Wikipedia:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions
- Afrikaans
- Alemannisch
- አማርኛ
- العربية
- অসমীয়া
- Azərbaycanca
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- 閩南語 / Bân-lâm-gú
- 閩南語 / Bân-lâm-gú
- Башҡортса
- Беларуская
- Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
- Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- Boarisch
- Bosanski
- Català
- Čeština
- Cymraeg
- Dansk
- Deutsch
- Eesti
- Ελληνικά
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- فارسی
- Français
- Frysk
- Gaeilge
- Galego
- 한국어
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Ido
- Bahasa Indonesia
- Íslenska
- Italiano
- עברית
- ქართული
- Қазақша
- Latviešu
- Лезги
- Lietuvių
- Magyar
- Македонски
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- मराठी
- Bahasa Melayu
- Minangkabau
- Mirandés
- Монгол
- Nederlands
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Napulitano
- Нохчийн
- Norsk bokmål
- Norsk nynorsk
- Олык марий
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- Pälzisch
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Română
- Русский
- Саха тыла
- Shqip
- සිංහල
- Simple English
- سنڌي
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Soomaaliga
- کوردی
- Српски / srpski
- Suomi
- Svenska
- Tagalog
- தமிழ்
- Татарча / tatarça
- ไทย
- Türkçe
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- 文言
- Xitsonga
- 粵語
- 粵語
- Zeêuws
- 中文
pr/ar |
archive - 2nd pass - due to lack of reviews |
||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Beatles: Rock Band/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Beatles: Rock Band/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Upper and Lower Table Rock/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Upper and Lower Table Rock/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kala (album)/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joey Hamilton/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna Anderson/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Derfflinger/archive1}} |
|||
<!-- |
<!-- |
Revision as of 19:23, 3 November 2009
- Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools: | ||||
Nominating
Commenting, etc
|
Nominations
- 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 promoted by Karanacs 19:38, 16 December 2009 [1].
Ode on a Grecian Urn
- Nominator(s):user:Ottava Rima (talk) Mrathel (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it both meets the FAC criteria and has received a significant amount of attention from several editors who had added great content. I am willing to make the necessary changes to help the article pass and would love any comments on how it can be changed or made better. Mrathel (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- In article but not refs: Bloom 1995.
- Perhaps the Beauty/Truth debate section might include excerpts from Keats' letter here. • Ling.Nut 02:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how Bloom got changed to 95 instead of 93, and I worry about adding parts from the letter because very few of the critics bother to refer to it in their opinions. Many of them are New Critics that look down on authorial intention. Also, there is also no proof that the truth and beauty statement connect to the letter. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was gonna suggest 1) making sure that's the whole darn letter. Find the whole thing — salutations, date etc and all. 2) Copying it into Wikisource, if it isn't already there, and 3) adding a link to Wikisource in a note. Now, there would be two ways to do the link, though you might fear WP:OR for the first: First approach would be to say something like "Keats discussed beauty and truth in a letter blah blah" and link it. The virtue of this is that it could be done at the beginning of the article's section, giving it (in my opinion) the appropriate degree of prominence. However, you might have WP:OR fears... I wouldn't fear WP:OR, but it is possible to see it that way. The second approach would be to link it to the statement that mentions Adam and Eve. This refers to the letter. In fact, I saw a quote somewhere that specifically stated that the critics were referring to that letter (I think Vendler stated that the other critic was referring to the letter...). Anyhow, your thoughts are solicited...• Ling.Nut 04:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets say we include the letter - what will it tell us? It is two passing lines on an Urn and doesn't reveal why he chose the urn, what the images of the urn represent, etc. It just says that he had a view point using the same words in a letter. He had multiple letters each mentioning both the terms "truth" and "beauty", each with different versions of what he meant. Furthermore, many of his poems bring up similar uses. Your source even shows that there is no ground breaking claim to say "this is what Urn means". I searched for the term "urn" and the closest I could find it was 10 pages away. The letter you mentioned was from 1817, 2 years before. People develop and change -a lot- in two years, especially Keats who changed dramatically following Hyperion. The claim of "Annus Mirabilis" for 1819 was used to denote that Keats was radically different in 1819 than in his previous years. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support' Comment (leaning support). Ucucha 21:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC) I reviewed the article before this was restarted and gave it another look now, as it has seen some revisions. I am inclined to support, but have a few comments that need to be cleared first:[reply]
- "The urn's description as a bride invokes a possibility of consummation is connected to its inability to exist on her own but must operate with an audience." - this sentence doesn't make sense, and I'm not sure what sense to make of it.
- The article uses spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes at different places in the article, which I don't believe in agreement with the current MOS (although Ottava argued at WT:MOS that this should be changed in the MOS).
- Why do we need both an external link to the text and a link to Wikisource for the text?
