and having the graphite dissolved within molten nickel, cobalt or iron, a "solvent-catalyst"." Once the specific issues are resolved, this entire sentence needs to be rewritten. It is unclear if the belt press, pyrophillite container, and dissolved graphite clauses are all specific components of the breakthrough or if they relate more directly to each other.
      Reformulated. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Better, but still a bit awkward: "which raised the achievable pressure from 6 to 18 GPa and the temperature above 2400 °C as compared to hydraulic presses." It's clear that the pressure is being compared to the hydraulic presses, but it's unclear what the deal is with the temperature. It might be clearer to just drop the comparison altogether and give straight numbers: "which was capable of producing pressures above 18 GPa and temperatures above 2400 C."
      Indeed. Thanks. Done.Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "clearly unsuitable for jewelry" Another weasel word. Why "clearly"? Too big? Too small?
      Reformulated. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hall was able to have co-workers replicate his work" This is oddly worded. Why not just "Hall's co-workers were able to replicate his work" ?
      Reformulated. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He was the first person to grow a synthetic diamond according to a reproducible, verifiable and witnessed process and received a gold medal of the American Chemical Society in 1972 for his work" Incorrect usage of "according to". How about "using"? Suggest changing "witnessed" to "well-documented". This is a long unbroken sentence. I suggest splitting it or adding some punctuation.
      Done. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and three years later developed a completely independent apparatus for the synthesis of diamond (the tetrahedral press with four anvils)" Not sure what you mean by "completely independent". Perhaps "entirely new" ? The explanation should not be preceded by "the", nor should it be in parentheses. These imply that the reader should already be familiar with the device.
      Done. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Picture: The image of the belt press is clearly very modern. This may be misleading to the readers since the paragraphs next to it deal with the 40s and 50s. I suggest expanding the caption to more clearly indicate the era in which the photograph was taken.
      Done. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hall received a gold medal from the American Chemical Society in 1972 for his work." Did Hall really receive a medal in 1972 for his work from 1954? Or was this sentence supposed to be at the end of the paragraph? In either case, it should probably be verified by another ref, one specific to the ACS.
      Indeed, the award did not specify which diamond work (I assumed 1954, BTW 18 yrs delay was usual in mat. science :). Fixed, with references.Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Another successful diamond synthesis was produced" Odd wording. Should probably be either "Another synthetic diamond was successfully produced" or "Another successful diamond synthesis was achieved."
      Done.Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sweden's major electrical manufacturing company" This would probably going to be a source of contention if any of ASEA's competitors read this article. I would suggest rewriting to a somewhat weaker statement: "one of Sweden's major electrical manufacturing companies." or some such.
      Done.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "as part of a top-secret diamond-making project" The use of "top-secret" seems a bit childish. Is this really how the source described the project?
      No kidding. Nothing was known about Swedish project until 80s. (I see relation between diamond business and diamond synthesis as a modern version of the medieval church-to-astronomy history :) Even now, few sources document details of that project (names, dates, publication titles, etc.). Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I believe that it was a very secretive project. I'm just asking if the sources actually used the phrase "top-secret". If not (and perhaps even if they did), we could probably come up with a more encyclopedic alternative, such as "highly secretive" or "classified" or "clandestine". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I actually copy-pasted the term from the reference book. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Baltzar von Platen (1898–1984) and Anders Kämpe (1928–1984)" Not sure why their lifespans are included, especially since none of the other scientists mentioned in this article are given this treatment. Indeed, the fact that they died in the same year may be confusing for some readers, as it implies that the design was completed in 1984 and that they had been working on it for a long time.
      Years deleted.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A few small crystals were produced, but not of gem quality or size." Crystals of diamond?
      Yes. Fixed.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a new competitor emerged in Korea named Iljin Diamond" When I first read this, I thought Iljin Diamond was someone's name. I was like "wow, that's convenient. He's working on synthetic diamond and his last name is Diamond?" Suggest rewording to make it clearer that that is the name of a company, though I'm not sure how you would go about doing that.
      Reformulated. (I know one good scientist with this last name, but not in the diamond field :) Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "followed later by hundreds of Chinese entrants" Entrants in what?
      Fixed.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Iljin Diamond allegedly accomplished this" accomplished what?
      Diamond synthesis. Fixed.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Iljin Diamond allegedly accomplished diamond synthesis by misappropriating trade secrets from GE via a Korean former GE employee in 1988" This sentence is somewhat ambiguous. What happened in 1988, the synthesis or the misappropriation (or both)? Did Iljin Diamond allegedly accomplish diamond synthesis, or did he definitively accomplish diamond synthesis by means of an alleged misappropriation?
