Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archive 1
archive 1
Line 1: Line 1:
== September 2009 ==
== September 2009 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/24th Infantry Division (United States)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Place With No Name/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Place With No Name/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meteorological history of Hurricane Georges/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meteorological history of Hurricane Georges/archive1}}

Revision as of 16:49, 13 September 2009

September 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 Karanacs 16:49, 13 September 2009 [1].

24th Infantry Division (United States)

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 01:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it is an A-class article and I believe it meets all of the FA criteria. —Ed!(talk) 01:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed both issues. —Ed!(talk) 02:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Ed!(talk) 23:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, nice job. I tweaked it a bit for punctuation, and so that details can be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images. Eubulides (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • In the lede, what are the "other disbanding units" it was formed from? No units are listed to be others from, if that makes sense.
  • In the lede, you might want to clarify from where and to where it was withdrawn during the Korean War.
  • According to my copy of Webster's, "post-war" should be written as one word, no hyphen.
  • The assertion that the Americal division, etc. were the last named divisions isn't covered in the Globalsecurity cite.
  • I'm concerned that the information about the "one post" concentration is copied directly from Globalsecurity. Even with the citation, it bothers me.
  • For the phrase "manned at higher levels", is that rank or numbers of personnel?
  • Triangular Division TO&E really needs to be explained, either in a footnote, parenthetical aside, or child article like the other TO&Es.
  • In the fourth paragraph of the Hawaiian Division section, were all three regiments from the Hawaiian National Guard, or just the last one?
  • Phrases like "July of 1942" should be "July 1942" for simplicity's sake. There are a few of these.
  • You've got tense shifting going on between past perfect and simple past tense ... in the first paragraph of the World War II section, forex, you switch from "would be" to "was" and back (fixed now, see diff). For simplicity's sake, I'd suggest just using "was" or "were" throughout the article.
  • The first sentence of the Leyte map caption isn't a complete sentence.
  • The article alternates between using a comma after years. Forex, there's things like "October 4, 1944," and "October 4, 1944" throughout the article. Pick one and stick with it.
  • I know what the expression "mopping up" means, but it's a bit jargony. Can you wikilink it, explain it in a footnote, or a parenthetical phrase?
  • In the sentence "Divisional elements effected a landing on Marinduque Island", is that elements of the 24th or another division?
  • "under the hot sun on a well-defended Rock" is poetic, but pretty unencyclopedic. Did the heat affect the unit's performance, and/or can it be cited?
  • The "Five days later" in Task Force Smith doesn't say what it's five days after ... I assume after the president's order, but no date was given in the preceding paragraph.
  • Could you explain the "Kansas Line and Utah Line"?
  • "above Osan" isn't really precise ... which direction "above" the town?
  • I'm unclear about the phrase "for the first month" ... when does that month start -- with the arrival of TF Smith, the main body of the division, or something else?
  • Citation 82 looks like it's doing something funky with the external link.
  • Is there a reason for the duplicate ISBN identifiers in the sources section?
  • What sort of equipment did the division use before the Gulf War? Even if it's only the standard U.S. Army stuff for each period, stating so would be helpful (if a citation can justify it, of course).
  • In the infobox, it's mentioned as being active through 1970, but the article mentions a deactivation in 1958.
  • Citation No. 2 doesn't appear to cover the assertion that the division was inactivated in 2006. It only shows the 1999 reactivation.
  • Wikilinking active duty, Army Reserve and Army National Guard in the training command section is odd, since all three appear earlier in the article. What's the reason?
  • Nicely cited, illustrated, and structured. I'll give the article a full readthrough when I get a chance. I've given the article a readthrough and made some changes. Don't hesitate to drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions, concerns, comments, or just want to let me know that I screwed something up. (That happens quite a bit. The screwing up part, not the letting me know about it part.) JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good stuff. Three more comments:
  • Support. This is an excellent article with adequate prose and high-quality citations that appears to cover the subject in detail. All of my concerns and questions have been addressed, so there's no reason I can't support its listing as a featured article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing comments - before that, why is there a 55k article with only a 2 paragraph lead? ;/ That first "paragraph" needs expansion before it can count as one. :P Also, that info box is overwhelmingly wide. Is there anyway to trim the width by 5 pixels or so?
1. "It was activated under the Square Division Table of Organization and Equipment (TO&E) on February 25, 1921 as the Hawaiian Division at Schofield Barracks, Oahu." Was not found in This source. The source does cite the first sentence in the section. Also, this source says "Activated 1 March 1921 at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii", which is 4 days after what our article says. This should be fixed or found in a new source. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. "As the US Army withdrew from Vietnam and reduced its forces, the 24th Infantry Division and its three brigades were inactivated on April 15, 1970 at Fort Riley" This is a lot more detail in the source, and a better source could probably be found to cite this line. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. "as part of the program to build a 16-division US Army force." This justification is not found in the source, and, like for 2, could probably be cited to a much better source. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. "As part of the Army's reduction to a ten-division force" - same as 2 and 3. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. "but with no subordinate divisional units" Not in the source, as the source doesn't mention subordinate divisions. You might want to just cut the end or cite this last clause to another source. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the end out. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. "The 24th Infantry Division was awarded five campaign streamers and two unit decorations in World War II" The five campaign streamers I can see. I don't see two unit decorations for WWII (only one from what I can see - "Philippine Presidential Unit Citation for 17 OCTOBER 1944 TO 4 JULY 1945"). Perhaps one of the others is something for WWII and I just can't tell, if so, then ignore this as it would all check out (the total math checks out). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a typo. Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. "The entire Hawaiian Division was concentrated at a single during the next few years, allowing it to conduct more effective combined arms training. It was also manned at higher personnel levels than other divisions, and its field artillery was the first to be motorized" Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Source - "Unlike most divisions in the continental United States, the 24th was concentrated on one post during the interwar years, which enabled it to conduct more effective combined arms training. It was also manned at higher levels than other divisions, and its field artillery was the first to be motorized" - A few things. The article ends at "a single" and is missing a word. The "which enabled it to conduct more effect combined arms..." needs to be rewritten to distance it from the source. Simple fix. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. "Its brigade headquarters was disbanded and the 27th and 35th Infantry regiments were assigned to the new 25th Infantry Division" I could not find this in the source. Move the current citation forward and add a citation for this. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. "replacing the 11th Airborne Division in a reflagging ceremony" - that makes it sound like the 11th Airborne was just performing reflagging ceremonies. :) Perhaps "replacing... after a reflagging ceremony" or something else to that effect. By the way, I could not find a reflagging ceremony in this source. Please cite it to one that discusses it. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. "The 24th was organized under the Pentomic Division TO&E, in which its combat forces were organized into five oversized battalions" I could not find this in the source. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Article - "Targeted for a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) role, the 24th Division was reorganized as a mechanized division in 1979"
11. Source - "Targeted for a NATO role, the division was reorganized as a mechanized infantry unit in 1979." Please rewrite this to distance it from the source. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Article - "In fall 1994, Iraq again threatened the Kuwaiti border, and two brigades from the division returned to southwest Asia" Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Source - "In the fall of 1994 Iraq again menaced the Kuwaiti border, and two brigades from the division returned to Southwest Asia. " Please rewrite this to distance it from the source. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Article - "From 1999 to 2006, the 24th Infantry Division consisted of a headquarters and three separate National Guard brigades; the 30th Heavy Brigade Combat Team at Clinton, North Carolina, the 218th Heavy Brigade Combat Team at Columbia, South Carolina, and the 48th Infantry Brigade Combat Team in Macon, Georgia" Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Source - "On June 5, 1999, the 24th Infantry Division [...] consists [...] headquarters at Fort Riley and three enhanced separate brigades: 30th Heavy Separate Brigade at Clinton, North Carolina, 218th Heavy Separate Brigade at Columbia, South Carolina, and the 48th Separate Infantry Brigade in Macon, Georgia." I know this is a list but it would be nicer to try and get this further from the source. Perhaps just mentioning how many Brigades without the location and without their numbering? Or just end it at "three enhanced separate brigades" with a small mention of it being the first to integrate National Guard units. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trust you to make the above changes and to go through and try to summarize and paraphrase better. I will check back by the end of the week and see how the work goes. I hope to be able to support. By the way, I merely spot checked some of the sources. I will spot check again with additional sources checked when I look back in to see how everything has progressed. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 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 14:12, 8 September 2009 [2].

A Place With No Name

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 15:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This little article has already had a busy few months here: it has been the subject of three AFDs (1, 2, 3), which themselves have been topics in two Signpost reports (here and here). Despite initiating the first debate and pressing for deletion in the two subsequent ones, I have cleaned the article up and feel that it meets the FA criteria. I welcome all comments and suggestions. Pyrrhus16 15:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - its, a little, broken up in terms, of the, amount of commas. Let me have a read through and see if I can improve matters. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - on reading through (its a short article) I'd say that it fails the FA criteria on 1.(b). There simply isn't enough detail yet for this to be (IMO) considered a featured article. Matters may be improved with time, when more information becomes available, and if the song is released, but I would have at least expected commentary in the similarities between the two songs, and short audio clip of one or both. The article is also missing a citation for the blockquote. My suggestion is, wait a few months until its released and garners some reviews, and add that to the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. (1) The body of the text appears to "borrow" from this article to the point of plagiarism, and (2) It reeks of bullshit ("It has been reported that the singer and America shared a manager in the late 80s"? Michael Jackson's manager in the late 80s was Frank DiLeo, who as far as I know had no connection to America). Sorry, but I'm more inclined to AFD this than to promote it to FA. – iridescent 16:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would recommend a peer review and then maybe GAN but some articles will never be FA. I have been proved wrong though. Spiderone 16:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with preceding three editors. JN466 22:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not deleteable, but not featureable either. I don't know if I would go so far as to say that this article could never be featured, but given the relatively sparse currently available information about it, and (!!!) the fact that it is unreleased but has the potential to be released someday, it won't be ready for a while. This is around where an article on "You Know You're Right" would be in 2000. Give it time, wait for its release, then go through WP:GAN and WP:PR. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per above and fails 1(b). Possibly wait until further developments. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 6 September 2009 [3].

Meteorological history of Hurricane Georges

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that the article thoroughly covers the topic and meets FA standards. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present and mostly good (thanks), but the alt text for the lead (infobox) image is merely "Track of Hurricane Georges", which doesn't convey much info to the visually impaired reader, and also contains a claim (that this is the track of Hurricane Georges) that can't easily be verified by a non-expert. Please reword it to not use the name, and to briefly describe where the track goes. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The alt text for the track wasn't there, I added it using what was put for the track in another article in the Georges series. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding alt text to the lead image. I also added support to Template:Infobox Hurricane History to make it all work. Eubulides (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like to see some non-NHC/HPC sources. While I don't doubt the topic's notability, it's generally best to have a variety of sources. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Echoing Julian's comment, this article is not comprehensive. Here's a small sampling of some scholarly articles about the subject, that are not mentioned in the article. Ping me when these (and others) have been consulted and included, and I'll be happy to reconsider my oppose. Sasata (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title: Currents and sediment transport in the Mississippi Canyon and effects of Hurricane Georges. Author(s): Ross, C. B.; Gardner, W. D.; Richardson, M. J., et al. Source: Continental Shelf Research Volume: 29 Issue: 11/12 Pages: 1384-1396 Published: 2009
  • Ecological correlates and short-term effects of relocation of a rare epiphytic orchid after Hurricane Georges. Author(s): Tremblay, R. L. Source: Endangered Species Research Volume: 5 Issue: 1 Pages: 83-90 Published: 2008
  • Title: Adaptive use of research aircraft data sets for hurricane forecasts. Author(s): Biswas, MK; Krishnamurti, TN. Source: METEOROLOGY AND ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS Volume: 99 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 43-64 Published: 2008
  • Title: Damage and recovery of riparian sierra palms after Hurricane Georges: Influence of topography and biotic characteristics. Author(s): Zimmerman, JKH; Covich, AP. Source: BIOTROPICA Volume: 39 Issue: 1 Pages: 43-49 Published: JAN 2007
  • Title: Observation of ocean current response to 1998 Hurricane Georges in the Gulf of Mexico. Author(s): Zheng, QN; Lai, RJ; Huang, NE, et al. Source: ACTA OCEANOLOGICA SINICA Volume: 25 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-14 Published: 2006
  • Title: Effects of Hurricane Georges on the resident Avifauna of Maricao State Forest, Puerto Rico. Author(s): Tossas, AG. Source: CARIBBEAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE Volume: 42 Issue: 1 Pages: 81-87 Published: 2006
  • Title: The behaviour of a hawksbill turtle data-logged during the passage of hurricane Georges through the Caribbean. Author(s): Storch, S; Hays, GC; Hillis-Starr, Z, et al. Source: MARINE AND FRESHWATER BEHAVIOUR AND PHYSIOLOGY Volume: 39 Issue: 4 Pages: 307-313. Published: DEC 2006
  • Title: Observed boundary layer wind structure and balance in the hurricane core. Part I: Hurricane Georges. Author(s): Kepert, JD. Source: JOURNAL OF THE ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES Volume: 63 Issue: 9 Pages: 2169-2193 Published: SEP 2006
Most of these don't apply to this article which is about the Meteorological history of the storm, not impact. At least two of these do apply though and I'll read through them and add information where needed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 6 September 2009 [4].

Boys in Red accident

Nominator(s): Kuzwa (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this is one of the best disaster related articles on Wikipedia and as such exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. If people disagree than I will quickly change minds. All comments are much appreciated. Thanks, Kuzwa (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reywas I changed the lead slightly in order to make it more clear when the event occurred and it's consequences. It's a brief touch up tonight as I have some limited time right now. Tomorrow though I will try to fully fix the lead to make it more engaging. Thanks for your comment! --Kuzwa (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::I have a general idea of two new possible leads. However the one I prefer does not meet the WP:Lead rule of putting the article subject as soon as possible, usually in the first sentence. I think a better opening can be made putting the subject in the second sentence but I'm not sure if that is common place or even allowed in FA's. If requested I could make a draft and link here. Does anyone know if I could do this? --Kuzwa (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the above comment I've changed the lead and I hope it is now up to your satisfaction. --Kuzwa (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present; thanks. However, the alt text for the lead image, "Wrecked white van on snowy terrain" is a bit too terse, as it fails to capture useful info in that image that is not present in the caption or in nearby text. Please modify it to briefly describe the appearance of the wreck, e.g., the fact that the right side and rear of the van is sheared off. Eubulides (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks. Eubulides (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn support - Interesting read, only one small nitpick.
Done. Thanks for your support. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't take this offensively, but I am withdrawing my support based on another read of this article. I think it could use a copyedit, so I'll run through. The reason I am withdrawing this support is the prose. ceranthor 16:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha no problem, care to point out what needs an edit though? :) --Kuzwa (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentences are a bit choppy, try to make them more varied in sentence structure. There is nothing wrong with the current prose, just that it is a little boring. ceranthor 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at it when I have time and am a bit more focused. Thanks for the suggestion. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to Weak support - The prose flows well, I think, and gets the job done, so I'll give it a shot. Please ask a copyeditor to run through, particularly one who does work with FA's. ceranthor 21:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceranthor I'm still a bit busy and am fearing I may be somewhat inactive until the weekend. I have placed a request to the Guild of Copyeditors so that hopefully one of the members reviews it. As soon as I'm fully back I will pursue any major issues. Shouldn't hinder my ability to combat minor ones however. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Thanks for your comments. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I did some copyediting, and found a couple of things that make me feel this isn't quite ready. A more detailed run through by a good copyeditor would address quite a few things. I found (and fixed) a statement in the lead that was cited but not supported by the source given, and I also tried to improve the precision of some of the statements. The content appears to be all here, and the structure is fine, but the writing is not quite there yet. If I have more time I will try to take a pass myself. Mike Christie (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike thanks for your time you put looking into the article. I have already requested a copy edit as mentioned above so I'm currently waiting on that. I'm currently busy getting ready for a rather hectic year in school so pardon for my inactivity! --Kuzwa (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 6 September 2009 [5].