Ucucha 21:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the duplicate link. I also reworked the sentence. The only em dashes that are unspaced are found in the quotes, and there are many, many different uses in those quotes (some being antiquated with two examples in some of the first quote by critics). Sometimes they represent a type of quotation, sometimes a colon, etc. There are only two uses of dashes outside of quoted text or pagination, and they are the same type of dash. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, and thanks for the changes; I am switching to support now. The "External links" section is a bit pointless now; what about putting the two boxes under "Bibliography"? Ucucha 21:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- People tend to get a little strange when that happens. I don't know where the current MoS debate has settled on the matter at the moment. I am sure Sandy would know. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, and thanks for the changes; I am switching to support now. The "External links" section is a bit pointless now; what about putting the two boxes under "Bibliography"? Ucucha 21:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I supported this before the restart, after a fairly long negotiation involving numerous points which were all resolved. Since then other reviewers have raised other issues, the article has changed to accommodate them, new typos have crept in... No doubt further issues can and will be raised by editors, ad infinitum, but I believe that, subject to the odd clarification, the article fulfils the FA criteria. There is nothing to prevent discussion continuing over its content; promotion doen't equate to set in stone. Brianboulton (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support But Brian should fix those typos he spotted. ;-) • Ling.Nut 11:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you both. My point, however, was a more general one: articles that are a long time on FAC get changed again and again, and as a result typos tend to creep in, even when sections have been thoroughly copyedited. The only queryable instance I can find now is a reference to 'Cold Pastrol' in the "Later responses" section, but it's within a quote – maybe H.W. Garrod was a lousy speller? This should either be corrected, or a {sic} added if it's what he wrote. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, no he wasn't. I fixed the line. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you both. My point, however, was a more general one: articles that are a long time on FAC get changed again and again, and as a result typos tend to creep in, even when sections have been thoroughly copyedited. The only queryable instance I can find now is a reference to 'Cold Pastrol' in the "Later responses" section, but it's within a quote – maybe H.W. Garrod was a lousy speller? This should either be corrected, or a {sic} added if it's what he wrote. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*(reluctantly) Oppose. I continue to find the prose somewhat opaque. Here are some examples.
Ottava i think dealt with my concerns with the lead, "background" and "structure". I won't revisit those sections. Here are some concerns regarding "Themes":
- First para: what is "natural music"? The sounds of nature? Inherent musicality of text? And does one "depict" sounds (other than in a musical score), or should one "describe" them?
- First para: "The poet also used the image of an urn in "Ode on Indolence", depicting one with the figures Love, Ambition and Poesy. Of these three, Love and Poesy are discussed again within a focus on representational art,..." Does the "again" here mean "in "Ode on a Grecian Urn"? i think that should be spelt out.
- Same sentence: i don't think the expression "discussed again within a focus" is right. "Discussed in the context of", or even perhaps more radical surgery to something like "Of these three, Love and Poesy are, in "Ode on a Grecian Urn", portrayed as artistic representations painted upon an Urn"? (Or something like that)
- First para "how the urn, as a human artistic construct, is capable of relating to the idea of "Truth". " An urn is a piece of fired clay. It cannot "relate" to anything.
- First para: "a human observer that draws out these images" - should not "that" be "who", if it is a human?
- Second para "This allows the urn to participate with humanity" - I cannot fathom the expression "participate with humanity". Participate in what with humanity?
- Second para "the symbol of the urn enables the narrator to ask questions, and the silence of the urn reinforces the imagination's ability to operate". Two things. First, I don't see why the urn as a symbol "enables" the narrator to ask questions. Second, the expression "reinforces the imagination's ability to operate" feels very clumsy - not the sparkling prose one might look for, though i confess to being sufficiently unsure of the intention here that i cannot offer a constructive alternative, sorry.
- Second para: "meditates on the possibility that the role of art is not to describe specifics but universal characters, which falls under the term "Truth"" - I don't see the connection between the first part of this sentence and the expression "which falls under the term "Truth"". I am neither certain what it is that "falls under" this term, nor do I think that "term" is the right word here. There seems to be an excessive shorthand that has become too cryptic for the reader.
- Second para: "Since the urn would depict an idealised scene in which the three figures are immortalised, the narrator is implying that art represents the feelings of the audience." This reads as a complete non-sequitur to me. Why on earth does an immortalised / idealised scene "imply that art represents the feelings of the audience"??
- Second para: "Similarly, the response in the second section is not compatible with the response to the first". Whose response to what section of what? This begins to be answered in the next para, so things seem a little out of order here.
- Third para (skipping some stuff): "The relationship of the audience to the world is not to learn facts or to benefit itself..." This does not make sense. Some options that would make sense (but i don't know what was being attempted to be expressed here) are "The purpose of the audience is not to learn facts or to benefit itself..." or "The purpose of the audience's relationship with the world is not to assist them to learn facts or to benefit itself..." Whatever: a relationship does not "learn facts" or "benefit itself".
- Third para: "The narrator contemplates in the scene where the boundaries of art lie and..." Does this mean "The narrator contemplates where in the scene the boundaries of art lie and..."?
- Third para: "Furthermore, the narrator is drawn into the scene in a manner that allows him to visualise more than what actually exists as he enters into a cooperative state with art". Again clumsy in several respects. I suggest "Furthermore the narrator, as he enters into a cooperative state with art, is drawn into the scene in a manner that allows him to visualise more than is actually portrayed". (though i don't like the expression "cooperative state with art" either)
- Third para: "Ancient Grecians". Are you sure?? Not Ancient Greeks?
- Third para: "Another paradox arises when the narrator finds that immortality on the side of an urn meant to carry the ashes of the dead". Unless I am mis-reading this, the word "that" should be omitted, and perhaps "portrayed" added after "immortality".
- Fourth para: is pretty good.
I dunno - maybe some of the other editors here are English majors to whom all this makes perfect sense, but I continue to struggle with Ottava and others' valiant attempts to render comprehensible the critics' discussion of this important poem. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC):1a. "what is "natural music"? The sounds of nature?" - There is no other possibility beyond music that is natural. "Natural" does mean of nature, and it is an adjective. No instruments. No artifice. It appears in many forms - Aeolian harps, the sound of the wind, birds, or the rest. "To Autumn" describes all of nature as music.[reply]
- 1b. "And does one "depict" sounds" Poetry is a depiction. [2] - Verb "to represent or characterize in words; describe."
- 2 and 3. I don't agree with your suggestions. Reworked in a different manner
- 4. "An urn is a piece of fired clay. It cannot "relate" to anything." - Ignoring that the urn is able to speak at the end - No, unconscious entities can relate to another. [3] Verb - "to have reference (often fol. by to)." or " to have some relation (often fol. by to)."