      Fixed. BTW, this was another display of power (of diamond business): not only that difficult, ("international") case was won, but the Korean government had to revise their laws, and GE managed to close down the diamond production at IIjin. The case entered law books as example of trade wars. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Later developments section seems to be out of order. Why is there information about the 1980s before the information about the 1970s?
      I understand the concern, but please note the word gem-quality which is the key there. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Eh, I suppose it's not that critical that it be in chronological order. It does seem to flow more logically with the gem-quality diamonds coming after the rest of it. "Gem-quality" doesn't need to be italicized, though. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Synthetic gem-quality diamond crystals were first produced in 1970 (reported in 1971) again by GE" The "again" is somewhat ambiguous. Had gem-quality diamonds been produced before, making this the second instance? Or does "again" refer to GE's consistent ability to provide breakthroughs in the field? In the latter case, I suggest removing "again" to avoid the confusion.
      "Again" removed. Yes, the latter was meant. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Large crystals need to grow very slowly under tightly controlled conditions." This sentence disrupts the flow of the paragraph. The information it provides is not relevant until several sentences later.
      Deleted.Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The first successes used a pyrophyllite tube seeded at each end with thin pieces of diamond and with the graphite feed material placed in the center, the metal solvent, nickel, was placed between the graphite and the seeds." This is a run-on sentence. I suggest reworking to split it up or otherwise make it flow better.
      Reformulated.Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The container was heated and the pressure was raised to ~5.5 GPa" Scientists and mathematicians will know what the tilde represents, but many readers will not. I suggest replacing all instances with "approximately" or some variant thereof.
      ~ is replaced all through.Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The graphite feed was soon replaced by diamond grit, as there was almost no change in material volume so the process was easier to control." As this sentence is written, it is unclear what the causes and effects are. If you can think of a better way to phrase it, please do. If not, would you mind explaining it to me so we can figure a better wording?
      Reformulated.Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Better, but now you've introduced technical jargon. What are "morphology" and "crustal"? Suggest explaining, wikilinking, or avoiding.
      morphology→shape and crustal→crystal.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Removing all nitrogen from the process by adding aluminum or titanium produced colorless "white" stones, and removing the nitrogen and adding boron produced blue ones. However, removing nitrogen slows the growth process and reduces the crystalline quality, so the process is normally run with nitrogen present" [Bolding added for emphasis]. The first sentence is written in the past tense, whereas the second sentence is written in the present.
      Converted to the more appropriate past tense.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In terms of physical properties, the GE stones were not quite identical to natural stones." I assume that this sentence is trying to convey the following: "Although the GE stones and natural diamonds are chemically identical, their physical properties were not the same." Yes?
      Yes, thank you. Placed in the text. Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The colorless stones produced strong short- and long-lasting light emission (fluorescence and phosphorescence, respectively) under short-wavelength ultraviolet light but were inert under long-wave UV (among natural diamonds, only rare blue stones do this)" A couple of issues here. First, this rather long sentence can be shortened by removing "short- and long-lasting light emission (fluorescence and phosphorescence, respectively)" with just "fluorescence and phosphorescence". Second, if you wish to use "UV" rather than spelling out the entire phrase again, you must put "(UV)" after the first instance of "ultraviolet". Finally, the second parenthetical remark would probably be clearer if it were set off into a separate sentence and expanded slightly: "Among natural diamonds, only the rarer blue gems exhibit these properties."
      Shortened. UV defined (my fault, in science literature some abbreviations should not be defined).Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      No worries. When in doubt, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "All the GE stones also showed strong yellow fluorescence under X-rays" While the previous sentence made a clear comparison between the GE stones and natural diamonds, this statement does not. I suggest either expanding or deleting.
      Could well be deleted, but I reformulated instead.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Works for me! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The De Beers Diamond Research Laboratory has since grown, for research purposes only, stones of up to 25 carats (5.0 g)." At this point, it is unclear what "since" refers to, as the last mention of a date was 1970. "for research purposes only" seems redundant. The name of the organization includes the word "research", does it not?
      "Since" deleted, "research" not. Names mean little in the business world (you might hear fancy brands like "Rhodium Heart Charm" with no relation to rhodium, etc. :). To get serious, De Beers is the king of the diamond world, and the biggest sponsor of the diamond research. For a good reason, they have separately stated, everywhere they could, that they never grew diamonds for gems.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough, but by inserting that into the middle of the sentence, it almost reads as though you're advertising what nice guys they are. I think a suitable compromise would be to move it to the end of the sentence: "The De Beers Diamond Research Laboratory has grown stones of up to 25 carats (5.0 g) for research purposes." Alternatively, if you can find concise examples of how they use the diamonds for research, that would work too. If you really want to make it clear that De Beers is research only, perhaps it would be better to show the reader rather than to tell the reader, eh? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Moved to the end. Its Ok to tell about DeBeers research, but in another FA :) Their range is vast and they tell nobody what they are up to. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "For growing such diamonds, stable HPHT conditions have to be kept for 6 weeks." Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. I suggest rewording to avoid the "have to" construction.