Bubbles (chimpanzee)

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 15:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to nominate this rather unusual article for Featured Article status because I believe it meets the FA criteria. I think it is comprehensive and engaging, although the latter is probably due to the interesting facts within the article, as opposed to extremely excellent writing on my part. With that said, I welcome any comments or suggestions. Thank you. Pyrrhus16 15:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments ... This is one of the more unusual articles around, yes? It is nicely written, modestly illustrated. There were a few punctuation inconsistencies, which I simply fixed. I hope that's okay (some punctuation outside the quotation marks, some inside, stuff like that). Two of the links were firewalled, but I had no trouble getting through when I clicked on them directly (not using the aides provided above).
Writing. Nicely written. Clear sentence structure, no major grammatical errors, and in fact no minor ones either. The portions on the maids and the previous chimps was a bit unclear. It probably should be clearer that Bubbles didn't throw his feces on the wall, but some of his predecessors did.
Notability. Uh....well anything about MJ is notable, I suppose, and since Bubbles' autobiography is coming out, there will be some interest in his life.
Images. I'm not qualified to check these. Someone who understands free use mumbo-jumbo will have to do that.
Comprehensiveness. Do we know anything about Bubbles' life before his years with Michael Jackson? There is also that chimp in Ohio who went wacko and tried to rip someone's arm out. Is this a pattern when male chimps get to be a certain age? Is there something that the experts have to say about that?
Last Question. Is this for real? Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is what for real? This nomination? –Juliancolton | Talk 04:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I've tried to find more on Bubbles' life before Jackson, but to no avail. I'll see if I can find anything on other chimps being aggressive, and perhaps add it to the article as you suggested. Pyrrhus16 16:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment. We need more information, assuming it exists, about Bubbles before and after the Jackson years. Unless Jackson was a closet ALF activist, he probably didn't "rescue" Bubbles as such, so what did happen? Also, the suicide attempt afterwards sounds implausible. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) I've tried Google Books, Google News and the Jackson books I own. I couldn't find anymore on his life before meeting Jackson. 2) I've changed rescued to adopted. 3) There has been no scientific evidence to rule out animal suicide, which is why it's presented as a possibility in the article, but not an outright lie. Pyrrhus16 16:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Is there a link missing in current ref 6 (Huey, Steve..)?
  • Are you aware you're referencing "When Jackson's longtime friend Elizabeth Taylor attended the opening of the Whitman-Walker Clinic's Elizabeth Taylor Medical Center, she was accompanied by the singer and Bubbles. Jackson and the ape wore matching military uniforms." to a book classified as fiction??? http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=isbn%3A080217048X
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem with the article is that it buys into the tabloid perspective that Michael Jackson rescued some poor animal, gave it a home, loved it, then sadly they had to part. But from a cursory reading of some of the stories, it seems that Bubbles was born into an animal lab, then was removed from his mother and sold to Bob Dunn of Bob Dunn's Animal Services, [6] a Hollywood company that trained animals for movies and commercials. At some point, Jackson seems to have purchased Bubbles, though the animal continued mostly to live with Dunn, being borrowed by Jackson when the latter wanted Bubbles around. The larger Bubbles became, the less that happened. Dunn reportedly decided to retire in January 2005, [7] and Bubbles was sent to an animal sanctuary, along with Dunn's other non-human primates: 11 chimpanzees and six orangutans in all. The "attempted suicide" story is almost certainly nonsense. (Though Dunn said he was retiring, his website still exists. [8])

The United States Department of Agriculture has criticized Dunn a few times for unsanitary conditions. A PETA investigation in 2004 led to further criticism. [9]

Many of the newspaper stories about Bubbles adopted a tone of mockery, which the WP article copies. I think it needs a rewrite, more sources to pin down where Bubbles was born and who purchased him from the lab, if that's what happened — or at least to report the discrepancies — and generally a more neutral tone and perspective. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that Bubbles was purchased by Jackson through Dunn, the middle man. I couldn't find any more sources to shed light on his early life. Suicide in animals has not been ruled; it is believed to be a possibility. I doubt there will ever be a position on the topic that people agree on, and there probably won't be a conclusive answer to the debate on it. Pyrrhus16 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few questions: do you have any reliable sources that offer evidence of non-human primate suicide? Do you have any that seriously suggest Bubbles did this, not counting mockery? What is your source that says Dunn bought Bubbles on Jackson's behalf?
Also, here's a link to the Washington Times story so that you don't need to link to a subscription-only site. Note that it says Bubbles wasn't visited by Jackson at the sanctuary, that's he's being maintained by public donations, that he could live until he's 60, and he was born in 1983. That probably belongs in the article. You might also want to research whether anything was left for Bubbles or the sanctuary in the will. Note also the discrepancy between the W/Times and a Telegraph article that says Jackson did visit him at the sanctuary.
There's a clip here suggesting that Jackson used sign language to communicate with Bubbles, which would be interesting to explore. [10]
The problem with the article is that it simply repeats the news sources — many of which were in turn repeating press releases from Jackson's staff, which were designed to make him look good — rather than using the news sources as a way of getting deeper into the story. For example, you repeat the claim that Jackson taught Bubbles to moonwalk, but there are clips on YouTube of Bubbles doing this, and he is simply walking backwards. [11] Do chimps tend to walk backwards anyway, or is this likely to have been mimicry? You may not get to the bottom of it, but an FA needs to explore it briefly, assuming the sources exist.
If I were writing this article, I would e-mail Bob Dunn (his address is on the website I linked to), and get as much information from him as I can. Then I would use what he tells me to find articles about it. He may even have an archive of articles he can direct you to, though bear in mind that he may not direct you to anything negative. Try some of the animal-welfare organizations to see if any of them wrote about the Jackson-Bubbles relationship. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is this profile that makes it sound like Bubbles was bought by Jackson through Dunn. I'll certainly add some of your suggestions to the article, and note the discrepencies about Jackson visiting Bubbles. I'll also look into emailing Dunn, to get some details from him. Pyrrhus16 17:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, animal suicide has been reported for many years, as seen in this article. In the Bubbles article, it is not presented as something he definitely attempted, but notes that it has been alleged as a possibility. Pyrrhus16 17:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your suicide source is from 1884. You'd need something more recent and rigorous. None of the sources you're citing are reporting it as a serious thing. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any rigorous recent sources in my search. However, it doesn't change the fact that the suicide attempt claim was made, which is what is reported in the article and the references. It does not state that Bubbles did attempt suicide, but that the media reported an allegation. Pyrrhus16 17:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sentence "The center for apes, where the care for each animal costs around $17,000, also houses 41 other chimpanzees and orangutans." needs to state the time period that the $17,000 figure applies to. JN466 22:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Pyrrhus16 17:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Big problems with the tone and the prose.

  • Opening sentence: "... Jackson. Jackson ...". Why not "... Jackson, who adopted ..."?
  • Erky-perky, not a good sentence (third one): "Despite the pair enjoying a close relationship, many media sources mocked what was reported as a friendship." There's noun plus -ing in a very awkward guise. The logic (based on "despite") is unclear—there was mockery and reporting of a friendship in the press, yes? Which bit is despite the "close relationship"? My head is spinning.
  • "The association"—that refers to this "relationship/friendship"? Now we have three words for the same thing; very confusing for the poor readers. "The association—along with other factors—led the public to think of Jackson as a bizarre eccentric, obsessed with recapturing his childhood, and he was subsequently dubbed "Wacko Jacko"." Are the other factors the child sex allegations? May as well not be coy about it. The giggles at the subsequent sharing of a two-bedroom hotel suite are already palpable.
  • "Thoughout" is odd.
  • It's all looking very bizarre; perhaps you could warn the readers before they get to the private toilet bit and the suicide attempt that this relationship was part of Michael Jackson's highly eccentric persona? The place to do it is in an expanded text around where you talk of the mockery. Needs a careful foregrounding right there. Tony (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without getting into the pros-and-cons of the prose, the "other factors" aren't the child sex allegations, which came much later; they're undeniably weird but not particularly interesting tabloid claims - "He sleeps in a pyramid!", "He bought the Elephant Man's skeleton!", "He lives in a hyperbaric chamber!", "He lobbied Spielberg for the role of Peter Pan in Hook!", "He tried to file a patent on leaning backwards!" (those last two were true) and so on. They all built up the gradual "Whacko Jacko" figure, and deserve a mention in Michael Jackson (as indeed they are), but aren't significant enough in and of themselves to warrant listing here. – iridescent 19:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was several years before the first set of allegations that he was named "Wacko Jacko". I've altered the lead per your concerns, and am working on your last request. Pyrrhus16 17:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 6 September 2009 [12].

Aliso Creek (Orange County)

Nominator(s): Shannon1talk contribs 00:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has passed GA, received major cleanup, received a peer review, and received another major cleanup in and after the process, and received highly positive opinions on the WP:RIVER talk page. I feel this article is now referenced over enough and of a standard enough to reach FA. I know most of the river FA's are very small streams - this is the first one that flows directly into the ocean. Shannon1talk contribs 00:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Shannontalk SIGN! 16:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. The existing alt text is a good start, but there are some problems:
  • Sorry, the alt viewer is currently busted where it looks at an old (cached) version of the article. However, it is currently (correctly) showing that 7 images lack alt text. Of these, 4 (the highway sign shields) are purely decorative and should be marked with "|link=" as per WP:ALT#Purely decorative images; the other 3 need alt text. Eubulides (talk) 06:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Image:AlisoCreekReliefMap.jpg the alt text "Topography of the creek's watershed" doesn't convey much useful info to the visually impaired reader. What does that image say about the topography? The alt text should tell us that. (done)
  • Similarly, for Image:Alisocreek orange map.png the alt text "There are 8 cities in the Aliso Creek watershed." is a bit terse. Some cities should be named at least, perhaps the ones at either end, and the role of Sulpher Creek in that illustration should be mentioned, shouldn't it? (done)
  • The alt text "A large storm drain outlet on the right side of the creek" is mostly a repeat of part of the caption. Alt text should avoid repeating the caption, and should say what extra useful info the image tells you. (done)
Eubulides (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on it. Aside from the images missing alt text, as noted above, I currently see these problems:
  • In maps, please replace phrases like "upper right (northeast)" with "northeast". The "upper right" is a relatively unimportant detail, whereas the "northeast" is the gist of the image. Please see WP:ALT#Maps. (done)
  • "The beginning of the canyon the creek cuts through the mountains." is not a sentence. There's a similar problem with "The end of the canyon the creek cuts through the mountains, with the ocean beyond". See WP:ALT#Punctuation. (done)
  • "Large view of the creek's watershed" repeats the caption (see WP:ALT#Repetition), and doesn't convey the gist of the image well (see WP:ALT#Essence). What does that large view look like? (done)
  • The word "hued" is redundant and can be removed. (where?) Image:Laguna Niguel Lake.jpg
  • The word "anadromous" is not something that one can verify from the fish's visual appearance, right? So it should be removed from the alt text as per WP:ALT#Verification. (done)
  • Similarly, the "polluted" in "polluted water" is not something that one can verify by looking at the image, and should be removed or moved to the caption. The resulting alt text doesn't convey much useful info that isn't in the caption, and should be reworded to do so.
  • The word "the" in "An artificial concrete waterfall built on the creek" can't be verified just by looking at the image, and needs to be reworded. (done)
  • "Juaneños' to the southwest". Surely that should be "southeast"? (done)
  • "watershed - including". Please use a comma here, or if you must use a dash, please use WP:EMDASH. (done)
  • "Sulphur Creek, at the lower right" should be "Sulphur Creek, in the southeast". (done)
Eubulides (talk) 06:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recently-introduced phrase "Drawing of" is not that useful here and can be removed as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid.
Eubulides (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that most of the above items have been fixed, and I've struck them; the only remaining item that's a real problem is the "polluted" one. Can you please fix that? Eubulides (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 22:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the alt text for File:Aliso Creek heron and ducklings.JPG. I see no pollution visible there. Eubulides (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Working... Shannontalk SIGN! 23:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using these sites for extreme claims or much information in the article; most of the article's info comes from the USACE, Orange County Watershed, Orange County Flood Control Division, and LA Times. As I mentioned up there, most of these are just for one figure, such as a distance or a date. Shannontalk SIGN! 17:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How much or how little has little bearing on whether they are reliable. We need to use high quality sources, it's part of the FA criteria. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The FA criterion 1c states that "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations" (italics mine for emphasis). Featured articles are our best work. Therefore, we expect that FAs use the highest-quality sources, just as we expect "brilliant" prose, professional-standard presentation (adherence to MOS), and complete coverage of the topic. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at the article I've actually started to add other citations to reliable sources after the ones mentioned up there... Shannontalk SIGN! 20:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I intend to copyedit this and will leave questions here as I work through the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see Finetooth has pointed out most of the issues I planned to copyedit in the first two sections (thanks). I still have one major concern with something in the lead. The second sentence reads The stream rises in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains, near the unincorporated city of Portola Hills, ... then the first sentence of the third paragraph of the lead says Pollution, floods and development of the watershed and surrounding Orange County have blighted the water quality and wildlife of the creek since the 1960s,[6] when urban and suburban development of the eight incorporated cities[5] .... The File:Aliso creek map.jpg also shows only eight cities, one of which is Portola Hills, but that is not incorporated. Reading the Portola Hills article, I see it was a Census-designated place (CDP) that was incorporated into the existing city of Lake Forest in the year 2000. The Geobox however does not refer to Portola Hills for the location of the source, but instead places the source in the Cleveland National Forest. The "Course" section of the article mentions both Portola Hills and the National Forest. There are several issues here - some are relatively minor (in the lead I would use the full link Portola Hills, California, and not the redirect Portola Hills, in its current state I would also refer to it as a CDP and not an "unincorporated city") but the most important by far is that the article does not accurately reflect the current state of the creek. It now rises (and has done so for the past nine years) in the city of Lake Forest. Now I think it would be OK to say something like The stream rises in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains in the Cleveland National Forest, near the Portola Hills area of the city of Lake Forest, ... but as it currently stands this second sentence is incorrect and contradicts the later lead sentence about 8 incorporated cities. I also note the "Course" section and map would have to be updated to reflect the proper city.

Hope this helps, I can be this nitpicky for the whole article if desired, just let me know here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought I'd pop in here too. You've done a lot of work to get the article this far, and I'd like to see you succeed. I've done a close reading of the lead and the first section and recorded my thoughts below. If you'd like me to go on with this, I'd be glad to. Just post a note here.

Lead

  • "The name, of Spanish origin, was given to the creek by Spanish conquistadors in the 1700s, although there are now many places in California that use the name." - Delete "of Spanish origin" since you've already explained in the first sentence that it's Spanish? (done)
  • "As of 2004, the 30.4-square-mile (79 km2) watershed... " - If you round to the nearest tenth in miles, shouldn't you round to the nearest tenth in square kilometers? You can do that easily by adding a rounding parameter, in this case "|1" to the template. (done)
  • "that dates from the late Eocene to the Pliocene eras" - Would it be helpful to readers to add date ranges? Also, these two are technically epochs rather than eras. I think it's OK to avoid that complication by saying "that dates from the late Eocene to the Pliocene".
  • "The creek's watershed then became a major portion of the 1842 Rancho Niguel Mexican Land Grant, granted to Juan Avila and later purchased by Lewis Moulton." - Tighten slightly by deleting ", granted"? (done)
  • Lewis Moulton. He is mentioned in the lead, but I don't see him in the main text. (Yes, he is, in the 20th century section.)
  • "and its watershed as a municipal water source date back to the early 20th century" - Tighten by deleting "back"? (done)
  • "Pollution continues to be a major problem for the creek, which has received many water quality and feasibility studies, but in similarity to many other Orange County streams, little work has been done to correct pollution in the creek." - Suggestion: "Pollution continues to be a major problem for the creek, the subject of many water quality and feasibility studies, but, as with many other Orange County streams, little has been done to correct it." (done)

Name

  • "The Native American name of Aliso Creek has almost for certain been lost. The time of origin of the current name of Aliso Creek is not known, but it is certain that the name was given by Spanish conquistadors sometime between the 1750s and the 1800s." - What is the source for these claims? (done)
  • "Other derivatives for Aliso Creek's name have arose since then - including "Los Alisos Creek" and "Alisos Creek"." - This should be "have arisen" rather than "have arose". Also, the spaced hyphen should be replaced by a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash, thus: "then – including" or "then—including". Ditto for all of the other uses of the spaced hyphen in the article. You might also consider using a comma rather than a dash in at least some of these cases. (done with derivatives, will work on hyphens eventually)
  • "One road, Aliso Creek Road, is named for the creek, although ironically it only crosses the creek once and does not parallel it." - Delete "ironically" since it is an editorial comment that would be hard to verify? (done)
Finetooth (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comments: Thanks for your attention to many of the suggestions above. Here is another set of comments that apply down through the "Water quality" subsection.