- 5. "should not "that" be "who", if it is a human?" [4] "That is used to refer to animate and inanimate nouns and thus can substitute in most uses for who(m) and which:"
- 6. "Participate in what with humanity?" Changed to "interact"
- 7. "First, I don't see why the urn as a symbol "enables" the narrator to ask questions." Changed to - "the images on the urn provokes the narrator to ask questions"
- 7a. "not the sparkling prose one might look for" - "imagination's ability" is a standard phrase [5].
- 8. "I don't see the connection between the first part of this sentence and the expression "which falls under the term "Truth""." - "but universal characters" is part of "truth". That is how it grammatically reads. I don't think anyone could seriously doubt universality not being connected to truth. "I am neither certain what it is that "falls under" this term, nor do I think that "term" is the right word here." [6] Term - noun "a word or group of words designating something, esp. in a particular field". "Term" is the only acceptable word to designate a "word" like that.
- 9. "Why on earth does an immortalised / idealised scene "imply that art represents the feelings of the audience"??" - I reworked the sentence
- 10. "Whose response to what section of what?" The section labeled poem explains it but I reworded to make it clear.
- 11. "a relationship does not "learn facts" or "benefit itself"." I rewrote it to make that absolutely clear.
- 12. "The narrator contemplates where in the" I reworked it in a very different manner to remove any confusion on what is implied.
- 13. I reworked it in a different manner.
- 14. Changed it to figures, because they aren't Greeks but images.
- 15. Changed to "the narrator describes immortals on the side of an urn"
- - Ottava Rima (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Ottava. I still think "The second section of the poem, describing the piper and the lovers, meditates on the possibility that the role of art is not to describe specifics but universal characters, which falls under the term "Truth"" is not a model of clarity. I'm striking my oppose. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The prose is better than last time. Ottava, there's a real problem with additive connectors: it comes down to the way you conceive the flow of the sentences. I've weeded out most of the "alsos", but had to add one to get rid of the worse "Additionally". Please note this issue in future article writing. Is it written in AmEng? Looks like it. Why? Ageing, not aging, for example. Tony (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a note, Ottava Rima has retired from editing, so he will not be answering anything directed at him; I will be working to address any further concerns on my own. Mrathel (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Karanacs (talk) 19:52, 16 December 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 promoted by Karanacs 21:15, 17 November 2009 [7].
Augustus O. Stanley
This article recently passed a GA review with no suggestions for improvement. It is well-sourced, and, I believe, comprehensive. I welcome any comments that may improve the article, and hope to see it promoted to FA. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image reviewImages are good: File:AOStanley.jpg needs some evidence of pre-1923 publication. Other image is fine. Steve Smith (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't notice this. That's the wrong claim, anyway. It should be public domain because it's his congressional portrait, which is automatically PD as a product of the federal government. This image is hosted at Commons, and I never work over there. Can someone advise me on how to make this change? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've corrected the tag. Is there any information about the date or author of the image? As well, the image page should probably have a description. Steve Smith (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, are you sure that's his congressional portrait? That bit in the bottom right looks suspiciously like a copyright notice, though I can't make quite make it out at this resolution. Steve Smith (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the tag should be {{PD-USGov-Congress}}. I'm basing my claim on the fact that it's posted on his page in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, which I'm pretty sure is all public domain. If it isn't I think I've found another picture at the Library of Congress that is PD, but this is a better image, I think. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of this ("Not all images are in the public domain") and in light of what really does look like a copyright notice, I don't think that we have enough evidence to conclude that that's in the public domain. Steve Smith (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about this one from the Library of Congress, then? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 19:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to consider images that the LoC labels as "no known restrictions on publications" as public domain provided it seems likely that they would be, so I'd say that one's fine. Some other editors are more stringent than me on this, though, and demand affirmative evidence that it's in the public domain. So I'd pass the image review with that image, but I can't guarantee that somebody else won't come along and make an issue of it. If you want to be on the safe side, I'd suggest uploading your preferred image to Wikipedia and claiming fair use, since the subject's deceased, it's the only picture of him you use in the article, and there are no certain-to-be public domain photos of which we're aware. Steve Smith (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image of J.C.W. Beckham also used in the article comes from the Harris and Ewing Collection, the same one as the above-referenced image of Stanley. In the Beckham image description, there is a template from Commons that says the entire collection's copyright has expired under terms of its gift to the LOC. I'm willing to trust that it's PD. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need both the hatnote for Owsley Stanley as well as a sentence about him in the first paragraph. I also don't think that's relevant enough for the very first paragraph.
- Removed.
- Why would the American Tobacco Company support a tax? It needs to be clearer sooner that it had a monopoly.
- I'll work on this.
- OK, I finally got a chance to provide additional details here. Does this make it clearer?
- "failed by a vote of 20—14...95—17" Use an endash, not emdash.
- Fixed.
- "His opponent, Republican Frederic M. Sackett, secured" > His Republican opponent Frederic M. Sackett secured"
- Done.
- Is there anything else about his later life? Is there anything noteworthy in his legacy, things named after him, etc?
- Nothing is mentioned in any of the sources I've consulted, although it's tough to prove a negative. I'm not aware of anything that was named for him.
- Websites in the bibliography not directly cited in the notes can go in external links, namely the Biographical Directoy of US Congress link.
- This website was directly cited. Should be clearer after I took Fifelfoo's suggestion below.
- External Links should be the last section of the page.
- Done.
- Thanks for your comments. I'll work on the ATC monopoly issue soon. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice job! Reywas92Talk 17:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support 1c 2c
Decline (minor)Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- 2c
"^ "Kentucky Governor Augustus Owsley Stanley"" replace with ""Kentucky Governor Augustus Owsley Stanley". National Governors Association." to indicate corporate authorship / publisher authorship and keep stylistic unity, indicate its a citation rather than an annotation.- Done.