      Rephrased.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, most stones are 1 carat (200 mg) to 1.5 carats (300 mg) for economic reasons, especially with the spread of the Russian BARS apparatus since the 1980s" First, most of which stones? Those produced by De Beers? Second, the second clause is entirely confusing to those readers (all of them, I'd imagine) who are not already familiar with the BARS apparatus. If you think it is important enough to be mentioned here, I would suggest expanding it. If not, I would suggest removing it.
      Rephrased.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Those large stones were a mere demonstration." Demonstration of what? To whom?
      I expanded to "demonstration of the growth possibilities." Not much meaning here. Please tweak as you like. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I went ahead and deleted it. It doesn't really add anything to the article and the paragraph flows much better without it. Do you agree? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the growth of most synthetic diamonds is interrupted" The word "interrupted" often implies that the process continues after the interruption has ended. Perhaps "halted" or "terminated" or "stopped"?
      Sure. I chose "terminated". Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "when they reach weight 1 carat (200 mg) to 1.5 carats (300 mg)" I'm not familiar with diamond trade literature, but shouldn't this be "they reach a weight of 1 carat" ?
      Sure. Changed. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a fact tag to the end of this paragraph. Some of the information about De Beers may be covered by Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines#Uncontroversial knowledge, but statements with numbers must be followed by an inline citation.
      Ref. added. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tweaked the first few sentences of the next paragraph. Let me know if I screwed anything up.
      Somebody already tweaked Soviet Union, and I support that. I slightly changed the CVD statement. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Eversole reportedly achieved vapor deposition" What is Eversole? A wikilink or a brief introductory phrase, such as "Eversole, a material engineering company," would be helpful.
      "William G. Eversole" :) Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Lol, humans ftw. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the Russian team" It won't be obvious to all readers that Deryagin and Fedoseev are Russian names. Suggest replacing Deryagin and Fedoseev with "a Russian team" or "the Russian team" with "Deryagin and Fedoseev".
      For several good reasons I chose the latter. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.NIMSoffice (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:FAC instructions (do not use templates), and pls sign posts. Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to decide if you're going with last name first or first name firsts for the references. Most seem to be first initial first, so suggest going with that. (Current refs 1 (Royere), 3 (Nassau), 8 (Hazen) are last name first)
done NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 7 (Parsons articles...) lacks a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source, it's a jewelry store?
Still need to tell me why this is a reliable source. Ealdgyth - Talk 10:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That web-site posts rare diamond books for free, thereby hoping to attract buyers (nice trick, isn't). I have replaced that link by "genuine" books and peer-reviewed articles. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following books need page numbers:
    • Current ref 3 (Nassau)
    • Current ref 8 (Hazen)
    • Current ref 11 (Barnard)
    • Current ref 37 (Koizumi)
  • Current ref 10 (Liander) is this a journal article? If so, we need the title of the article
  • Current ref 17 (Deryagin and Fedoseev) is this a journal article? If so, we need the title of the article
  • Current ref 18 (HPHT Synthesis...) needs a publisher.
  • Current ref 35 (CVD...) needs a publisher
  • Current ref 47 (Blind to the ..) needs a publisher
  • Current ref 49 (Heartwig...) needs a publisher
  • Current ref 50 (Khousary..) needs a publisher
done all titles and publishers, the rest for tomorrow NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose As far as I can tell, the properties and applications sections are unneeded because they are about diamonds generally, not synthetic diamonds. Furthermore, basically all of the pictures appear to be copyright violations. The ones uploaded by the nominator here are web resolution though high quality without metadata, and the one from the Hershey book seems to be under copyright still based on my cursory research. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On second look, maybe the first part isn't true. Copyvio problems remain. I deleted one blatant one. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finished with image and reference related issues.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the image issues aren't resolved. I seriously am very skeptical that you personally took all the photos you uploaded. Why are they in varying web-resolution sizes without metadata? Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you also haven't shown why the Hershey image is public domain. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine for a moment that I am a professional scientist in this area. Would it explain your doubts ? Would it contradict anything ? I crop "empty" areas from virtually every my image - that is why pixels size is always different. A few crops might be exact for certain reasons (re-use as internal data). I never worried about metadata, but it seems the old free program I use chops off metadata. Some images (e.g. TEM of detonation diamond and perhaps scalpel) are taken from microscopes equipped with proprietary software. I can't speak for Hershey image as its not mine. Anything I can help with that or other images (no I don't have mine on this topic) ? Best regards. NIMSoffice (talk) 22:50, 21 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/June_2009&oldid=294835171"