Etymology *Nitpick. It would be better to flip the order of the refs [8][4] to put them in ascending order, [4][8]. (done)

Course

  • "The creek crosses under Trabuco Road and Jeronimo Road; the latter was once the site of a stream gauge." - Wikilink stream gauge? (It's linked in the "Discharge" subsection but should be linked on first use.) (done)
  • "The southeast-flowing Dairy Fork was once a prominent canyon that followed the present-day form of State Route 73, until it was flattened in the 1960s and 1970s to build the city of Aliso Viejo." - I find this a bit confusing. Would this be better: "Southeast-flowing Dairy Fork once flowed in a prominent canyon that was filled in the 1960s and 1970s to build the city of Aliso Viejo; State Route 73 runs above the former canyon"? Or something like that?> (done)
  • "After receiving the fork, Aliso Creek passes into four massive culverts that cross under Pacific Park Drive, whose fill nearly bisects the valley." - Delete "whose fill nearly bisects the valley"? It sounds like original research, though it might not be. In any case, it's a bit hard to imagine and probably isn't needed. (done)
  • "which is about 4.5 miles (7.2 km) in length... " - Nitpick. Tighten slightly to "long"? (done)
  • "Flowing almost due south through a valley with slopes dissected with many deep side canyons... " - "By" rather than "with"?
  • "as it enters private property less than 1-mile (1.6 km) from the mouth" - Delete hyphen? (done
  • In reviewing the changes you made, I noticed a couple of other problems. You describe Dairy Fork as southeast-flowing, but the watershed map in the geobox shows it as southwest-flowing. In another place, you say the main stem "makes a bend to the southeast then veers back south". Should this be "southwest" as well?

Discharge

  • "The former received runoff from about 95% of the watershed, while the latter received runoff from 7.91 square miles (20.5 km2)... " - Rounding? (done)
  • Caption. "Due to tides and erosion, its mouth is ever-changing and never the same." - Delete "and never the same"? (done)

Geology

  • "The Santa Ana Mountains, which now bound the creek to the north and east... " "Border" rather than "now bound"? (done)
  • "It also happens that the uplift of the hills changed the course of Aliso Creek's largest tributary, Sulphur Creek,... " - Possibly tighten to "The uplift also changed the course of... "? (done)
  • "Wisconsinian glaciation" - Would Wisconsin Glacial Episode, linked directly to the relevant subsection of the the "Last glacial period" article be better? (done; originally tried to do that, but wouldn't work)
  • "During the Wisconsinian glaciation, when the San Joaquin Hills had begun to uplift, the climate of Southern California changed radically. From an arid, semi-desert climate, sea levels dropped as water became locked up in ice during the Wisconsinian ice age, as it is now known. At that time, Southern California's climate changed to become reminiscent of that of the Pacific Northwest. Suddenly, prodigious rainfall turned the ephemeral streams of the region into large and powerful rivers." - Tighten for clarity? Suggestion: "During the Wisconsin episode, after the San Joaquin Hills had begun to uplift, the climate of Southern California changed radically from arid to wet. Prodigious rainfall gradually turned the small streams of the region into large and powerful rivers." (done)
  • "The drop in sea level also helped in the process, allowing the rivers to flow steeper and faster and thus to possess more erosive power." - Suggestion: "A drop in sea level during the glacial period allowed rivers to flow more rapidly and to erode with power." (done)
  • "It is estimated that at that time period, Aliso Creek was a 16-mile (26 km) waterway... " - Delete "period"? (done)
  • "By then, the rivers and streams had slowed down to their original volume." - "dwindled" rather than "slowed down"? (done)

Geography

  • "The ridge at the headwaters of the creek (see Course) separates the Aliso Creek watershed from Santiago Creek." - I'm not sure it works well to embed a "jump back" link (see Course) like this in the text or that you need to do it. I'd be inclined to delete it. (done)
  • "Surrounding Interstate 5, which can be said to bisect the watershed, is the primary urban area in the Aliso Creek watershed - consisting of Lake Forest, Laguna Woods, and Laguna Hills." - It might be useful to say whether I-5 cuts across the watershed lengthwise or crosswise and in what direction. (done)
  • "bordering a broad alluvial valley which Aliso Creek has deposited many sediments in." - Move "in" to the left in the sentence? Suggestion: "bordering a broad alluvial valley in which Aliso Creek has deposited many sediments". (done)

Water quality

  • "adversely effecting the ecology and wildlife of the creek by means of elevated flow level (urban runoff)... " - "affecting" rather than "effecting".
  • "The creek is part of the Clean Water Act list of impaired waters, which is defined as "impaired by one or more pollutants that do not meet one or more water quality standards" - Compress to "The creek is part of the Clean Water Act list of waters 'impaired by one or more pollutants that do not meet one or more water quality standards' "?
  • "This is sourced from pet waste, fertilizer, manure, and other organic pollutants that are washed into the creek. This results in a bacterial level 34% higher than levels declared safe under California law." - Maybe combine these to avoid starting three sentences in a row with "This is"? Suggestion: "This comes from pet waste, fertilizer, manure, and other organic pollutants that wash into the creek and raise the bacteria level 34 percent higher than levels declared safe under California law."
  • The quote is too short to set off as a blockquote, and the paragraph could nicely be attached to the bigger one above it. Suggestion: "A local activist commented that the water pollution problem has long been ignored by the county: " ...we're sick and tired of it. It's nothing but a cesspool stew, full of pigeons and pigeon droppings and nearly 90-degree water, right at the beach!"
  • "after having been bitten by coyotes that had drank" - "that had drunk"
  • "Also in 2002, tests in November of that year detected small amounts of the virus that causes... " - Delete "of that year"?
  • "It prevails in urban runoff because this source of runoff is created by tap water, whether used for irrigation, car washing, or other daily activities, flowing down storm drains." - Suggestion: "It prevails in urban runoff, which consists largely of chlorinated tap water used for irrigation, car washing, and other daily activities."
  • "Ironically, carp... " - Delete "ironically"?
  • "to exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit (32 degrees Celsius)" - Wikipedia's standard format for this is 90 °F (32 °C).
  • "warned in a 1997 study that up to $4.2 million USD in damages" - No need to specify USD in a US-centric article.
  • "Spectacular events have also occurred at English Canyon Creek, an upper tributary of Aliso Creek,... " - Delete "also" since the preceding sentence describes a possible spectacular event but not one that has actually occurred.
Finetooth (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 6 September 2009 [13].

No Line on the Horizon

<e Horizon}}</noinclude>

I am nominating No Line on the Horizon for featured article because I believe it meets all of the current FA criteria. A lot of work has been put into this article and I think that shows in the present result. It's been copyedited several times by other users and undergone a peer review which is now archived; all of the concerns raised by the PR, the GA review, and other users have, I believe, been addressed. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
U2Gigs is the most reliable and reputable source when it comes to data on U2 performances; the only other that exists is U2tours.com. Neither of these are affiliated with or run by the people who run U2.com. As far as I'm aware there has never been any questions or concerns raised regarding the accuracy of the U2Gigs database, and I think just about every active member of the U2 WikiProject has used it in articles at some point in time. It's always been an invaluable resource when building U2 articles. If you're referring to this source, the reason it was used is that I am unsure of how to source radio broadcasts (or even if Wikipedia allows them to be used a source, given that once they've been heard once they will almost never be heard again). It was the only source I could find containing that information with the exception of U2France which hosted the broadcast on their webpage. U2France is another fansite, and given that French is not my first language I thought that the U2Gigs page, which contained the same information, was a better selection given that it's never been questioned as a reliable source before.
ExploreMusic also tends to be a very reliable source when it comes to breaking music news. The host of the program, Alan Cross, is one of the most prominant Canadian musical journalists, and the actual ExploreMusic radio program, syndicated across Canada, often contains newly released information regarding upcoming releases, etc. Their articles contain essentially the same information as in the broadcasts.
Though I know blogs are not usually accepted as a reliable source, there are some exceptions (per WP:SPS: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert...) I remember of a time when a New York Times blog was accepted as a reliable source, and I think that Mojo, a forefront musical publication, is as well (especially given that both instances are exclusive interviews with band members, containing information on the album sessions that is unavailable from any other source).
Checking the MOG ref, I see that the information was originally taken from an article by The Independent. I've therefore updated the reference in question (#27) to the original article. I don't use Consequence of Sound often as a source, but I've found them to be accurate; normally I would prefer to use a source such as Rolling Stone, but as with the U2Gigs article it is the only reference I have found for this piece of information; the only alternative I can see to using this is removing the information from the article, which is something I would prefer not to do. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in regards to how U2Gigs gets their information, all performances since at least 2004 have been through live streaming or their own attendance. Performances from actual tour concerts are also posted up on U2.com and the two are always identical; the difference between them being that over time, the U2.com entries are removed while the U2Gigs entries are archived. Older information is taken directly from archived newspaper reports when it is added. In the case of articles, the operators state where there informaton is from (as in the linked entry above). Most of the content is generated by the operators, but there is a submission form for others to use here. I don't know that they have been mentioned in the press before, but I do know that one of the operators is also a Wikipedian. He has had no involvement in the creation of this article, so he may be able to demonstrate their fact-checking process better than I can. I'll try to contact him.
Mojo is a very well-known and prominant music magazine. I'm not really sure how I can demonstrate that the online version has any differences in reliability from the printed version. I don't think it's too far behind Rolling Stone in terms of quality, and I've never seen any doubts about their reliability. If it helps, Mojo is backed and distributed by the Bauer Media Group. If I can find the entries from the printed version, would that be preferable? Consequence of Sound I can't find much on, but on their "About" page here, they list some of the publications they or their articles have been in, including BBC.co.uk, MTV.com, USA Today, Pitchfork, and the Chicago-Sun Times. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Axver from U2gigs here. I haven't been around Wikipedia much at all the last few months (funnily enough, I was in Europe to see U2), but User:MelicansMatkin brought this discussion to my attention so I hope I can help. I've been a Wikipedian for quite some time and am familiar with verifiability requirements, though I rarely touch the U2 articles to avoid any questions about conflict of interest (I focus on New Zealand topics for the most part). On the U2gigs FAQ, we have an answer that details our sources which I hope clears up any problems. Any of our information can be independently verified. For news articles, I cite my sources; for live U2 appearances, we have either attended in person (at which we take notes by hand or produce our own recording) or listened to it - live for contemporaneous concerts and interviews, or to recordings for older shows. As far as I know, I have listened to every single live U2 appearance for which a recording exists. I am a professional historian, and I apply the same standards to my work on U2gigs - if I do not believe information is verifiable and could be defended in peer review, I do not publish it. We've been cited by Billboard and other publications; I think the highest affirmation of the reliability of U2gigs is that we were referenced as a reliable source in "U2 & NL", an official publication that came with the Dutch edition of No Line On The Horizon (we were the only web-based source; the rest were from the media and from Propaganda, U2's now defunct official magazine). Hope this clears things up and I'm happy to answer any further questions. - Axver (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text is done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks) but has some problems.

  • It contains several phrases that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and should be removed or reworded as per WP:ALT #What not to specify. These include almost all proper names such as "U2" (most people don't know what U2 or its members look like), "Riad", "New York City" etc. Proper names that are in the image itself are OK (e.g., "U2 Way") since they can be verified from the image. Other phrases such as "hotel" should also be removed: one cannot tell simply by looking at the image that it's a hotel.
  • The alt text entries, by and large, are too long. (The alt text for the album cover is particularly long; that simple image should be summarizable in two dozen words tops.) Please make them briefer, about the length of a caption. I suggest moving the current alt text entries into the description field of the image pages, as they do contain useful info.

Eubulides (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the alt text entries per your suggestion; they're now shorter, more concise in their description, and both proper nouns and information unverifiable from the image alone has been removed. Alt text entries have also all been moved into the appropriate description sections on the image pages. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing all that; it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks pretty good, and I'm leaning towards supporting. I'd suggest moving the sections on the tour and Linear though, as both seem out of place. I think the section on Linear would be better off as a subset of "Recording and production", and the section on the tour would be better off as part of "Promotion". Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I agree that Linear looks better where it is (makes more sense too given the location of Songs of Ascent), but I'm not sure about the tour information. Though that's undoubtedly where it belongs, it seems a little... "off" (for lack of a better word) as a subsection of Promotion. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, looking at it again, it still doesn't look right. Maybe if Promotion was split into a seperate section from Release? That way Release would include the release date, the cover art, and the format, while Promotion would include the brief appearances on TV and radio, and the tour. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it looks a bit odd as is, and I'd be fine with either your solution or just getting rid of the section header for the tour and making it the third paragraph of the promotion section. There's not a whole lot there, after all, and according to the article, the tour is entirely based around promoting the album. But since I'm fine with either solution, I'll go ahead and Support. Good work! Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please have TUF-KAT return and address the outstanding reliable sources issues above vis-a-vis this support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb87 has contacted Tuf-Kat, and I have sent them an email; I've left messages on Ealdgyth talk page twice since my last reply on 16 August ([14] and [15]), but the user has not yet returned to see if their concerns have been addressed. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried the split, and I think it looks a bit better. Cheers! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think this FAC should get moving now.

1. User Axver from U2Gigs has said, plus showed the guidelines of how content makes their website. Personally, I think that is fine.
2. About the site "ConsequenceofSound being reliable, here is the link to the "about us" page; About Most sources that have covered it are notable and reliable, which in turn should make CoS reliable(?) If not, this source, which has the same content cited, can be used. Will it be fine? this one
3. Mojo seems reputed. It also has an article on wiki, which can be found here.

I personally feel this is enough, what do the reviewers think? Suede67 (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use the Times Online source. Otherwise, I'll leave the others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I'm not persuaded that they are reliable. Personally, I'd replace the other two sites. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mojo should be considered reliable. The nominator has mentioned its a "big" reputed magazine in the UK, as the Rolling Stone is in the US. They print the physical magazine, and additionally have an online version. The print version carries a CD every month. Bands like U2 and Red Hot Chili Peppers have compiled CD content in the past (link link link) Additionally, if you scrolldown on the MOJO website, you'll know it's owned by "Bauer Media" (example). There's an "About" page on their website here; "...is a division of the Bauer Publishing Group, Europe’s largest privately owned publishing Group. The Bauer Publishing Group is a worldwide media empire offering over 230 magazines in 15 countries, as well as online, TV and radio stations." I'd say notable! Also, here's more; the magazine had a radio station (which was shut down some time ago, and had many listeners) link; "...The station is one of the most high-profile digital radio closures to date..." provides notability. Will that do? Suede67 (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consequence of Sound reference replaced by The Times (good catch Suede67), all but one U2Gigs reference replaced (to the best of my ability) by ones for the French Radio and TV shows, Rolling Stone, and the BBC. Two of the Mojo references have been changed, but the exclusive interviews (thus the only source for the information) have been kept, though I still feel Mojo in general is a reliable source. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: MelicansMatkin just took care of the refs using U2gigs as a source. I have struck it out above (also CoS as it has also been replaced). Suede67 (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Should only be struck out by the original commenter. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Oh, sorry. Suede67 (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will not have internet access beginning 3 September 2009 as I am moving into a new apartment for the forthcoming school year. Since I won't be able to respond to any queries or concerns that arise within the next week or so (hopefully less), I would appreciate any editor responding to them in the interim. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image comments
  • I don't think there's a strong enough rationale for the inclusion of File:U2NoLineRecording.jpg. The only real commentary in the article is about how it was a makeshift, open air recording environment, but you can't even tell that from the above shot. It's eye candy.  Doing...
  • File:U2nloth.ogg and File:U2whiteassnow.ogg need more than just boilerplate rationales; why do these clips significantly increase understanding in compliance with NFCC? How much has the quality been decreased from the source? Just how much of the song has been used?
I added more specific rationales and detailed summary, do you find it satisfactory now? Suede67 (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other images are free or have proper information and rationales.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:50, 1 September 2009 [16].

Economic history of China (pre-1911)

Nominator(s): Teeninvestor (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Over the course of the last 8 months, I have expanded this article from a stub to a GA and have extensively worked on it, adding sources and text. With a successful GA nomination and three copyedits, I believe this article meets all of the FA criteria and would be a worthy addition to the list of wikipedia's featured articles.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the uppercase P in Pre-1911 should be lower. If others agree, please do not just change it; let someone knowledgeable get all the pieces in the right place and correct the name on the FAC page at the same time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. In spite of my request not to do so, someone moved the article without correcting the FAC pages. Does anyone have time to fix all of this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Way too many headers
  • At least 15 one-, two-, or three-line paragraphs. Can you either expand or may be, merge and flow them properly
  • The lists have long sentences and so theymust be made into prose.
  • "See also" looks redundant
  • All ALTs are faulty with wikilinks, full similarity to captions and unwanted details like dynasties, painters, painting and other raw material, years, places, war, museum, engineering stuff, useless facts (world's first paper money - was introduced during the Song dynasty), technical words (taotie motif).
  • Warring states map has the worst ALT.