To meet your own style the following citations require location information:- Johnson, E. Polk (1912). A History of Kentucky and Kentuckians: The Leaders and Representative Men in Commerce, Industry and Modern Activities. Lewis Publishing Company. Retrieved 2008-11-10.
- Klotter, James C. (1996). Kentucky: Portraits in Paradox, 1900–1950. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0916968243. Retrieved 2009-06-26.
- Powell, Robert A. (1976). Kentucky Governors. Danville, Kentucky: Bluegrass Printing Company. OCLC 2690774.
- Done, although Powell had a location before.
- Sorry, I'll try to use my efficient eyeballs in future!
Due to Penguin's notorious multiple publication locations, the following citation requires a publication location- Jackson, Blair (2000). Garcia: An American Life. Penguin Press. ISBN 0140291997. Retrieved 2009-08-18.
- Done.
- Jackson, Blair (2000). Garcia: An American Life. Penguin Press. ISBN 0140291997. Retrieved 2009-08-18.
You may wish to indicate this is an online source more explicitly?Happy with that. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- "Kentucky Governor Augustus Owsley Stanley". National Governors Association. Retrieved 2007-08-23.
- I think the fact that the link and access date are provided in full bibliography is sufficient.
- "Kentucky Governor Augustus Owsley Stanley". National Governors Association. Retrieved 2007-08-23.
- Non decline related Comment: its beautiful to see short citations like, "^ Harrison in A New History of Kentucky, p. 214" which indicates clearly that its a work in a collection.
- Actually, A New History of Kentucky is not a collection, but there are two sources with Harrison as the primary author, so I have to specify.
- Hmm, its not a common form of shortcite. Try Harrison, A New History of Kentucky, p. 214 instead to clear up the confusion? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, A New History of Kentucky is not a collection, but there are two sources with Harrison as the primary author, so I have to specify.
- Support related comment: 1c appears complete. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2c
- Comment. Alt text done; thanks.
is partly present (thanks), but it is missing for the lead image (in the infobox) and the signature. Please see Template:Infobox officeholder for how to add them. The signature alt can be just "A. O. Stanley", but the lead image alt text should have enough detail to give the reader a feeling what Stanley looked like, as this is the first image they'll encounter; see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images #Portraits.Eubulides (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I made one small format tweak. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport—Another strong Kentucky politician article from Acdixon; nice work. Specific points:
- Thanks for noticing my work. I'm still working on more Kentucky politicians, so I hope no one is tired of them yet!
I've done some copyediting; I took a fairly free hand, so please do revert and/or ask me if there's anything you don't like.
- Nothing too onerous. I made a couple of changes.
I really don't see the point of that disambiguation hatnote. Is there any real possibility that somebody trying to make it to Owsley's page would make it to Augustus's instead?
- I have seen a couple of places in the sources that refer to Augustus as "A.O." or "Owsley". I'm honestly not sure what was most common, since I wasn't born yet! I didn't actually add the hatnote, but I did leave it in place. I'm not strongly opposed to removing it, but I think one should remain on the Owsley Stanley page because of possible ambiguity.
- Well, I'll leave it up to your best judgment.
Maybe mention his party affiliation earlier in the lead, to provide context to his rivalry with Beckham (i.e. that they're in the same party)?
- I've made a change that should address this.
"Concurrent with his ventures in academe..." I'm not sure how I feel about this turn of phrase. Would object to seeing it boringfied?
- Not really. I just couldn't think of a better way to say it.
- I took a stab at a reword; see what you think.
- Works for me.
Some of the early history seems a little thin - how did he get to be the Democratic nominee for Congress? Was his legal career one of particular distinction? It just seems like "academic administrator -> lawyer -> failed county attorney candidate -> CONGRESSMAN!"
- The sources seem pretty light on that subject, too, although it's been a while since I looked at them in-depth. My guess is rural county + support for tobacco farmers + good public speaker = Congressman. Remember, everything he did before that was in central and eastern Kentucky. Once he came to Henderson County (western Kentucky, and a far different area culturally and economically) he was elected to Congress. I suspect he made a bit of a name as a lawyer first, but there aren't any specific examples of how, that I'm aware of.
- Well, if that's a limitation of the sources, there's not much to be done.
- I just reviewed the Burckel article, which is by far the most complete record of Stanley's record in the House. Of this career between his admission to the bar and his election to the House, it says "Moving then to Henderson in western Kentucky, he entered Democratic politics and served as a presidential elector for William Jennings Bryan in 1900. Two years later, Stanley won election to the 58th Congress, representing the largely rural tobacco-growing Second District." The only hope I'd see for filling in the gaps is to acquire a copy of Thomas Ramage's PhD. dissertation "Augustus Owsley Stanley: Early Twentieth-Century Kentucky Democrat" from the University of Kentucky, but I'm three hours from that library, and it isn't available online.
"public hearings on the tobacco situation" Did this situation extend beyond the tax? If so, how? If not, why not just say that the hearings were on the tax?
- My impression is that it was about the whole idea of ATC having a monopoly, but I'll look at the source again. I need to do that for Reywas92's comment above anyway.
- The hearings were indeed about the American Tobacco Company's actions as a whole, not just the tax. I've done a quick re-word, but it's not necessarily beyond improvement.
"McCreary was never a serious challenger..." Is elaboration on this possible? I'd have thought that a sitting governor would automatically be a credible candidate.
- I can elaborate some, but I don't want to go too far off-topic. Best I recall, he had a reputation for flip-flopping on the issues (his nickname was "Oily Jeems" for that reason). Also, I believe he'd have been about 76 years old by then, so I doubt he was still a spry campaigner. Plus, Stanley and Beckham were already factional leaders in the party, so it was only natural that the campaign centered on them.
- Okay, I agree that staying focussed is a concern, and that this probably isn't appropriate for an article on Stanley.
Is the anecdote about the puking and subsequent rejoinder ironclad? I ask because it sounds suspiciously like a story that circulates up here about renowned alcoholic John A. Macdonald, and I know that these things sometimes get assigned to different people in different places.
- The anecdote is mentioned, with very slight variations, in at least three different sources that I recall. Each one acknowledges that it's an anecdote more than something reported in newspapers, etc., but the sources that do mention it are written by respected Kentucky historians and don't seem to discount its veracity; they just vary on the details, which is to be expected.
"...forbade public service corporations from contributing to any campaign." What's a public service corporation? Is that a widespread term in the U.S.?
- Just quoting the source here. I don't know what it is either.
- Any chance you could find out?
- I'll do some checking, yes.
- Looks like it's what is more commonly called a "utility company". I've added an appropriate wikilink for clarity.
"...many of her peers..." Is it standard to refer to states in the feminine, rather than the neuter? It kind of makes me cringe, but my sensibilities probably shouldn't have any privileged position on these questions.
- I think so, kinda like ships and things. I'm not overly opposed to making it gender-neutral, though.
- I've changed to "its" partly because it sounds far better to me but mostly because the state is treated as neuter elsewhere in the article.
- Suits me.
- "...the General Assembly approved funding increases in nearly every part of state government, including higher education." If increases were approved across the board, what makes higher education particularly noteworthy?
- I'll need to look back at the sources to see if there were specific projects mentioned, but increasing funding to education was one of those things most Kentucky politicians tried to do during this era, so it usually got a special mention.
- If there's additional context available, it would be good. Otherwise, no big deal.
What was the voters' verdict on the 1918 prohibition amendment?
- I tried to find this, but never could. Best I recall, the sources seem to imply that it passed, but I never could nail that down. According to the wiki article on the Eighteenth Amendment, Kentucky approved the national prohibition amendment in January 1918, so its tough to tell if the state amendment went into effect or was superceded by the national one.
- Pity, but nothing to be done, apparently.
- Are specific election results available, perhaps to be presented in a table? The margins provided are somewhat less meaningful without context.
- I can probably find the vote totals. Sometimes I give totals, other times just margins.
We hear nothing about his family until he dies. Could something be worked into "Early life" (assuming that's when he got married and had kids)?
- There isn't much about them except that he married and had kids, then one of his grandkids became a drug icon. I originally had the marriage and number of kids in the Early life section, but it made for an awfully short paragraph and made it even tougher to work in the bit about his grandson later. I don't even have a name for his third son (the one who died) nor any details about how and when he died.
- I brought this up with Thomas R. Marshall as well: is there a reason that the article includes both an infobox and succession boxes? My understanding that the advent of the former deprecated the latter, though if American political figures are working to a consistent standard that includes both, I have no objection.
- I didn't add the succession boxes; I never do, but if they are there, I usually leave them. Personally, I think they're kind of unsightly, so if there has somewhere been a discussion with consensus to remove them, I'll happily abide by it.
- Well, WP:TCREEP specifically advises against including both, though that's just an essay (albeit one that I think is widely accepted). I'd prefer to see it go, but it's up to you.
- If it's widely accepted, I suppose we should leave them, but for the record, I still agree with you that the infobox is the more elegant solution.
- All in all, an excellent article that I will soon be pleased to support. The Canadian connection is just a bonus. Steve Smith (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad you enjoyed it, and its connection to Canada. (Incidentally, the librarian who helps me find most of these sources is also originally from Canada. Alberta, I think.) I'll await your reaction to my responses above, and also try to address the ones I've left open sometime next week. My wife and I are planning a short little weekender vacation this weekend. Thanks for your comments. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alberta's the best part of Canada, as it happens. In fact, I've always sort of considered that your Wikipedia career is to Kentucky as mine is to Alberta (in case you feel stalked, I should point out that our paths previously crossed at FAC back when I was Sarcasticidealist). Anyway, I'll try to have some responses to your points waiting for you when you get back from vacation; enjoy it. Steve Smith (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've responded to most of your concerns above. I'll do some more checking on the rest. I don't feel stalked at all; I'm just glad someone is reading my work, and further, that they've found it enjoyable. The weekend vacation was great. Wikipedia will have more images from Rupp Arena and the Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team as soon as I have time to do a little Photoshopping. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've switched to support. I still think action on my points that remain unstruck would be beneficial, but it's certainly not necessary for featured status. Well done. Steve Smith (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've responded to most of your concerns above. I'll do some more checking on the rest. I don't feel stalked at all; I'm just glad someone is reading my work, and further, that they've found it enjoyable. The weekend vacation was great. Wikipedia will have more images from Rupp Arena and the Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team as soon as I have time to do a little Photoshopping. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alberta's the best part of Canada, as it happens. In fact, I've always sort of considered that your Wikipedia career is to Kentucky as mine is to Alberta (in case you feel stalked, I should point out that our paths previously crossed at FAC back when I was Sarcasticidealist). Anyway, I'll try to have some responses to your points waiting for you when you get back from vacation; enjoy it. Steve Smith (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad you enjoyed it, and its connection to Canada. (Incidentally, the librarian who helps me find most of these sources is also originally from Canada. Alberta, I think.) I'll await your reaction to my responses above, and also try to address the ones I've left open sometime next week. My wife and I are planning a short little weekender vacation this weekend. Thanks for your comments. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please tell us what country Kentucky is in, in the first sentence. Don't presume that an ignorant Australian like myself knows every state of every country in the world. It's too much to ask. Amandajm (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 promoted by Karanacs 18:00, 24 November 2009 [8].