Hometech (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the above issues by converting the lists into prose and pruning the see also section. Another editor is responsible for the alt text(I didn't do most of them) and soon they should be fixed. This article has a very broad subject, so it must address a lot of subjects in each dynasty. Therefore, I believe the number of headers is justified. I've identified and merged many smaller paragraphs as well. Feel free to suggest more changes.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text done now; thanks. As far as I can see there is no alt text anywhere in the article. It needs to be added, as per WP:ALT. Please see the "alt text" button in the toolbax at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added ALT text to every image in the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing all that. The alt text is done now; thanks. pretty good, but with all those images there are some problems that need fixing:
  • For File:China 2c.jpg the alt text focuses on irrelevant details (e.g., the colors used on the map). These details should be replaced by the useful info that the map conveys to the reader, e.g., north central China is highlighted and contains several names ranging from YAN on the north cost to YU on the central coast, and then inland on the rivers (or perhaps you can think of a better way of communicating the gist). Please see WP:ALT#Maps.
  • For File:Chinese Boddhisattva statue.jpg the alt text says only that the statue is a buddha. A bit more detail should be given about the visual appearance: I noticed that it's the Buddha standing, and that the focus is on his hands, and the alt text should probably mention that. Please see WP:ALT#Essence.
  • Similarly, for File:China coin1.JPG the only useful info is "numerous coins", which is too terse. What do the coins look like? Omit the backdrop; that's not important here.
  • Similarly, for File:Yuan Dynasty - waterwheels and smelting.png. By the way, its alt text is missing the leading "alt=", which means it isn't working.
  • The following phrases are redundant, either with other parts of the alt text or with the caption, and should be be removed or reworded as per WP:ALT#Repetition: "A glazed figurine of a camel and a bearded merchant" (this is the worst case: the alt text conveys no useful info that's not already in the caption), "a painting of two women", "in the foreground", "A painting depicting", "Portrait of", "A drawing of" (actually, it's not a drawing; but just remove the phrase since the caption says what it is), "A painting depicting", "A painting depciting" [sic],
  • The following phrases can't be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image, and should be removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability: " signifying its origin from the Kaiyuan era"
  • There are two images of banknotes, and they look different, but one cannot tell the differences from the alt text. A bit more detail would help the visually impaired reader know the difference.
  • The phrase "A black and white photograph of" isn't that useful and should be removed as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid.
Eubulides (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made all the changes mentioned by User:Eubulides.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. I patched it a bit more to catch most of the remaining gotchas I noticed. However, the alt text for the waterwheel and blast furnace image is still a problem. It still mostly duplicates the caption, and it's not accurate: the workers are not operating the waterwheels or the blast furnace. Suppose you're blind and want to know how they hooked up that waterwheel to that blast furnace: what info would you want to know about that image? Please write that down. Eubulides (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that it's been fixed. Thanks! Eubulides (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: For now, due to the issues raised above. Additionally, the occurence of a reference before punctuation doesn't fill me with confidence about the rest of the article; the "Economy History of China" needs to be in bold. The critical problem with the article is the depth to which it explores so many issues. An Encyclopedia must be able to be both concise and comprehensive. Unfortunately, though the article has a wealth of good content, it tries to cover everything in equal measure. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P has been changed to lower case. Also, can you please kindly point out where you find a "reference before punctation"? Cause I can't see it. As for other issues, see above.Teeninvestor (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been changed now, if you look at the revision of the article prior to my comments you will notice it immediately, I certainly did. That still doesn't address my primary concern (see my last point). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MasterofHisOwnDomain, this article is actually only about 113Kb, which is very small considering the scope of its subject. For example, the "Ming Dynasty" article which covers just a single Chinese dynasty, has a total size of 141KB, which is larger than this article who covers all Chinese economic history! As for the article covering too much content, this article is after all covering all of Chinese economic history, some 4,000 years, and in order to satisfy FA Criteria about broadth of coverage we must include many things. Effort has already been made(see previous copyedits) to address the salient parts of the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing the size of the article, I'm disputing the conciseness and comprihensiveness of the article. For example, from the first header, the economy is not even discussed until the fifth sentence. It discusses the formation of Chinese civilization and then the government system. If I was reading this and wanting to know about the economic history of China, I would expect it to start with the economic history of China and start as it means to go on. A sizeable portion of the content is redundant. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, MasterOfHisOwnDomain, the first few sentences establish that early China was a feudal system, which is very important for the reader to be put into perspective. Feudalism was an economic more than a political system; it meant that peasants were self-sufficient, didn't produce for the market, and there could be no land exchange with violent force. This lays a very important foundation for the rest of the section, as the economic progress of the era is discussed with this context. In order to discuss the economic history of China(or any other country), other thing such as history, wars(they damage the economy) and government policies have to be discussed as well as they affect the economy. Do you not think that this article covers all the relevant facts about the premodern Chinese economy?Teeninvestor (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: there are lots of content issues to address. For a start, let me summarize here a message I put on the article's talk page on August 10. My points are about the first section on the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties.
  • Speaking of the "Xia dynasty" is controversial. Some historians (mostly Chinese) accept its existence, but many don't, and say instead that it's a myth. A good Wikipedia article should mention this controversy instead of presenting one side of it as self-evident. Instead of saying that a Xia site has been found at Erlitou (not "Erli"), the wiki should discuss the economy of the "Erlitou culture" and then say that some historians have identified this site with the possibly mythical Xia dynasty.
  • The chariot appeared in archeological records in 1200 BC in the tombs of the Shang kings at Anyang. There is no archeological evidence for the existence of any kind of wheeled vehicle in Shang territory prior to that. Saying that "The first chariots were invented during the Xia dynasty" is complete fantasy. (Incidentally, at least five scholars I've read agree that the Shang adopted the chariot from outside peoples who lived either to the north or northwest of the Shang, so even saying that the chariot was "invented" in such-and-such a dynasty is inaccurate.)
  • Agriculture in "Xia," Shang, and Zhou times was based on millet, not rice. Rice dominated the Yangzi River valley, not the Yellow River valley, where "Xia," Shang and Zhou were mostly based.
  • Domesticated animals included the dog.
  • Even the historians who believe that the "well-field system" (jingtian 井田) existed (another controversy that should be explained) never say that it existed under the "Xia dynasty." They say it existed a thousand years later, under the Western Zhou (ca. 1045-771) and into the Eastern Zhou (771-256 BCE).
  • Nobody knows anything specific about the social and economic organization of the "Xia dynasty." Saying that "Xia agriculture relied on a feudal system where the landowner gave 50 mu of land to his serfs in exchange for cultivation of 5 mu of his own land" is far too specific to be based on archeological evidence, the only kind of evidence we have for pre-Shang times.
  • It's not completely clear when bronze swords became obsolete, but they were still widely used in the Spring and Autumn period. They were thoroughly replaced by steel weapons at the very end of the Warring States period.
All these errors are fairly basic, and they show (once again) how unreliable "Li and Zheng" are. The Cambridge History of Ancient China provides much better explanations of all the processes described in this page.
The general structure of the article is problematic. The "Feudal-Absolutist-Mercantilist" structure smuggles a strong POV interpretation of economic development into the article without grounding it in reliable sources. Until we can think of a more justifiable structure, we may have to revert to a boring chronological outline that goes dynasty by dynasty.
Madalibi (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More comments (on references, this time). As a reader, I'm immediately turned off by the claims made in the first lines of the article, and especially by the references that are cited to support these claims. The first six endnotes send the reader to a church website (note 4), 4 magazine articles about recent economic development in China (notes 1, 2, 3, and 6), and one factsheet (note 5).
  • Note 1 is an article by an Indian author concerned with "Ensuring China's peaceful rise." Nothing tells me why I should trust this author about the size of the Chinese economy before 1900.
  • Note 2 leads to an abstract on "China and the Knowledge Economy" in the 21st century. Same comment as for Note 1.
  • Note 3 is an article on modern economic issues that cites The Economist as saying that "China was the largest economy for much of recorded history." The reference is to page 5 of "A Survey of the World Economy - The Real Great Leap Forward," which was published in the Economist in October 2004. If we want to keep this note, we should at least cite the article in the Economist, where the original claim was found. But as with Notes 1 and 2, I see no reason why we should trust the Economist on historical issues.
  • Note 4 sends to a site that promotes "the mission of the Worldwide Church of God." Clearly not a reliable source.
  • Note 5 refers to a factsheet that cites "Financial Times" (no author, no date) as claiming that China had the largest economy in the world for 18 of the last 20 centuries.
  • Note 6 is an editorial in the Financial Times by former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten claiming that China had the largest economy in the world for 18 of the last 20 centuries. This article is clearly the article that is cited so vaguely in note 5. Note 5 is redundant and should be deleted. The claim that China had the largest economy for 18 of the last 20 centuries therefore rests on the sole authority of Chris Patten, who is not a scholar in the field of Chinese economic history and who cites no data or scholarship to support his claim.
In other words, none of these sources is from an authority on the economic history of China. Magazine articles can sometimes be considered as reliable sources (especially in wikis that discuss current affairs), but why rely on current-affairs magazines when writing about 4000 years of Chinese economic history?
I'm ready to accept that China had one of the largest economies on Earth for most of the last 20 centuries. This claim could even be considered common sense. But in my opinion an encyclopedic article cannot rely only on a few magazine articles to claim that China had the largest economy on Earth for most of world history, or that its economy was the largest for 18 of the last 20 centuries (i.e., from 1 CE to 1800 CE). To justify this kind of claim, we need scholarly works on Chinese economic history.
Madalibi (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made several changes addressing Madalibi's concerns. Statements have been added that include the alternative viewpoint that Xia didn't exist, and removed several references to chariots and agriculture during the Xia. As well, mentions to domesticated dogs and millets were included. In addition, I changed absolutist to early imperial era and mercantilist to late imperial era, to address madalibi's concerns. I've also changed largest economy to one of the largest eocnomies per Madalibi's concerns.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: Thanks for solving some of these problems quickly, teeninvestor! I've crossed out the issues that have been resolved. Here's more on the remaining ones.
  • I don't think the Xia issue has been solved yet. The article still poses the Xia as having existed for sure (see lead paragraph), and says that Erlitou may have been a Xia site. The point should be instead that there were organized polities before the Shang, that traditional Chinese historiography claims that this period was dominated by the Xia dynasty, and that some modern historians accept this identification, but that many also doubt it and claim that the "Xia dynasty" is mythical.
  • How about replacing the "Feudal Era" with the "Pre-imperial Era" to match the new sections on the "Early Imperial" and "Late Imperial" eras? "Feudalism" is a huge can of worms. Most Chinese historians call "feudal" everything from the Western Zhou (1045-771 BCE) to the Qing (1644-1912)! They use "feudal" to refer to a mode of production. Some Western historians like Derk Bodde have instead argued that the Western Zhou had a political system akin to that of feudalism in medieval Europe. Most Chinese historians call the Xia a "primitive society" and the Shang a "slave society," not feudal societies. Western historians usually ignore these vague terms altogether. Because of this, I would say get rid of the name "feudal" in the section title and be very careful how you use it in the text.
  • For the reason just outlined, a statement like "Early China had a feudal society similar to that of Europe in the Middle Ages" is far too vague. Bodde made this point about the political system of the Western Zhou, not about its economic system. "Early China" could refer to any time until the Han. The wiki cites Chinese historians who use the term "feudal" in an economic sense, yet defines "feudalism" in political terms with lords and vassals.
  • For the article to be comprehensive, it should probably address the Chinese argument (inspired by Marxism) that the Shang was a "slave society." Many Chinese historians disagree with this characterization, and so do most Western historians, who agree that there were slaves in Shang times, but that productive activities did not rely on them for the most part.
  • Another point that could deserve mention is that the Shang already traded with distant regions to their north and northwest (we know that from objects found in tombs).
  • "Jintian" (the well-field system) should be Jingtian throughout. The "well-field system" would be even better, since this is English Wikipedia. The Encyclopedia Britannica has a brief article on the "well-field system" that explains the basics of what we know about it. This could be one more source for our wiki.
  • The reader should be reminded that the Jingtian system may not have existed at all. As the Encyclopedia Britannica claims, the well-field system was first mentioned in the works of Mencius (4th century BCE) as an ideal production system. Some evidence from bronze inscriptions supports its existence, but the jingtian system shouldn't be given so much presence in this wiki without at least a mention of its contested existence.
  • A mistake should be corrected: the character tian 田 did not appear under the Zhou, but under the Shang. It is attested in oracle bones.
  • I just realized that the whole Xia-Shang-Zhou section is organized by themes. It goes back and forth in time as new topics are addressed. This can be very confusing. I think this section would be clearer if it were re-organized into three parts: "pre-Shang" (with discussion of the possible existence of the Xia), "Shang," and "Western Zhou." This arrangement would make all the above issues easier to discuss. The Xia would be explained in one place instead of four. You could discuss Shang "slavery" and distant trade, as well as its bronze and silk "industries" together. The section on the Zhou would then address the possible beginning of the "well-field system," the growth of cities, etc. Recurrent themes like cities and millet-centered agriculture would also belong to the section's introductory paragraph. What do you think?
  • Finally, watch out for typos and incomplete words when adding text! I see a "whta" that should be "what" and a "How" that should be "However" (or should disappear altogether). "Millet" is capitalized in the middle of a sentence, and so is "Alcohol" a little below. Another typo: "recirds" (should be "records").
Ok, I'll stop here for tonight! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all of the issues above except for seperating the section into three sections. The reason for not doing so is that there si so little material in the entire section(it is the smallest section), that seperating it would cause three sections with little to no content, and massive repetition. Three seperate sections were tried before(See about 4 months ago) but it didn't work out too well. I also fixed note 5 and 3 as well.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job with the structure. The section on the Warring States should now be placed under the "Pre-imperial era." One possible issue with the new content: Hao was a capital of the Western Zhou. There may have been a Shang capital of the same name, but I don't know about it. Teen: could you insert the character for Hao in the text so that we can judge (or correct the pinyin if necessary)? And why keep relying on "Li and Zheng" - who have been proven wrong countless times - when you can use the Cambridge History of Ancient China on Google Books? Try keyword searches (well-field, millet, slaves, etc.) and you'll get all the references you need! More comments later. Madalibi (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a detail: the claim (now deleted) that the character tian 田 originated in the Zhou period was referred to "Li and Zheng (2001), 98" (see here, for example). Now the correct claim that this character originated in the Shang is referred to "Li and Zheng (2001), 63" (note 14). If Li and Zheng are making such contradictory claims, then I have lost the little remaining trust I had in Li and Zheng. If the mistake is from an editor, then I don't know what to think... Madalibi (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on references to the Cambridge History of China. All the references to "Twitchett et al." (six different volumes of the Cambridge History of China) should be changed to the names of individual authors. Ebrey, Walthall and Palais (2006) is collectively authored, so we can just say "Ebrey et al." But the Cambridge Histories are made of individual articles by distinct authors. Twitchett is the general editor of the series, not the author of the statements that this wiki is citing. For a good example of how a reference should be made, see "Atwell 1998" and "Ebrey 1986" in the bibliography. Madalibi (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I may be wrong about this, but weren't cowry shells first used as currency in the Western Zhou dynasty rather than the Shang? As I said, I'm not sure, but we would need a reference (not from Li and Zheng, please) to support the claim that cowries were used as currency (not just decorations) in Shang times. Madalibi (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To address all of the above claims:
  • I've replaced Jintian everywhere with "Well-field".
Great! This looks much better.
  • The early Shang capital in question is actually pronounced Bo in Pinyin, so I've changed that.
Point cleared, then.
  • The claim about the origin of the character Tian has been removed entirely. The original reference in Li and Zheng shows that the character originated during the Zhou, but I moved it without adding a reference. I've decided to remove the claim entirely.
Removing it was probably the right decision. This claim was not important anyway.
  • After sacrificing my breakfast, I was able to change all the references to individual essays.
Do a keyword search for "Twitchett" and you'll find there are still a lot out there. Each original essay should be noted in the bibliography so that each reference can remain in the form "author (year), page number." I know this is grueling work, but this is how FA reviews often turn out. ;) At the end of it, the article will be really great, so keep up with it!
Good find! I can also add a reference to an article in the Cambridge History of China if you want. Madalibi (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason some titles are in there is because they are the "introduction" to the entire volume so part of the encyclopedia. I will not add "introduction" to the sources section but I will change the references to mention they are the introduction section.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. All references referred to either intro or essay. Have all your concerns been addressed, Madalibi?Teeninvestor (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Teen,
  • There are still a few mistakes in the references. "Hebert Franke" should be "Herbert" throughout. The complete reference to CHC articles (including introductions) should all appear in the bibliography and referred to as "Twitchett and Mote (1988), 4" in the notes, so that all inline citations can be in the same format. In the bibliography, only book titles should be italicized; article titles should be put between quotation marks. Check Ebrey (1986) in the bibliography to see how it's done.
  • As for content, I still have plenty of issues! The first section (the one we've been working on) still looks messy and patchy. The wiki discusses the Xia dynasty and the well-field system as if they existed, and then we hear that they may not have existed. The two statements should be integrated better. You modified What the first section said about the feudal economy has been modified, but the lead paragraphs still use that term as vaguely as before as if the Xia, Shang and Zhou were all "feudal." I also agree with MasterofHisOwnDomain that the article tends to give more info about politics and war than on the economy. (And I'll talk about the Qing dynasty later.)
  • I've prepared a well-referenced new draft of the Xia-Shang-Zhou section that is chronological but not repetitive, focuses on the economy, and does not rely on Li and Zheng at all. Tell me what you think, and let's see if we can integrate it into our wiki. I have replaced the original text with the new draft and then reverted it back to the original version. You can look here to see what the new version looks like when it's integrated into our wiki. If you like the new draft, you can always revert back to that version and go on from there.
  • I went through Dieter Kuhn's volume on "Textile Technology" in Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China (it's Volume 5:IX) and found no trace of the "spinning machine" mentioned in the wiki and referred to "Li and Zheng (2001), 67" (note 20). Kuhn is the foremost Western historian of Chinese textiles. He says clearly and repeatedly that Shang workshops used spindle-whorls operated by hand and mentions no controversy concerning this issue. The spindle wheel was only invented in the late Spring and Autumn period but it was also hand-operated. The earliest evidence for treadle-operated spinning wheels (some kind of "spinning machine") is from stone reliefs of the Han dynasty. So Li and Zheng are wrong again.
Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finished fixing all the refs and adding all the references to individual articles; Should have no more problems with refs. I've adopted your version of the Xia Shang Zhou section. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—overlinking. And here are a few other issues.