Weight Gain 4000
- Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn (c) 06:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article as part of the South Park Featured Topic Drive. It has already passed as a GA. An additional peer review has been archived since then, and I've incorporated the suggestions there. I think it's ready for FA now. — Hunter Kahn (c) 06:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lengthy resolved commentary moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: All my issues have been taken care of and I believe this article graciously passes any and all FAC criteria. The Flash {talk} 21:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead looks pretty good. The Plot section is very choppy and doesn't flow, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's also repetitive. Two "plots", "meanwhiles", and "arives". Probably some others, too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lengthy resolved commentary moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - There a few issues that I've mentioned above that still need fixing, but the article looks really good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your incredible amount of patience and all your help! — Hunter Kahn (c) 08:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - There a few issues that I've mentioned above that still need fixing, but the article looks really good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the Pope mobile portion of File:South park weight gain 4000 popemobile comparison.jpg licensing information is incorrect. Guest9999 (talk)
- Which part? I used licensing from other Wikipedia images as the model for this, so it's possible I had an error in there... — Hunter Kahn (c) 21:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image of the popemobile is in the public domain, it is not a fair use image as it states on the image description page - also the link to commons seems to be broken. Guest9999 (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made changes accordingly. Is that better? — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem seems fixed. Some users might question whether a non-free image is justified considering it illustrates a relatively minor part of the episode, you might want to be prepared to justify it - although it's perfectly possible no one will have any issue with it. Guest9999 (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - File:Popemobile passes the White House.jpg - Please fix the source link for this image, so we can verify the license. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- You're right, it looks like the link is dead now. To fix it, I went to the Internet Archive and replaced it with an archived link to the site as it appeared in 2008. Does that address it? — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, it looks like the link is dead now. To fix it, I went to the Internet Archive and replaced it with an archived link to the site as it appeared in 2008. Does that address it? — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know nothing about this serires at all. As a reader, I need to be given a clue as to who the characters are that you mentions. Who is this Mr Garrison? Who is Cartman? Telling me that the other character mentioned is a celebrity is enough to give some idea about her identity. Do the same with the others. Amandajm (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added quick descriptions to each character in the plot summary except for Jimbo, because his only real significance here is as a gun shop owner, which is already reflected in the text. Do you think this is sufficient? — Hunter Kahn (c) 14:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's good, but I would like to see the explanation that Mr Garrison is a teacher and Cartman is a 4th grader right up there in the intro. It would give me more of a picture of the chaos that would ensue if this Garrison character actually assassinated someone. This would make me more interested both in reading further and seeing the show. Amandajm (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, forgot about the intro! Fixed. — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've written a really good intro which covers everything well. Amandajm (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I've also updated it to reflect who Mr. Garrison and Cartman are. Let me know if you feel this addresses those concerns... — Hunter Kahn (c) 08:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's good, but I would like to see the explanation that Mr Garrison is a teacher and Cartman is a 4th grader right up there in the intro. It would give me more of a picture of the chaos that would ensue if this Garrison character actually assassinated someone. This would make me more interested both in reading further and seeing the show. Amandajm (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support(Note: I have participated in the South Park Featured Topic Drive.) Currently, I think that the structure and information included in the article reflect too much of a "fannish" orientation. I just laughed comparing "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" (the article I wrote) to this one - the entire emphasis and structure of the article is different! It really is an amusing exercise and I learned a lot about my own writing and assumptions from it, so thank you. There is no doubt that scholars do things differently. :) However, I think that we can come to some sort of compromise here. Let me explain my ideas and reasoning:
The bulk of the first paragraph of "Cultural references and impact" is a long list of details about the show that are only interesting to fans. More importantly, they only make sense to fans. I know a lot of this kind of trivia about Star Trek and I love to chat about it with other trekkies, but it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article about the episode. Perhaps we could keep information such as that about the mayor and leave out the bits about the first time something was seen on South Park?- Please see my comments below (under your third bullet point). — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are an excessive number of examples of the "Beefcake" cultural phenomenon. I agree that this phenomenon should be discussed, but I don't think we need so many particular examples of it. The number of examples weigh the article down and make it more about the reception of the episode than the episode itself. I would stick with one or two examples.- Agreed. I've removed a number of the examples and left only the beef-cake.com website, the video game and the reference to "Two Guys Naked in a Hot Tub". If you think that is still not sufficient, you can drop the latter reference... — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth paragraph of the "Cultural references and impact" section is unnecessary - it is trivia in paragraph form, listing only a handful of the references from the episode. We don't include references like these until they turn into motifs or symbols in the show as commentators note them as such (such as the death of Kenny).- I strongly urge you to reconsider these two objections (see the one I've noted below). It seems to me that the items you are objecting to are 1) the first appearances of characters and other South Park elements in "Weight Gain 4000 and 2) cultural references featured throughout the episode (like references to movies, books, etc.). Both of these are extremely common elements of television episode articles. As you probably know from your participation in the South Park Featured Topic Drive, three of the four South Park FAs (Starvin' Marvin, Volcano and Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo) have such information, and those of course were passed through the FAC review. And many articles from The Simpsons drive (including some FAs) also include these kind of things; cultural references are a common section throughout practically every article there, as well as most updated South Park articles and other shows (The Office, as another example). Under WP:MOSTV and other Wikipedia guidelines, the burden is to make sure information is verifiable through reliable sources, and in this case all these references are. Nothing is included in these "Weight Gain 4000" sections that is uncited or fancruft. That being said, if you have specific items you object to we can address them, but to do a overall sweeping objection to all them I don't think is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, precedent from other articles and the work done so far on the South Park Featured Topic Drive... — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument that "we have always done it this way" or "we have done it before" is weak, as it does not give the reason for including the information in the first place and is flawed logic (think of this example: "but we've always had slaves!") I didn't see this section recommended in my quick skim of WP:MOSTV, but that is really neither here nor there - MOSTV is not a requirement and we can certainly be better than its suggestions. Moreover, we don't include every piece of information that is in reliable sources, we include what helps construct an encyclopedia entry. These references are, IMO, too fannish and in many places, simply too obscure. No context or critical commentary is given for them - why is it important that these elements appear in the show? Why, for example, is it important that Gifford is placed in a popemobile of a sort? The only commentary that the article offers is that this is "hilarious" - this is not helpful to the reader at all. If, for example, we had commentary discussing South Park's jabs at religious institutions, that would be another story. Awadewit (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You make some excellent points. I've made what I feel are some pretty significant changes to the entry. I'm of course willing to do more, but I ask that you consider what I've done and my logic for keeping what I have, and consider whether that is enough for you to lend the FAC your support...
- The argument that "we have always done it this way" or "we have done it before" is weak, as it does not give the reason for including the information in the first place and is flawed logic (think of this example: "but we've always had slaves!") I didn't see this section recommended in my quick skim of WP:MOSTV, but that is really neither here nor there - MOSTV is not a requirement and we can certainly be better than its suggestions. Moreover, we don't include every piece of information that is in reliable sources, we include what helps construct an encyclopedia entry. These references are, IMO, too fannish and in many places, simply too obscure. No context or critical commentary is given for them - why is it important that these elements appear in the show? Why, for example, is it important that Gifford is placed in a popemobile of a sort? The only commentary that the article offers is that this is "hilarious" - this is not helpful to the reader at all. If, for example, we had commentary discussing South Park's jabs at religious institutions, that would be another story. Awadewit (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly urge you to reconsider these two objections (see the one I've noted below). It seems to me that the items you are objecting to are 1) the first appearances of characters and other South Park elements in "Weight Gain 4000 and 2) cultural references featured throughout the episode (like references to movies, books, etc.). Both of these are extremely common elements of television episode articles. As you probably know from your participation in the South Park Featured Topic Drive, three of the four South Park FAs (Starvin' Marvin, Volcano and Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo) have such information, and those of course were passed through the FAC review. And many articles from The Simpsons drive (including some FAs) also include these kind of things; cultural references are a common section throughout practically every article there, as well as most updated South Park articles and other shows (The Office, as another example). Under WP:MOSTV and other Wikipedia guidelines, the burden is to make sure information is verifiable through reliable sources, and in this case all these references are. Nothing is included in these "Weight Gain 4000" sections that is uncited or fancruft. That being said, if you have specific items you object to we can address them, but to do a overall sweeping objection to all them I don't think is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, precedent from other articles and the work done so far on the South Park Featured Topic Drive... — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the themes section. See my further comments on this below...
- I've added some language that I feel stresses why the information about the characters and Jesus and Pals is important. Specifically, I framed the characters information less like trivia, and more about the fact that this episode marked the first of what would become important recurring elements of the South Park series as a whole. Also, I added a quote from producer Debbie Liebling was to an important role she felt the Jesus and Pals show served in partially establishing the tone of the South Park town...
- I completely cut altogether the more trivia-ish elements of this section, including the movie quotes from Star Wars and Scooby-Doo and the parts about "Walden" and the Book Depository, among others. I found these cuts painful because I still feel there is a place for cultural references such as these in an article as long as they are properly sourced, but in the spirit of compromise and an improved final product, I've made the cuts...
- For the moment, at least, I've kept the part about the popemobile. The reason for this is because unlike the other, more trivial references, I feel this one actually serves a purpose, in that it explains a portion of the episode that readers might not otherwise understand. Although it is obviously common knowledge to some people that a bulletproof dome affixed to a truck is a reference to the Popemobile, not every reader would understand that; for example, my wife (who is a smart person; and is way, way smarter than me) is an atheist who is not very familiar with Catholicism at all, and she did not understand the reference when we watched the episode together. Plus, this when and if this article is read 20, 50, 100 years from now, that kind of knowledge may be even less commonplace. So for now, I've kept it in. If you really feel it needs to go, let me know and I'll reluctantly cut it... — Hunter Kahn (c) 06:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me know what you think, Awadewit! I hated to see some of the content go, but I also believe in compromise, and I hope I've at least come a bit closer to earning your support for this article! — Hunter Kahn (c) 06:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The additions to the Jesus and Pals bit is just the sort of thing that helps readers understand the show better - thanks for adding that! Is there any way that this kind of material could be added for the following sentences: ""Weight Gain 4000" introduced several characters who would maintain important recurring roles throughout the rest of the series. Among them were Jimbo Kern, Mayor McDaniels,[3] and Wendy's best friend Bebe Stevens. It also introduces Clyde Donovan, a student from Mr. Garrison's class who would eventually play significant roles in future seasons, although he was not identified by name."? Awadewit (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for cutting the list of movie quotes. In the spirit of compromise, I will not extend the debate over the popemobile. Awadewit (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made some additions about McDaniels and Jimbo. I don't have anything on Clyde and Bebe, but of course I'd rather not drop them if I don't have to. I still think the mere fact that they are introduced is worth at least a brief mention, but let me know what you think either way... — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These are excellent additions, especially the connection to Gifford - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead and the caption under the first image promise the reader a discussion of satire and consumerism, however this style and theme are barely discussed and relegated to the "Reception" section. I would suggest creating a "Styles and themes" section, or at least a "Themes" section and integrating some of the material from the "Reception" section into it. Every TV episode has themes and a general style from the show it is a part of and currently that is elided in this article. For example, the third paragraph of the "Reception" section could be the beginning of a "Themes" section. I've read many of the sources that describe the first five South Park episodes and there is plenty of material in those sources from which to create such a section.