  • Could you drop the first sentence?
  • "Until the 18th century, China enjoyed the highest material living standards on Earth."—Do we trust Ebrey as the sole source for such a major claim? Does it depend on how material living standards are measured? I'm not saying it's wrong; but I'm wobbly on it.
  • Why is "Europe" linked? Doesn't the subsequent link suffice? And the article on "Europe" is hardly focused on this context, is it?
  • Links to "iron", etc, are inappropriate (possibly "jade" might be linked, but not other common materials); unless there's a very focused section of the currency article you could link to, why at all? (And there it is linked again further down ...). Why is "bureaucracy" linked? Please audit throughout for this, so the high-value links are optimised in visual appearance. Too much choice and the readers will click nothing, believe me. GDP—readers should know it, but if you think not, link to a specific section of that article, or a daughter article. Do we really need "Xia dynasty" linked twice in two sections?

Please let me know when the link audit has been done, and I'll return to do more substantive reviewing. Tony (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we need "being"? "Large cities were being built during the Shang period."
I've reduced the number of links in the lead and some other sections. It seems that the overlinking only exists in a few sections. In other sections there is no overlinking. As to Ebrey's claim, note this article did not endorse it; it mainly signalled that ebrey had made such a claim.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, but it's right up there in the structural "theme" of the article, second sentence. It gives great weight to the claim. To what extent to Ebrey provide supporting evidence or reasoning? Tony (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it, thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Oppose This paragraph needs reworking:
    The Zhou developed the well-field system for agriculture, where eight peasants cultivated nine plots of land and the central, communally cultivated plot belonged to the lord. However, some historians question its existence.
    • First of all, it's many historians - the history of the Zhou (before the Warring States) is a handful of primary documents, eked out with the assertions of Chinese historians from centuries later. This should be acknowledged; one would think from the tone here that we were talking about the Ptolemies or the Hanoverians, on whose economies we have actual records.
    • Fixing this should also make the writing better; this is not how to deal with conflicts in the sources: To assert X existed, tell its history and then acknowledge that its existence is open to doubt is the wrong order; complare William Tell.
  • People who use feudalism outside of its proper context in Europe should be required to read Sir Moses Finley on its unhappy extension. It is a token for almost any pre-capitalist society, and therefore meaningless; I have even seen it used of the upper-class capitalist agriculture of the Elizabethans - and of the capitalism of nineteenth century China. Using it for the appanages of the Han is a characteristic abuse; appanages can be made, as in Bourbon Spain, in a kingdom long past feudalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, the viewpoint of this article is that the Han, Tang, Song, and Ming Dynasties were decidedly NOT feudal. As you can see, this article does not adopt a marxist viewpoint, the only ignorant viewpoint under which the advanced market economies of the Chinese dynasties can be called "feudalism".Teeninvestor (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You will observe that I am citing the objections to "feudalism" as a term-of-all-work by an eminent classical historian, who happens to be a Marxist. The passage that caught my eye is
The founder of the Han Dynasty, Liu Bang, briefly reinstated feudalism during his reign. Under the belief that the Qin's fall was partially caused by disregarding traditional feudalism, he gave several kingdoms to his relatives.
This will not do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't very familiar with Chinese, aren't you? The relevant character in Chinese is Fengjian (封建) which translates to "feudalism". This was the system carried out by Liu Bang who then gave his sons kingdoms, and this is what they called it. Of course, the economic system was not restored; but this is "feudalism" in a very narrow political context, in that the king gives land to his "vassals"(In this case his sons). Of course narrow meaning of Fengjian can be translated as "giving land" but the general translation has just been "feudalism". Appanages would be more like the "thousand-household marquess" in later times, which only gave income; the kingdoms given by Liu Bang actually conferred onto the princes military and other powers, and would not be well described as "Appanages".Teeninvestor (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to know Chinese. I know English, in which this is an ignorant abuse of language (so is appanage, which (unless explained otherwise) is a grant of territory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this has a far more serious problem; it abounds with sentences like Agricultural and military advancements made China a technological world leader, which are monuments of national vanity. This is meaningless; if it had a meaning it would be doubtful of the Warring States, which overlap the Gupta Maurya Empire, Demetrius Poliorcetes, and Archimedes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply

  • Alright. To reflect consensus, the second paragraph has been modified completely to reflect the rewritten section that Madalibi wrote a day ago.
  • Regarding the claim that Agriculutral and military achievements made China a world technolgoical leader, first of all, I didn't write that, it was copyedited into that position and two, that was actually mentioned, I'm going to add two citations for it. This statement was made in a source I had. The reason for this claim was the advances made in agriculture and cast iron during the warring states, such as Steel tools, hoes, Agricultural rotation, etc... that made agriculture and iron production in China much more than elsewhere. Also, its pretty ironic that you mention the Gupta Empire as overlapping the warring states, considering they were founded five centuries after the warring states had ended.
  • Regarding the Han-era "Appandages"(分封) in Chinese, the paragraph has been revamped to reflect the views on this page. Because of unsuitable terms like appandages and others, the section has simply been titled "decentralized administration of early Han"(which is what it was).Teeninvestor (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies; I should not have typed from memory, out of my field; take what glory you can in picking on the error, now fixed.
    • I don't care who wrote it. We are evaluating the article, not the nominator - which should be more remembered around here. But it is a public embarrassment; we are an encyclopedia, not a Chamber of Commerce pamphlet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new second paragraph is an improvement; but the distinction between the Xia(not supported by written evidence) and the Shang (which are) seems dubious. Is this an effort to claim that only some of the Classic of History counts? Is it an enthusiastic reading of oracle bones? In either case, such discussion is off-topic here; try "supported/not supported by archaeological evidence", which is uncontroversial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everybody. Just to clarify a little bit: we know that Anyang belonged to the Shang dynasty because the oracle bones that were found there describe in great detail the activities of Shang kings who were mentioned by name in the part of Sima Qian's Shiji (91 BCE) that discusses Shang history. The key point is that oracle bones allowed to match archeological evidence with the received historical tradition. Before about 1200 BCE, no written evidence of any kind allows to identify archeological sites with named polities, and this is why the existence of the Xia dynasty is only hypothetical. I agree that Teeninvestor's addition was unclear, but "archaeological evidence" is also too vague, because pure archaeological evidence is not sufficient to identify a dynasty by name.
Teeninvestor's new sentence in the lead paragraph came from materials that I added to the Neolithic-to-Zhou section. PmAnderson: could you read the relevant passage (first sentence of this section) and let me know if you find it clear? If not, I will reword it.
In any case, I don't think the lead paragraph should mention the controversy over the Xia and Shang, because these are not issues in economic history. The Shang can be mentioned as a matter of course, and the Xia can wait until the first section before we mention them.
Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two pieces of advice, which - if thoroughly acted on - might change my mind:
    • Read WP:PEACOCK until it sinks through.
    • Have the piece reviewed by a monoglot English-speaker - preferably two, one that knows Chinese history and one that doesn't. Most of our intended audience does not speak Chinese, and failure in idiom and meaning "justified" by Chinese usage are soleicisms. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, you wrote:

But this has a far more serious problem; it abounds with sentences like Agricultural and military advancements made China a technological world leader, , which are monuments of national vanity.

This I find very troubling. In placing statements in this article, I am simply reflecting the consensus of the myriad of scholarly sources I have found in this issue. There is nothing "vain" or "nationalistic" about this. This is telling it like it is. If a nation had advanced agricultural techniques, this is a fact relevant to the economic history of the nation and you would note it in the article. There is nothing POV about this any more than saying American astronauts landed on the moon(unless you are a moon landing conspiratorist). So are you arguing that whenever I mention from my sources that the Chinese were the first to invent a technique, I should write immediately afterwards "But they were filthy barbarians who didn't know any thing, and were 2000 years behind Europeans in all other aspects?" Cause this seems to be the basis of the above argument. And as to your comment about evaluating the article- you are right. We are here to decide whether this article is FA-quality, Not to impose our own historical views about either whether Liu Bang's system was feudalism or the warring states were advanced. That's for scholarly sources to decide..Teeninvestor (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teeninvestor (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Read WP:PEACOCK. There is no need (and it is less convincing) to make such claims at all. Talk about cast iron by all means; but don't make airy vague statements about technological supremacy; they are less informative, and will be read as nationalist puffery and dismissed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as another point of detail. Anybody who claims to know whether the population of the Roman Empire was more or less than 58 millions is making assertions without evidence (we don't have Augustus' census), possibly through not consulting more than one actual work on demography. It may well have been somewhere in that range; but where is pure conjecture. (One conjecture, sourced in our article on the Empire, is 88 millions.) The way to deal with this is not to mention the subject, and let the interested reader make his own conclusion; it's off-topic here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That particular claim is made by Ebrey in her book Cambridge illustrated history of China. I've noticed a pattern of questioning sourced facts in the article that the particular user doesn't agree with; this is completely off topic. We're here to discuss whether the article is FA-quality, not whether Erlitou was Xia or Han was more populous than Rome. As to your assertion that making claims of technological superiority is "national vanity", it has every relevance. This article needs to give information to the reader about the premodern Chinese economy, and this includes its technology compared to other contemporary economies. Would you consider that saying "the Us has been a technological leader in the world since the 19th century"(which is a statement I quote in full from the USA article), a peacock term?Teeninvestor (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? I am sure that if you read classicists on China, you would find equal slipshodness - and I hope you would point them out when they crept into our articles on Syria and the silk trade. Part of writing an FA is knowing what sources are reliable for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you consider that saying "the US has been a technological leader in the world since the 19th century" a peacock term? Yes, and I have no doubt it was written by a guileless patriot just trying to explain things, too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • So you are absolutely that no reader, ever, would need to know that about the productivity of different techniques contemporary nations produced? Guess we better remove all mention of GDP from wikipedia then- they are peacock terms. We should also remove any references to large economy, or huge economy as they are peacock terms too. Finally , skyscrapers are not "Tall"; that is a peacock term as well, I guess. Teeninvestor (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:50, 1 September 2009 [17].

History of the United Kingdom during World War I

Nominator(s): - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 18:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria (duh). It is my intention to the put the article to the some reviewers live on Wikivoices, and see what emerges. I am going to note a few of the unstruck concerns of the A-class review team below (they may or may not still be accurate) and we can work through them. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 18:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A-class review "pointers"
  • Whether or not the references are to the best available sources
  • I see both unspaced emdashes and spaced endashes; while these are both acceptable forms per MOS, please pick one for consistency within the article.
  • Nonbreaking spaces should be used between values and units of measure (1.4 million).
  • Capitalization needs some attention. Why do we have "Prime minister" even when used as a title, yet "World War I Recruiting poster", "Women and the Suffragette movement", "Ration books", etc? Other iffy uses: Government, Navy, Army.
  • Comments: I reviewed this for GAN and was incredibly impressed with the quality. At the time I considered it very close to FA standard, and so I'm glad the intentions of the author(s) was to take it this far.
  • I edited out one occurence of "Prime Minister" in my GA review, after seeing the uncapitalised alternative as more frequently occuring. I thought this might initiate some sort of consensus, but you reverted it with the edit "Brevity is the sole (sic) of wit". As highlighted in the A-class review, there needs to be consensus and I would suggest uncapitalised.
  • Call me picky, but I think the % should be replaced with per cent. The MoS gives the use of % as more common in scientific articles, and this is a stance I agree with.
  • Not overwhelmed by: "Meanwhile, the country faced other challenges; plans to rescue the King's cousins in Russia, including Tsar Nicholas II, were largely unsuccessful and the civilian death-rate rose due to food shortages and Spanish Flu, which hit the country in 1918. Military deaths have been estimated at a figure exceeding 850,000." For a couple of reasons.
    • "The country faced other challenges" for me appears to read as "other challenges [as well as the dissolving ties between the royal families of Germany and England]", and I didn't think that the dissolving of ties was a national problem particularly. Further, is the rescuing of the King's cousins a national problem? If it is, I question whether it is of the same category as the death of civilians and military personnel. I think there needs to be better distinction between the problems faced by the Royal family (though they may be of national significance) and the country.
    • "plans to rescue the King's cousins in Russia, including Tsar Nicholas II, were largely unsuccessful". It goes on to say that him and his immediate family were murdered. Is there no better way of wording it? Largely unsuccessful leaves incredible ambiguity.
  • Government: "when several thousands of men were sacrificed for gains that were were perceived as meagre.". The example seems arbitrary, especially considering there is not one for the shell crisis.
  • Monarchy: "Writer H. G. Wells wrote about Britain's "alien and uninspiring court", and George famously replied: "I may be uninspiring, but I'll be damned if I'm alien.". A date would be appropriate here, was this before or during the war?
  • I would consider the "Women and the suffragette movement" to come under "Social change".

Queries

  • The Conservatives were probably no longer the second largest party by 1915 - United Kingdom general election, December 1910 was practically a dead heat and I think they may have picked up the odd byelection afterwards.
  • The Old contemptables were formed from the territorials, the reservists and regulars left in the UK. Many of the regulars serving overseas were needed there including in campaigns such as East Africa.
  • the lead says that "the civilian death-rate rose due to food shortages" but the main body reports improved health under rationing.
  • there is far more detail on the doings of various royals than on the impact of the Easter Rising - the demise of the Irish Home rule party seems to have been overlooked.
  • I can't lay hands on the source, but I'm sure I read somewhere that the welsh speaking area contracted due to welsh speaking men serving in the war and coming home speaking english.

ϢereSpielChequers 22:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

Sorry for not posting everything immediately, but I'm just going to throw what I got for right now and come back with a thorough pass when I had the time. Thanks for your feedback on the 'cast!

  • Prose: Like I said on Skype, just look through my (coming) revisions for pointers. I'm not going to make you do a bunch of hunt-and-pick fixes, because the important thing is you learn from them and weed them out (from your own writing at least). When I've performed my copyedit, I'll list what I went after; User:Tony1's 1a criterion guide should be your bible.
  • Images: Jappa has already proscribed licensing issues, so I'll cover some general comments with the alt text (Eubilides will probably stop by and offer better stuff at some point.) In general, you have to think about what a blind person wouldn't necessarily connect with. For example, File:Tsar Nicholas II & King George V.JPG currently says "A photograph of two men, very alike, standing next to each other. Both are in full military regalia; one uniform dark, the other white". "A photograph" is wasted text, and what is "full military regalia"? Better to explain that they're wearing clothes festooned with ribbons, medals, and cords, for example.

I'll try and copyedit ASAP. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I reviewed the alt text and overall it was quite good; thanks for writing it. I tried to improve it a bit; that edit removed the "A photograph of", added a bit more description of the visual appearance of the prime ministers, tried to mimic the text of the original images more closely, and did some minor punctuation and copyediting for brevity. But this is mostly just icing on the cake. Eubulides (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comments
  • Can we not use the term "First World War" over "World War I", the former seems more British than the latter.?
First World War or World War I - Both the Great War and First World War redirect to World War I. I can not see any problem with using World War I unless there is a ground swell of opinion against it ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a couple of photos/pictures that still need alt text adding.
  • "There were three British Armies during World War I," - is there any way this statement can be reworded? I say this as Four British field armies fought in France during the war, i know thats different to what is being stated but i think it may be a tad confusing.
Changed wording --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""In German terms Jutland was a victory" as they had suffered fewer losses in men and ships" Isnt this a bit Point of view-ish? Considering this article is about the UK during the war i would imagine the British version of events should be noted - that the German main fleet returned to port and did not rupture the blockade
Changed wording --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In August 1916, the High Seas Fleet tried another similar operation and was "lucky to escape annihilation"." - do we have a link to the article, if it exists, about this engagement?
There does not seem to be an article for this --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a, both on the clause level and more broadly extending to unsafe political/social generalisations (even if they seem to be uttered by secondary sources).

  • Some great pics.
  • WRT Enigma's comment ... "World War I" seems natural to me, and I'm not American. Do UK speakers not like it?
  • As Awadewit said on the WikiVoice review, "developed as a nation" is a problem. "In order to". And whose goal in the UK was it to defeat Germany? I think that is a ticklish political/social issue. Some historians see it as a conspiricy against the undertrodden in both countries. Who were the "Central Powers" (would love not to have to divert to that link target to know)?
  • Remove "On a military level".
  • Patriotism spreading? Again, complex and not safe to generalise about.
  • Lots of howevers, furthermores, meanwhiles, neverthelesses et al.
  • Is it useful to link "declared war" (targeted at "Declaration of war"? We all know what it means. "Cabinet" linked? It's a common word. Like Australia and Canada. And if "British Empire" is to be linked, let it be to a relevant section of that target.

And much more.

Can this be thoroughly copy-edited? It is several hours' work, probably best split between a number of users who are skilled at this. I wonder whether Colin is interested? I would withdraw it and resubmit in a month or so. Tony (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I've gone over one section, and my earlier hunch that the lead was the hardest part to write were confirmed. The article may well be within reach of FA standard with tender LC, and perhaps a somewhat reconceived lead might come more easily once the rest is ok. Tony (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's less of a divison over World War I/First World War than there used to be, but as I understand it historically British and Commonwealth sources have favoured First/Second World War, whereas World War I/II was more common in US sources (and some might say thst it looks more like a film title). Of course, to most of those who lived through it, it was imply the Great War. David Underdown (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David that’s a pretty good outline.
Another general comment would be to this sentence: "...'moral commitment' to France was another matter; extensive secret talks between the nations had been going on since..."
I have just recently completed a uni assignment on the raise of nations and the basic point is that the nation is the "soul" of the country, the state is the government etc. From that very basic definition the use of nation throughout the article appears to be bob on except on the above occasion, would anyone object if this is changed to "states"?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Thanks again to Jarry for appearing on our Wikivoices podcast! Most of what I'm outlining below, I already said there.

Sources:

  • Spartacus Educational - This person's books all seem to be self-published and he writes about a lot of different topics. He does not seem to be an expert on WWI, so this does not appear to be a high-quality RS.
  • Digital survivors.com (1839 treaty) – This is not a RS – Note that it says on the about page "Scott Manning is a business analyst working for a software company in the Philadelphia area. He has a passion for history and is currently working on a Bachelor's degree in Military History."
  • Election.demon.co.uk appears to be a SPS.
  • Kent Sole Romanov article – Kent Sole doesn't have a PhD. Considering there is so much published on the Romanovs, I would go with a book here. This isn't a high-quality RS.
  • History Learning Site – This is not a RS – Note that the about page states: "Chris Trueman BA (Hons), MA set up www.historylearningsite.co.uk in 2000 as he felt there was no easily accessible and comprehensive website on World History on the web. The site has grown in popularity and is now viewed by hundreds of thousands of people each month from around the world. Chris has written all the content for the site from his in-depth knowledge of History having taught History and Politics at a major secondary school in England for the last 26 years. Chris graduated with a BA (Honours) in History from Aberystwyth University, Wales in 1979 and has since studied at Loughborough University and gained a MA in management from Brighton University in 2000." This is a SPS and not a high-quality RS.
  • Learning Curve – This is teaching plan and although it is assembled by the National Archives, it is not a high-quality reliable source for a topic like WWI, on which so much good scholarship has been published.

Spot fact-checking:

  • "although the act itself did not refer to the death penalty, it made provision for civilians breaking these rules to be tried in army courts martial, where the maximum penalty was death." - I did not see this in the source.
  • "In the early stages of the war, many men, fuelled by promises of glory, decided to "join up" to the armed forces: in August 1914 alone, half a million signed up to fight.[53] Recruitment remained fairly steady through 1914 and early 1915, but fell dramatically during the later years, especially after the Somme campaign, which resulted in 500,000 casualties. As a result, conscription was introduced in January 1916, for single men, and extended in May to all men aged 18 to 41." - I did not see the information in the source.
  • Entire Yarmouth and Lowestoft section is sourced to a 1916 newspaper – This is a primary source. Considering this raid is an important event, we should use secondary sources, not the propaganda-ridden newspapers of the time. :)
Changed to book ref --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”There was also a notable group of war poets who wrote about their own experiences of war, which caught the public attention. Some died on active service, most famously Rupert Brooke,Isaac Rosenberg, and Wilfred Owen, while some, such as Siegfried Sassoon survived. Themes of the poems included the youth (or naivety) of the soldiers, and the dignified manner in which they fought and died. This is evident in lines such as "They fell with their faces to the foe", from the "Ode of Remembrance" taken from Laurence Binyon's For the Fallen, which was first published in The Times in September 1914.” - I've added a fact tag for this information. The only source was the September 1914 newspaper, which can't possibly be a source for all of this information, as it can't summarize the works of all of these war poets just as the war is beginning.
  • "She took an active role in promoting the Girl Guide movement, the Voluntary Aid Detachment (VAD), the Land Girls and in 1918, she took a nursing course and went to work at Great Ormond Street Hospital.' - This is sourced to the National Portrait Gallery. Not all of this information is in the source and we should really be using a different source for this information – the NPG is an expert in portraiture.
Changed to book ref --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensiveness:

  • The article's title is “History of the United Kingdom during World War I”, but there is very little about Scotland, Ireland, or Wales. I think more needs to be added about these areas. Two examples:
  • This legislation did not apply to Ireland, despite its then status as part of the United Kingdom (but see Conscription Crisis of 1918)." - This crisis was obviously a big deal – I think it deserves more of an explanation.
  • The Easter rising of 1916 also seems like it deserves more than a sentence.
  • The lead mentions that "At the outbreak of war, patriotism spread throughout the country, and it has been argued that many of the class barriers of Edwardian England were diminished during the period. " However, the article does not really explain this in any detail. A paragraph in the "Social change" section would be a good idea.
  • The "Music" section is a little thin. Can this be expanded?
  • I believe this was the first war with war photographers – perhaps that could be included?

Prose: - The article needs a thorough copyedit. Here are some examples from the "Government" section.

  • ”Asquith declared war on the German Empire on 4 August 1914, in response to the demands for military passage that were forced upon Belgium by Germany, and the expiration of Britain's own ultimatum at 11 p.m. that day.” - What does “military passage” mean here? This sentence is also confusing because the reader doesn't even know that Britain gave Germany an ultimatum. Perhaps expanding this to two or three sentences and adding a bit more information would help.
  • "Britain's reasons for declaring war were complex; the 1839 Treaty of London had committed the United Kingdom to safeguard Belgium's neutrality in the event of invasion,[14] but the Foreign Office had already concluded that it might not apply.” - The “it” no longer refers back “treaty”, so “it” should be replaced by “treaty”.
  • ”Britain's 'moral commitment' to France was another matter” - What is this moral commitment, exactly?
  • ”This lack of proof that war was unavoidable had led to disagreement within the cabinet as late as 31 July." - Confusing beginning of sentence.
  • ”in keeping with the Liberals' historical position as defenders of a laissez-faire style of government” - Isn't laissez-faire usually an economic term?
  • "This coalition government lasted until 1916, when the Unionists became dissatisfied with Asquith and the Liberals' conduct of affairs, particularly over the battle of the Somme." - Perhaps a brief explanation of who the Unionists were?
  • " For the first time, the government could react quickly, without endless bureaucracy to tie it down, and with up-to-date statistics on such matters as the state of the merchant navy and farm production." - Unnecessary words: "endless" and "such".
  • The success of his government can also be attributed to a general lack of desire for an election, and the practical absence of dissent that this brought about." - What is "this" referring to?
  • There are two “this's” in a row in the last paragraph that are confusing – what are they referring to? I would replace them with or add a word “this policy”, etc.

Media: I would like to suggest adding a film clip from The Battle of the Somme – it is in the PD!

I hope these comments are helpful! Awadewit (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review See Talk:History of the United Kingdom during World War I#Image review (FAC-style) (provided by Jappalang)

Weak oppose, based on a review of the lead and the first section. There's a lot of fine material here, but there is some fuzziness in the prose.

  • “developed as a nation”: not clear enough, especially for the very first sentence. I think you mean that Britain rapidly added infrastructure and changed socially, but this phrase is rather muddy. I had a couple of tries at rephrasing this but I’d like to be sure what the intent is first. The phrase in the dab header, “effect of the war on civilian and military life”, is admirably clear; perhaps some paraphrase of that would work.
    Yes, that's what I meant (though I didn't like it when I wrote it) -- Jarry1250
  • “war-related industries grew rapidly, and production increased, as disparate groups of people pulled together”:
    • military production increased, but overall production fell, according to the body of the article. To avoid ambiguity I think “and production increased” should be cut; if it refers to military production it repeats the previous phrase.
    • “pulled together” doesn’t seem supported. The body of the article says that there was resentment at the some specifically named other groups: the Belgians and the Irish; and the use of women caused “initial” trades union resentment, though perhaps that changed. In any case “pulled together” is a bit vague – do you mean that the traditional labour force welcomed the new groups that helped the war effort? How was the pulling together evidenced?
  • “demands for military passage”: I presume this means that Germany insisted on the right of their troops to pass through Belgium, rather than that Germany invaded Belgium? Or is the distinction moot? The article you link to, Causes of World War I, doesn’t seem to mention military passage, so I would just like to check that this is supported by the reference. It could perhaps be made more specific too, since this is a phrase many readers won’t know, and you provide no further context.
    The distinction is largely moot, but in theory they demanded (as you say) "the right of their troops to pass through Belgium" and only "invaded" when this offer was rejected. Of course, in Belgium's eyes, it was an invasion either way. -- Jarry1250
  • “was by necessity replaced over the course of the war” doesn’t quite work: “replaced” implies a change at a specific time, but “over the course of” implies a gradual process. If this refers to the changes made when Lloyd George became prime minister then perhaps “lasted until 1916”; if you mean that the policy changed during Asquith’s tenure, e.g. under the coalition government, then how about “was modified over the course next two years, and ultimately abandoned in 1916.” I am not sure about “of necessity”; you don’t seem to say what the necessity was. What exactly does the source say about the reason for the change in policy? Was the criticism of Asquith specifically associated with the “business as usual” policy, so that one could say it became the common political view that the policy was causing the war to go badly?
    • I'll have to think about that one -- Jarry1250
  • “designed to take total responsibility for the war, regardless of its outcome”: what does “regardless of its outcome” mean?
  • Why did total war give the government access to up-to-date statistics unavailable to Asquith’s governments?
    " Highly able young men were appointed to collect and collate data and to bypass slow moving government departments." -- Jarry1250
  • “This ultimately heralded the collapse of the Liberals and the rise of the Labour Party during the 1920s”: the source doesn’t make this connection: it mentions the 1918 suffrage act and the following paragraph says that the war heralded several seismic political shifts. I agree it’s a reasonable construction but I think you should find a source that makes that construction if you want to say it.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:50, 1 September 2009 [18].

Otomi language

Nominator(s): ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I've recently expanded it drastically with the FA criteria in mind. I have asked for comments from multiple linguistic knowledgeable editors who have only found minor copyediting concerns. I believe the article is at such a stage that the only way for me to improve it more is by having it undergo the FA process. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that I can not continue to take part in this nomination process as it has proven too stressful. If this is interpreted as a denomination then so be it.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Materialscientist:
    • I find it confusing when double (Harvard) citation is used for short journal articles, and advise to cite those directly. This will also sort out existing problems with "same author, same year" citations (see below).
    • Please provide page numbers for all book references.
    • I don't understand ref "Lastra 1998, 2006: 54–55" - there are two Lastra 1998 refs. It is highly unusual that same pages could be used for two different books.
    • Please arrange references in chronological and alphabetical order; whenever two refs have same year for same author, use a,b (e.g. Smith 1990a; Smith 1990b).
    • Please provide alt text for images per WP:ALT.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments:

  • I don't understand this could you give an example of what you mean by double Harvard?
  • I don't provide page numbers when a cited fact is the general point of an article, such as Palancar's assertion about active-stative alignment or having no adjectives. Probably some page numbers have been left for sloppyness I will amend those.
  • I inserted lastra 1998b after the first one was cited so I will change that reference to Lastra 1998a and Lastra 2006:54-55. These refs should be split since the cite to different facts - this is a clear mistake.
  • Images have Alt text. Is there problems with the Alttext it has already?·Maunus·ƛ· 00:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have taken care of page numbers and sorting of the bibliography already. And yes that double citation was a mistake I have split it out into two separate citations. I have disambiguated Palancar 2008 a and b, 2006a and b, and Lastra 1998a and b throughout the text.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the double references although I don't agree that this should be a problem.
There are still refs without page numbers but that is because the cited fact is not something that occurs on one page but throughout the cited work, or which is the main argument of the work - for example orthographic conventions used, analysis of adjectives as stative verbs etc.
I do not want to put short articles into the footnotes instead of the references - I would rather then switch to a harvard citation style with inline citations in parentheses instead of ref tags. It is very important in my view that the entire bibliography remain in one place - it is a major feature of the article that it represents so many sources at once - it is currently the most exhaustive bibliography of sources related to the Otomi language in print or on the internet - i would be very sad to split that up.
I respect that, but please do not abuse referencing system. Be sure, most readers come to read about Otomi language rather than references on Otomi language. Create a separate article with a list of references on Otomi language if this is so important. Unresolved issues are (i) many refs in Bibliography are never used in the text (examples are too many 3xWallis; 2xAndrews, most of Bernard, etc.) (ii) it it hard to understand why some references, supporting specific claims, do not have page numbers and others do. (iii) "This usage is preferred by Palancar (2008)" which Palancar 2008? Materialscientist (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is abuse, to me it is standard practice which I have used in other FAs. I also disagree that using the refname function is necesarry - I don't use that in any of my articles only citeshort and I don't believe there is any rule that refname is necesarry for FAs. Pr MOS the citation style of the main contrbutor should be respected as long as it is consistent - I wish you would revert your changes to named refs. I have disambiguated the ref to Palancar 2008(b). I also don't think it is a problem to not have page numbers for all refs - it is standard academic practice in my field to only have page numbers for specific claims that are citeable to a specific page number.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. You may use various citations styles. "Abuse" was a somewhat harsh word of mine on the i-iii issues above, none of which you have addressed. Unfortunately, conventions of your field do not apply to WP:FA. My "named refs" are a standard WP practice to avoid repeating identical citations in the list, which we all have to follow. Materialscientist (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please show mw where in the MOS it says that named refs are a requirement? I would appreciate if you revert you change to refname untill others have commented on this.
Also the reason there are works in the bibliography that are not used in the body of the is as I said that this is made as an exhaustive bibliography which again is quite standard practice in encuclopedic articles - especially about topics where there is no general familiarity with the sources. The Bibliography is a section that is there to inform the reader about the scholarship on the topic - it is not just a section of references it is part of the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FA would redirect you on Harvard referencing here, which explains "named refs". The rule here is basic - do avoid repeating identical references in the reference list. Comment (iii) is minor and beyond discussion - you have to re-read and fix it. It is your right to oppose other comments, which I would put below as
I have of course disambiguated that refernce to Palancar 2008b.
Argh.. No you have not. Search the page (press <CRTL-F>) for "This usage is preferred by Palancar (2008)" Materialscientist (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are right. Now I have and I caught one more.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not using the system given in here I am using WP:CITESHORT.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. Naming refs to avoid their repetitions is above any individual referencing system. Materialscientist (talk) 07:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where policy based in consensus among wikipedians says so please. The mediawiki link does not state that this is a requirement, and if it did the mediawiki page is not a result of a consensus among wikipedians.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request third opinion on the following comments:
(i) many refs in the Bibliography section are never used in the text (examples are too many: 3xWallis; 2xAndrews, most of Bernard, etc.) (ii) it it hard to understand why some references, supporting specific claims, do not have page numbers and others do. (iii) The nominator disagrees with the usage of <ref name=xx> and then <ref name=xx/> to avoid duplication of references. Materialscientist (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A similar request was made at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates #Question about references and citations and several comments have been made there. Eubulides (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • re (i), even if some reference sources are not currently directly cited for some specific statement in the text, they are all directly relevant to the topic at hand. I can think of a number of good reasons why maintaining them in the article's bibliography makes sense and is beneficial—it's good practice to acknowledge relevant materials one has reviewed and considered when determining what to write (even if ultimately another source ends up with the direct citation); particularly in a specialised topic like this one listing influential works provides a good background to the field; makes it easier to validate whether the directly cited sources are representative of opinion in the wider field; it helps future editors who may come along looking for good source materials to use in expanding the coverage. But given that these are now being broken out into a 'further reading' section the point may be moot now anyway.
  • re (ii), I'd say it's ok to refer to a source in toto if the statement being cited is a general theme of that source, ie the discussion in the source permeates throughout. Or, if the statement is essentially a summation of the source's main argument(s) or position, which are rarely confined to specific page(s). However, to avoid the impression that the page no's have simply been forgotten for these, perhaps it would be useful to explicitly indicate this is the case, either by citing it as <ref>Smith 2003, ''passim.''</ref> or discursively with something like <ref>For the arguments in favour of position X, see those detailed in Smith 2003.</ref>
  • re (iii), I don't think 'named references' / combining "duplicate" citations is mandatory per any MOS, and (IMO) for bibliography-based referencing systems like the one used here, naming/combining citations doesn't really save much on space & make it more complicated not less to cite something. To my mind this is just one of those editorial decisions best left to consensus of editors working on a given article, and WP:MOS#General principles would apply. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding (i), a logical solution is to separate "Bibliography" (sources cited in the text) and "further reading" (other relevant sources). A half-step has been made in this direction, thus I expect it to be finalized, i.e. to have references sorted out. Regarding (ii), I have to repeat, I do not take general answers to a specific point - there are specific facts in the articles where a whole book will not do as a reference. Materialscientist (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not mentioned any specific facts - it might make it easier for us to adress your concerns if you told us which refs you believe require page numbers.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest all further discussion regarding reference style be taken to the article's talk page. Materialscientist's concerns are valid but this is not the forum for them. The featured article criteria require a References section (which this article has) and a consistently formatted citation style (which this article has). The details of the citation style, such as whether the "name" attribute is used, whether there are additional references, and how specific they need be, are not covered by the featured article criteria or any other policy. I urge the closing admins to assume the citation style is sufficient for the purposes of the FA decision. Noisalt (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General issues are already taken to talks. Specific comments: Arguably, those specific facts need page numbers: 5a, 23, 43, 44, 63, 74a (74b and 75?) Materialscientist (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5 is a short article the entire topic of which is the different endonyms of the various Otomi groups - page numbers would be from the first page to the last. 23 is not a citation for a fact about the codex it is a citation for the published and translated codex itself. 43 and 44 are two medium sized articles about the reconstruction of proto-Otomi the entirity of which presents arguments in favour for the reconstructed inventory given - page numbers would be from the first page to the last. I will provide page numbers for 63 although it is a short article. 74 and 75 definitely needs fixed - thanks for noticing.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I variously tweaked the cites for 5a (a 1-page paper), 23, 43 & 44 to make it clearer reference is to the whole source. Hope that will suffice for those specific statements. Note in doing so the citation auto-numbering has changed, so these are now offset from the no's mentioned above.--cjllw ʘ TALK 10:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text is done; thanks. Some images have alt text (thanks), but there are problems:

  • File:Mezquitaltones.png lacks alt text, and the alt text for File:Artesania otomí (El Arenal, Hidalgo).jpg is simply the two words "alt text", which surely is a typo.
  • File:Bienvenidos a Ixmiquilpan.jpg is an image of a sign that contains text which is important, so that text should appear in the alt text.
  • Some of the phrases in the alt text repeat information that's in the caption and should be removed, as per WP:ALT #What not to specify. These include "sixteenth century", "Huichapan codex", and "Spanish and Otomi".
  • Some of the phrases in the alt text cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and should be removed, as per WP:ALT #What not to specify. These include the "Otumi" in "manuscript text in Otomi" and "Otomi warrior", and "welcoming visitors to the Town of Ixmiquilpan, Hidalgo" (we shouldn't assume readers know Spanish or Otomi).
  • The alt text for File:Otomimap2.png doesn't convey much useful info about what that map says. Instead of mentioning irrelevant details like "red", please rewrite it so that it focuses on what the map says that nearby text doesn't, e.g., the geographical locations of the various Otomi speakers. The visually impaired reader should know from the alt text that these speakers live in a band that stretches roughly from Mexico City east-northeast to the highlands south of Veracruz (you can use the words in this sentence as a prototype for the alt text, and improve it as you see fit).

Eubulides (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have tried to improve the Alt text as per your suggestions. Please check to see if that adresses your concerns. This is the first tme I use Alt text in an article - nmy other FA's were reviewed before that was obligatory.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's much better. I tweaked it a bit more by removing some phrases like "Otomi" that can't be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, removing a few more phrases to avoid repetition with the caption and for brevity, and reproducing the typography of that sign more accurately (including that underscored "U"). Perhaps the underscore should be mentioned in the section on orthography? Anyway, thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wobbly thus far. Very interesting topic; not well-enough written yet. Please locate serious copy-editors with a little distance from the text.

  • "Chain" link in "indigenous languages of Mexico" (which will have "Mexico" linked prominently itself) and "Mexico". The latter could be unlinked as redundant.
  • On the other hand, do we have a focused link for "dialect continuum"? Perhaps not ... "The language is spoken in many different dialects, some of which are not mutually intelligible, and the language can alternatively be labeled as a dialect continuum." This is not, in any case, a good sentence—it seems to swerve back and forth: many different dialects, then some not mutually intelligible, then we find that it can all be labelled as a continuum. I'm confused, and we need to be clear for non-linguists. (You can remove the second "the language".)
  • Is the Mezquital Otomi the main dialect? If so, please tell us when you introduce the term, or we won't know why it's privileged in the text. "]; speakers of other dialects use similar-sounding terms."
  • Word order slightly uncomfortable: try "who would later" and "and by the eve of the Sp. con. had become". Can you audit for this throughout?
  • Comma after "period"? It's not a short sentence. But now I notice "In the colonial period," and "During the colonial period", close together. I'd use a different wording second time (or remove it).
  • "Literary" means more than just that the language was now written too. Sure it shouldn't be "written"?
  • Why "However,"? I see no contradiction or turning away from the previous statement. You might instead consider a paragraph break there.
  • Another "However", five seconds later, also without proper justification. Do check that but, however, etc, really do turn away in meaning.
  • Challenging these adversities is slightly unidiomatic.
  • Do you need "same" and "also"? I'm unsure I understand the meaning, anyway. I haven't read further than the lead yet. Tony (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will look in to this tonight - there are already several "serious" (whatever you mean by that) copyeditors who are working on the article and some of the things you mention have been introduced by them.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text has now been completely rewritten by two serious copyeditors (one of them a little too serious in my opinion) who have not contributed to the article at all (therefore: distanced from the text). And the lead has been improved according to your suggestions.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've only re-written some sections of the article. Haven't had the time to get to the entire article, but plan to. In my view, the copyediting shouldn't be rushed. Will report back here when I'm finished. User:Dale Chock is also copyediting, so the prose will get a good overhaul. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Initial pass at copyediting finished. Will respond to and fix additional and specific comments re: prose in the rest of the article. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Could content notes be separated from mere references?
    • I'm really iffy with the idea that this article could get promoted with IPA marking that is completely nonstandard. I don't know whether the use of hooks is standard in the Otomi-related literature, but could you please at least consider using the standard nasalisation mark?

(I'll probably form a fuller opinion once I've read the article fully). Circeus (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I would rather change to using standard Americanist notation since that is what the sources use, would that be acceptable?·Maunus·ƛ· 13:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. That's a completely different issue. Upon further reading I can see the problem is not quite a nonstandard transcription as the improper use of the language's spelling system (as noted under "Practical orthography", which comes too late to relieve confusion) where phonetic notation is to be expected. The consonant are just fine (I personally loathe Americanist notation), it's the nasal vowels that cause problems, not only because of their non-standard notation, but also because that diacritic is similar to the IPA retracted tongue root mark. Circeus (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not really a valid point for example Lakhota orthography also uses hooks to denote nasal vowels (as do all other orthograpghies based on americanist notation).I don't know what you mean by "improper use of the language's spelling system". The system used by Lastra and in the article heres is as close to an official spelling system as the language has - None of the orthographies suggested by Bernard or Bartholomew gained any currency. This transcription is used in the vast majority of published texts in Otomi. The only difference is that it should use š instead of ʃ which i don't really know why I didn't do in the first place. The only works in Otomi that use IPA are those by palancar because he was publishing in IJAL whose style guide prefers it. (and possibly because he is educated in Europe and not by Americanists as Lastra, Bartholomew and Bernard)·Maunus·ƛ· 18:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it was when I commented, the anomalous feature where solely the vowels, so it is normal for to assume the problem comes from the spelling (which is weird, though, given that higher up you actually used tildes...). I also do not believe that using the Americanist notation is appropriate merely because American linguists use it. IPA is clearly the standard on en:WP (as strongly implied by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation) and the {{IPA}} templates), and is also the system used in your previous FA, Nahuatl, so I honestly do not see any good reason to use what is essentially an egocentric variant with the potential to exclude a majority of users accustomed to the IPA. Circeus (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a consensus to change to IPA instead of the transscription used by the sources then so be it. My reluctance to use IPA is not because the linguists who use it are american but because it is used by the majority of the linguists who work with the language. As for the MOS this could be considered a defacto orthography rather than a phonetic transscription - and the guidelines for pronunciation would then not apply - we also do not use IPA for writing french except when dealing specifically with pronunciation. I find changing transscription to verge on OR so I will not advocate it myself - and I also don't want to execute the change if it is decided that it should be changed. I don't think i use tildes - maybe a copyeditor have inserted some. to me changing the orthography to IPA implies problems of interpretation that do not arise when using the transccription used by the sources - I would be afraid to introduce errors because of mistinterpretation the closeness or nearness of transcription that may vary between sources. In my view it is not merely a change of one symbol for another but also involves making guesses about the original researchers intents.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious in conception and focus. Here I will address the issue of unclear rationale. People can go to the article's talk page to see my copious comments on the specific content and on the editors' scholarship (I have also edited the candidate article massively, see bottom). But I must interject one content problem: the Otomi language article has almost no content about syntax (as opposed to morphology, i.e., word structure), a deficiency which I find academically unacceptable for an FAC.

What are the scope and the intention of this article, Otomi language? It was in effect developed to its current state by appending a long discussion of grammar to an existing article, Otomi people: as of yesterday, the "language" and the "people" articles have all the same illustrations and (by perusal) almost the same upper half text. The "people" article has a brief paragraph on grammar near the bottom.

One of my first criticisms of the "language" article was it went on too long about the history of the people without direct relevance to the language. Since making that criticism (which was dismissed out of hand, as have been other of my criticisms), I have looked at the "people" article, and now I'm beginning to "get it". Meanwhile, the driving force behind both the "language" and the "people" article has created a stub, Otomi grammar. That was eleven days ago, and of yesterday, it hadn't been touched since 15 minutes after its creation. Readers should know, at Wikipedia there are many cases of paired "X language" and "X grammar" articles, this is not in general inappropriate.

Recommendations. The Otomi language article currently has excessive content about the Otomi people. It also has excessive content about the grammar. Either put some of it in the Otomi grammar article, or delete the Otomi grammar article. Although I myself am a linguistics enthusiast, I find that some of the current content in the grammar section of Otomi language is too trivial for anyone except me myself and one or two of the main contributors.

(I have edited this Featured Article Candidate massively in the last three days or so; so much so that I could almost be called a contributor, although that was not my intention). If you're curious about my impact on the prose, it should be easy to ascertain because I only have ten page saves not marked "minor edit".) Dale Chock (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong on all accounts. I have created the articles on Otomi language and Otomi people. Three weeks ago I started expanding the article on otomi language because I had gotten acces to a lot of new sources. At a point in editing I realized that the section about history of the language was better than what already existed at otomi people so i moved that section there so that readers o wanted a good overview of the Otomi peoples history could read it there. Then i expanded the article more - and irealised that i had gone into too much detail about the grammar of the language and I decided to create a separate spinnout article about grammar where I would move the entire section on grammar and only keep the parts of the decription of grammar that were relevant in order to give the reader interested in the language a brief overview on the grammar. While I were busy writing all this what were you doing Dale? The article on Otomi language does NOT have excessive content either about the peopl or about the Grammar. Look at other featured articles and you will get an idea about how they are written - they are not substantially different form this one. You obviously haven't got much of an idea about how language articles are written at wikipedia - or what the FA criteria are. I suggest that you start contributing content and reading articles in stead of harassing content contributing editors. Now, have a good day Mr. Chock.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask the closing admin to close based on the merits of this article alone and not based on Dale Chocks irrelevant musings about which parts of the content is repeated in other articles.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two rejoinders. First, to elaborate on my objection about the lack of content about syntax. Here — in less than 25 words — is what "proper description of syntax" means: the description of syntax in grammars of languages has gotten fairly standardized since about 1980; there is a menu of topics to address. OK, given that, when an article about a language doesn't describe that language's syntax, that's like an article about the moon not describing the moon's monthly phases. At the talk page of this candidate article, it has now been claimed that the deficiency reflects a deficiency in the literature on the Otomi language. If so (and it may not be so), then it would follow that an article on the Otomi language is not deserving of Featured Article status. Find a different language to write about if you want to garner an FA award, a language that someone can properly describe. Second point (which I didn't first raise here, I did first raise it on the talk page of our FA candidate article, Otomi language): Maunus says he created an Otomi grammar spinout article to which to "move the entire section on grammar", etc. But he never followed through: he spent 15 minutes on the spinout article and eleven days later, still no new edits to Otomi grammar, during which time massive editing of grammar facts continued at Otomi language. No transfer of content was performed. I suggest that a more deserving target for a FA campaign would be the Otomi people article. Look past the hand-waving rebuttal to me, "your objections are irrelevant": between the three articles, Otomi people, language, grammar, there is a confusion as to conception and focus. There is also unsatisfactory execution. Dale Chock (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"he never followed through" have you considered that this might be because I have been busy with another article? Anyway it is irrelevant how much time I spend on any article, as I am not under accountable to you or any other editor at wikipedia for how I choose to spend my time. And furthermore you cannot see how long I have spent writing or reseraching from time stamps on the edits - there is such a thing as external text editors. I suggest you read up on the FA criteria - there are FAs with less material on syntax. Possibly the world just isn't how you'd like it to be - I suggest you deal with that. Now I have spoken the last I am going to communicate with you - and further comments from your part will be ignored.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Bartholomew, Doris (1963). In refs but not notes or text
  • Bernard 1969 in text but not refs; Bernard 1967 in refs but not text. Typo?
  • Bartholomew 2001 in notes but not refs
  • Garibay 1971 in notes but not refs
  • Bernard, H. Russell (July 1973) & Bernard, H. Russell (April 1974) both in refs but not notes or text.
  • Lastra, Yolanda (1989) in refs but not text.
  • Palancar, Enrique L. (2006a) in refs but not notes.
  • You have notes to Palancar 2008 & Palancar 2008b, but only one ref for 2008b. Is the unadorned 2008 supposed to be “a” or “b”?
  • I think some of your Lascars were out of chronological order...
  • I added a few {{fact}} tags, which you can either cite or defend against.
  • It's often difficult to separate the language from the people and vice versa. I too feel there is a bit too much overlap between this article and the one about the Otomi people. However, I caution against sudden, wholesale slashing and deleting. First, the decisions regarding "what goes where" should be undertaken judiciously, with proper care and deliberation. Second, the Language article, by virtue of being at FAC, has received numerous copy edits and is grammatically far superior. If any duplicated text is to be removed from the language article, the "kept version" should be that of the FAC (i.e., the language article), and should be moved over to the People article. Carefully. I suspect that the total amount of text removed from the language article need not be too large...
  • Not wanting to clutter this page, I have temporarily placed some suggestions at User:Ling.Nut/page1. I s'pose I could move them to article talk as well. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ill take care of those before leaving.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prose spot-check:

  • "namely: the person ..."—consider dropping "namely".
  • "Suffixes on verbs express grammatical number of the participant(s)."—where there's an "of" to the right put a "the" to the left.
  • "innovative dialects"—remind the readers what "innovative" means here? Is this standard terminology? Do you mean "unstable"? Or ... "distal"?
  • "noun words" ... sounds clumsy. Consider "nominal items" or just "nouns".
  • "widespread throughout" might be tautological; "widespread in"?
  • "Person, Number ..."—sentence case, please, throughout for titles.

The grammar section is all a bit trad.—word classes that I'm sure don't really fit the way the language is used. Have you read Halliday? But that's neither here nor there—the article has chosen to source a trad. frame. Tony (talk)

I suppose an encyclopaedic entry on its grammar can only cover descriptions and schemes appearing in those sources that analyse this language; Halliday is not among those that do. The sources used are all the major published authorities on Otomi, and are fairly reflected in the text. And it'd be a fair reflection of the way the language is used. --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, have made some tweaks to address the points under Tony's 'prose spot-check' section above; pls review. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this: there are only seven Good Articles in the area of Language and Linguistics and no Featured Articles. Why couldn't the promoter of this article have aimed for Good Article instead? You can always try to improve a Good Article later. Anyhow, as I will explain, this is the wrong language to try to make a GA or FA off of. But first an aside: the FA nominations page seems like NOT the place for detailed copy editing! Take that to the article and the article's Talk page.
This language, Otomi, is just insufficiently researched: even mere description of it is still relatively scanty, and there is less of analysis of the data and even less still of theorizing. How can Wikipedians make a Good Article or a Featured Article out of a topic that is poorly researched? (I mean poorly researched by the professionals who research such things, not by the Wikipedians.)
This nomination was not just premature, it was fundamentally misconceived because the promoter's strategy for developing an article of FA quality was, "let's take an article, an article that isn't even close to ready, and undertake to edit it into shape". For goodness' sake, the nomination was made BEFORE thorough reference checking was performed by editors knowledgeable in linguistics. With only two hours of Internet searches plus checking three pages in sources pulled off a shelf, I confirmed misquotes, gaps, and absences of "context" (one of the FA criteria is providing scholarly context). The contributors did not report (they were apparently unaware of it) a significant divergence between investigators: it concerns the very consonant inventory of Otomi. I was able to document the existence of the divergence in about ten minutes of Internet searching. That's just yet another example of how this article did not come close to meeting any of the FA criteria. Aside from that, the Peer Review was rushed — the Peer Review archive for this article is blank.
I am dismayed by some of the comments made above, but not because I find them erroneous. The problem is that they don't recognize that the article was marred by a tedious attempt to provide exhaustive grammatical detail — which by the way violates one of the FA criteria. You commenters need to examine one of the seven Good Articles in Languages to find a model for writing such articles (let me suggest Mongolian language). By the way, I second Tony; the grammar discussion read like one of the grammars from the 1950s or 1960s "structuralist linguistics" era (some of which I like, but many of which were dull and uninsightful). Dale Chock (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:50, 1 September 2009 [19].

Intimacy (Bloc Party album)

Nominator(s): Rafablu88 00:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. After the success of Fantasy Black Channel and Silent Alarm, I bring you some Intimacy. I have followed my FA album's templates, so this one copies Silent Alarm but due to its rush-release and minimal promotion is more similar, content-wise, to Fantasy Black Channel. I hope you won't find anything to complain about, but if you do, I'm sure it'll be minor stuff. I've followed the previous advice down to a tee on this, including the detailed comments from Karanacs and Steve. As a final note, I would encourage any willing editor to just be bold and edit the article (unless you oppose the nom) if they feel they can improve its quality to FA. I will handle any other advice accordingly. Thanks in advance and apologies for any future awesome/awful banter. Rafablu88 00:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Update Fixed dead links and disambiguated. Rafablu88 01:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Update There's been 2 supports, 1 object, and all sources cleared. WesleyDodds is mostly happy but will revisit and make any necessary changes to one of the sections before changing his verdict. Dabomb87 has promised to visit the article. I'm off for a few days and will be incommunicado if anyone wants specific changes made. I'm sure the editors themselves can handle general and/or formatting changes. Cheers. Rafablu88 23:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Two things that I noticed. 1) Please use dynamic columns (code: {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}) on the reflist template so 800x600 users aren't reading 3 words a line. 2) Avoid fixing image with, just use the default. — Dispenser 23:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slipped through the cracks but changed now. I'd used it on FBC. As for images, this comes up over and over again. MOS:IMAGES says that thumb is advised but that sizes are up to editor's discretion, unless they become something stupid like 1000px. I usually use 233px, not too big not too small, so that people can actually see the detail without having to click on the photo. I always make sure they're nicely placed and merged too. Rafablu88 23:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reduced them to 200px which works just as well I think. Rafablu88 13:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It looks to me that the article satisfies the FA criteria. Timmeh (review me) 00:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be a UK printed magazine until the start of this year (hence the italics for when the article was written) and then it went online only. Here's a couple of covers: [20] and [21] And the About Us page: [22] to confirm "A page on the site that gives their rules for submissions that indicate fact-checking and editorial oversight". Rafablu88 17:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you've just insulted a British institution here. Remember the time when there was no Internet, no Wiki, etc.? Well, then, people used to press a little button named 'txt' on their remotes while watching ITV and Channel 4 to get all their info. Its Planet Sound was the one of the first notable non-print media publications to review music. Here's Teletext's history to enlighten you: [23] Rafablu88 17:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Laughed out loud. I too fondly remember Planet Sound and its parent :)  GARDEN  19:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the legend that is John Earls, who got a job there after writing reader reviews before he was 18 and is now the only writer and editor on it after all these years. Actually, I might start his article seeing as he doesn't have one. Rafablu88 22:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, YES!! Finally, an "all resolved" conclusion on sources. Rafablu88 18:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as significant contributor (would have been a nominator had I been here and not in Denmark) - I too believe this article is FA-worthy and applaud the endless work Rafa has put into it with some help from myself :) I can't find anything to fault offhand but will patrol this page and help to right any possible wrongs that turn up.  GARDEN  19:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Remove references from Eil.com; it's a retail site and does not count as a reliable source. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, being a retail site is not automatically conducive to being an unreliable source. In fact, they would strive to be extra reliable seeing as they have more to lose, i.e. customers, sales, reputation etc. For example, Amazon.com is often used for information and is trusted my millions, if not billions. Esprit International is one of the earliest and largest retailers on the Web, now operating an extensive worldwide mail order system and a record label. It has one of the largest databases of vinyl LPs and their respective info on the web. Ealdgyth, who does the source comments on FACs, considers both Amazon and Esprit reliable as was the case here and in all my previous FAs. Finally, in all instances, both sources are simply used for release dates, catalog info, track list anomalies etc., info that no other websites have, and not for opinions or anything else controversial. Rafablu88 23:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The simple fact is that it's not considered a reliable secondary source. It's a retailer, and should be removed. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Says you, sadly. The person who does the source reviews on FACs, Ealdgyth, has always considered it reliable. When I get a "remove it" from the person who is the expert on sources here then I shall. As it stands, it's staying there. Rafablu88 18:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a particularly helpful attitude. Can't you find a better source for this other than a retail site? WesleyDodds (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it's the only attitude to have after it passed its sourcing comments with flying colours (see above). And don't you think I would have put in those non-retail sources if they existed, being the ridiculously thorough and perfectionist person I am? Rafablu88 19:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the BBC call it "one of the UK's largest specialist record dealers". That must be enough.  GARDEN  19:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, they use it as a source in that article as well. That must surely seal it?  GARDEN  19:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per Ealdgyth's Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches (which I always go on and what everyone should go on here), that should prove reliability, especially as the BBC cite technical data from them (which I have, too). But I bet our Wesley will still find fault and continue undermining Ealdgyth's thorough work and conclusion. Rafablu88 19:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<- Rafa, really, stop attacking Wesley - he's not arguing because he dislikes you; purely because he's concerned with some areas of the article. He might be right, he might be wrong, but you don't need to treat him like a scratch on a Porsche.  GARDEN  21:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I, too, thought that was a bit harsh, Rafablu. Timmeh (review me) 21:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I've got guidelines, dispatches, and source experts to go by, and he suddenly decides he doesn't like a source and wants it removed. I do my homework and I expect him to do the same if I'm to take his oppose seriously and actually improve what he says I should improve. Rafablu88 21:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep calm. I've been heavily involved in FAC and FAR for years, and I am not making unwarranted remarks. Just because one person does't challenge a sourcs doesn't mean others can. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I don't think your comment now stands considering the sourcing and dispatch above. Rafablu88 01:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose over prose and sourcing concerns. Much of the prose is awkward and not entirely clear as to what point it's trying to convey (sample: "The politically charged A Weekend in the City allowed the band members to push forward sonically, but they were not entirely comfortable with more daring arrangements when recording it"; this is awfully vague and unnecessarily long-winded). I visited a few sources to try and clarify the prose based on the original text, but found in several instancies the prose was not reflecting the citations. For example, the article originally said "The first track, "Ares", shares its name with the Ancient Greek God of War and is an attack on the modern generation obsessed with appearances, exemplified by the lines "War war war war / I want to declare a war / My fist breaks your porcelain nose". Expect the article cited said nothing about "an attack on the modern generation obsessed with appearances". Another example is "Impromptu 2007 single "Flux" incorporated some experimental electronic elements, and multi-instrumentalist Gordon Moakes has noted that it gave Bloc Party the opportunity to move in a multitude of directions on Intimacy". However, the article cited said nothing about "Flux"'s incorporation of experimental electronic elements; it simply discussed that it inspired the band to go in different directions on its next album, but didn't specify why. I have since fixed these two examples, but the rest of the article's citations need to be double-checked. I'm also worried that opinion statements from reviews are being used to support information about the recording process and musical composition, when all can source their statements for is critical opinion; that's what they're paid to do. Coupled with the concern I mentioned about the use of eil.com as a source above, this article needs a look from some uninvolved editors to try and balance out the problems. I'll be happy to revisit the article after it has received a discriminating in-depth look at these problems from others. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it doesn't help when you wholesale revert my cleanup efforts, including the items I mentioned I fixed above due to inaccuracy. WesleyDodds (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replied about Esprit International above.
  • Adam Mazmanian of The Washington Times is clearly referenced in the sentence in "Studio sessions", so whilst being a critic explanation, noone can get the wrong idea about the statement. It is simply there to enrich and inform the discussion since he specifically commented on the studio process. It is the only statement from critics in that section and I wouldn't be stupid enough to source that section entirely from critics, as it needs to be factual.
  • Yes, the "Lyrics and composition" section makes use of critics but as I explained to you about Silent Alarm earlier in the year, they are usually the only sources apart from music sheets and lyrics on the bands website that explain and inform that section. They might be paid to write opinion, but they are usually the experts in music and know what they're talking about in terms of composition. Now I would have loved to have had the actual creators, Bloc Party, explaining this stuff like in A Weekend in the City but they did zilch promotion and zero print media interviews, so feasting on breadcrumbs was the only course of action.
Have you looked at any music magazines (specifically guitar mags)? They typically go in-depth about musical composition. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I don't mean to sound like a dick, just ridiculously exasperated. Have you or have you not read the article and the comments I have written over and over again? THE BAND DID NOT DO ANY PRINT MEDIA PROMOTION. I can't magic up sources from thin air. I only went with what I could find and I reckon I've done a sterling job with breadcrumbs. Rafablu88 02:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about the producers or any of the technical staff who worked on the record? WesleyDodds (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One word that typifies the research for this article: zilch. I think that's what the band were going for. Minimal coverage and absolutely no critical magnum opuses like their last time. Rafablu88 04:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shall have a look at the all references. I am pissed off that those two things slipped through but there's no need to generalise the whole article.
  • I will tighten the prose in those examples you mention and would appreciate any more you might have. Again, let's not generalise the whole article based on 1-2 examples.

Rafablu88 18:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • UPDATE:
    • I've fixed the "Politically charged..." sentence and added an extra ref for good measure.
    • I've cited the Flux elements sentence with an extra ref.
    • The Ares thing was a terrible cock up and has been rectified.
    • Adam Mazmanian was made a tad bit clearer.
    • Added tons more music sheet refs to solidify and enrich the critics' assertions.
      • Will now check each citation and then the prose. Rafablu88 20:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • All citations seem totally fine now. Fixed a few of the prose issues as well. Don't think there's anymore to do but will give it a final workover. Rafablu88 22:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You need to be careful how you summarize the information you are citing. There are instancies where the wording borders on original research. Don't be afraid to directly quote sources if this clears up confusion. Also some statements aren't outright factual and are instead opinions that need to attributed. The sentence "The vocal delivery is fragile . . ." is an example. "Fragility" is not a measureable trait of music, so you must attribute the description to the source in the prose. Remember, this is an example, and not an isolated instance; review the entire article for these issues. And as I mentioned before, someone not involved with authoring the article needs to take a look at the prose (I would do it more in-depth, but I don't want to step on any more toes). WesleyDodds (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Borders" on original research is not original research then is it, if we define bordering as "close to but not over the line". All sentences are cited to where the info was found, and if there's any doubt, the source is only a little click away.
          • I have reviewed the entire article for sources and prose and will do time and time again. I believe your worries have been fully tackled.
          • I don't believe it's suitable to take a stance, i.e. oppose, then say that it stays there until SOMEONE ELSE reviews the article for you. At best, you're only entitled to a comment or a neutral stance if you can't back up your claim with a list of personal examples. I'm not telepathic and can only go on what you write. Rafablu88 01:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is no need to be confrontational; I am giving honest feedback as is standard in FAC nominations. I don't have to list every single thing wrong with the article if it is an overarching problem, because that would just be an exercise in tedium. As I mentioned on your talk page, please mind WP:CIVIL and keep in mind editing sumamries such as "NOT original research; please refrain from editing and keep your comments for the FAC page since you oppose this nom" are not appropriate. Any editor is free to edit any article on Wikipedia. You ask me not to edit the page, but you also say "I don't believe it's suitable to take a stance, i.e. oppose, then say that it stays there until SOMEONE ELSE reviews the article for you". As you seem unreceptive to my edits, that is why I ask that an uninvolved editor take a look at the page. The point of FAC is to garner consensus among the community over whether or not the article fulfills the FAC criteria. Currently my oppose still stands. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<--- Well, I have given the article the royal treatment over and over tonight and can firmly say that all your worries have been tackled and edited. If your editing is the only way to remove your oppose then by all means edit away. Although, if I don't like something I will tell you. As it stands, I consider your oppose comments completely satisfied as seen by my responses above and the edit history of the article. Rafablu88 02:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposes are still considered valid by the FAC director until the person who has voiced opposition strikes it out. That's why FAC nominators typically have to contact editors and ask them if their objections have been rectified. Starting at the body of the article, it's unclear how "Bloc Party conceived Intimacy to defy the conventional expectations of a rock band" is supported by the article cited. I can kind of see how you drew that conclusion from the text, but it's not explicit. You're better off citing specific details, which the article has loads of, instead of generalizing. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, I've left it open to you. Change whatever you want and then strike your oppose. Rafablu88 04:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So... happy now Wes? Or are you not finished editing yet? I CEd and moved a few a bits about after you. Nothing major. The article does look better I have to say. Let us know when you're ready to strike the oppose OK. Rafablu88 01:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's still some stuff I want to review/double-check (particularly the studio section, which I haven't got to yet), but I have a busy weekend. Might take a couple of days. One of the problems I ran into was interpretations of the lyrics based solely the liner notes as citations. Unless the band described what the songs were about in them, this should be avoided. (Aside: working on this article and reviewing the sources led me to watch the video for "I Still Remember" about 20 times in the past day. Yes, it's a different album, but it's a really good song). WesleyDodds (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I removed some of the lyrics things you mention myself. I think lack of sources dictated a lot of this article. It's hard to be comprehensive and engaging with pretty much nothing. (And I prefer the instrumental of ISR more tbh, although I'm generally more of a Prayer/Mercury person from being in grimy east London). Rafablu88 09:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are Wesley's concerns addressed? I'd like to go through the article, but only if the content issues are sorted out. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still have some sources to review. Will probably take an extra day or two. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can wait a couple days. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 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/September_2009&oldid=313598102"