- I've created a themes section as you suggested. I believe I have exhausted all sources that discuss this issue, so I think this is all the material there is for a Themes section. If you know of any others that I've missed, though, let me know... — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The general satire of the show is explained in many of those reviews that looked at the first five episodes. You might look at some of the articles I used in Cartman Gets an Anal Probe to write about satire. Awadewit (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the problem is that any information about themes or interpretations that I include here should be specific to this episode, since that is the subject matter of the entry. A lot of the style and themes information in your "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" is about the series and animation in general, which is very good, and is more appropriate for that article than your typical episode article because "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" is the pilot, and thus where a lot of those styles and themes were first established. I wouldn't want to get too deep into the themes of South Park in general here because this article is about "Weight Gain 4000", and if I were to include it here, presumably I'd have to include it in every episode article; better to keep that stuff in the pilot and the articles about the individual seasons (and the series in general), and keep the "Weight Gain 4000"-centric themes here. All that being said, I have added a bit to the "Themes" section touching on consumerism and celebrity. If you feel more needs to be added, any specific guidance would be appreciated... — Hunter Kahn (c) 06:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the style of the show is the same from episode to episode, that means, in my mind, that certain elements of each episode article will be the same. We have to note the style of show, particularly since sometimes it can change. To give an example, one episode of Smallville was done in film noir. Obviously, that article would explain the film noir style and how it was used in that episode. Each episode has a style, even if it is repeated throughout the series. In my opinion, that style is an integral part of the episode. If a reader only reads an episode article but never the main South Park article, he or she may never see a discussion of style. That is one reason why, in my opinion, it needs to be included in each episode. A few sentences on the symbolism of the appearance of a show is crucial - about the "grade-school aesthetic", as one critic put it. Awadewit (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've added a bit of content from the "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" article (as per my comments on your talk page) as well as a bit more info that I tried to keep more focused on "Weight Gain 4000" itself. While to an extent I agree with you, I think we need to strike a balance between discussion of the series as a whole and the episodes specifically. There are 195 episodes of South Park, and I don't think we would want to reinvent the wheel in each article and provide a detailed commentary on the general style of the series in each one. I tried to strike that balance here, so if it needs further improvement or tweaking let me know. (I'm going to work on your other comment later today or tomorrow at the latest...) — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this really helps the article. Awadewit (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've added a bit of content from the "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" article (as per my comments on your talk page) as well as a bit more info that I tried to keep more focused on "Weight Gain 4000" itself. While to an extent I agree with you, I think we need to strike a balance between discussion of the series as a whole and the episodes specifically. There are 195 episodes of South Park, and I don't think we would want to reinvent the wheel in each article and provide a detailed commentary on the general style of the series in each one. I tried to strike that balance here, so if it needs further improvement or tweaking let me know. (I'm going to work on your other comment later today or tomorrow at the latest...) — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the style of the show is the same from episode to episode, that means, in my mind, that certain elements of each episode article will be the same. We have to note the style of show, particularly since sometimes it can change. To give an example, one episode of Smallville was done in film noir. Obviously, that article would explain the film noir style and how it was used in that episode. Each episode has a style, even if it is repeated throughout the series. In my opinion, that style is an integral part of the episode. If a reader only reads an episode article but never the main South Park article, he or she may never see a discussion of style. That is one reason why, in my opinion, it needs to be included in each episode. A few sentences on the symbolism of the appearance of a show is crucial - about the "grade-school aesthetic", as one critic put it. Awadewit (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the problem is that any information about themes or interpretations that I include here should be specific to this episode, since that is the subject matter of the entry. A lot of the style and themes information in your "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" is about the series and animation in general, which is very good, and is more appropriate for that article than your typical episode article because "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" is the pilot, and thus where a lot of those styles and themes were first established. I wouldn't want to get too deep into the themes of South Park in general here because this article is about "Weight Gain 4000", and if I were to include it here, presumably I'd have to include it in every episode article; better to keep that stuff in the pilot and the articles about the individual seasons (and the series in general), and keep the "Weight Gain 4000"-centric themes here. All that being said, I have added a bit to the "Themes" section touching on consumerism and celebrity. If you feel more needs to be added, any specific guidance would be appreciated... — Hunter Kahn (c) 06:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The general satire of the show is explained in many of those reviews that looked at the first five episodes. You might look at some of the articles I used in Cartman Gets an Anal Probe to write about satire. Awadewit (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've created a themes section as you suggested. I believe I have exhausted all sources that discuss this issue, so I think this is all the material there is for a Themes section. If you know of any others that I've missed, though, let me know... — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this is helpful. Awadewit (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've switched to support. Awadewit (talk) 15:47, 24 November 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:22, 22 November 2009 [9].
Lundomys
- Nominator(s): Ucucha 21:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has recently gone through peer review and I feel that it is now ready for featured status. To the best of my knowledge, this article includes all encyclopedically relevant information on the animal that has been published. Yesterday, I renamed the article to the name under which it is most commonly known, Lundomys, as explained at length here.
Thanks go to Finetooth, Aranae, Ruhrfisch, Rlendog, and 6th Happiness for constructive comments at the peer review and elsewhere. Ucucha 21:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alt text done; thanks.
Alt text is present (thanks), but its contents need some work. Alt text should be verifiable by a non-expert who is looking only at the image (see WP:ALT#Verifiability), but the existing alt text contains mostly info that a typical Wikipedia reader won't know from the image. For the map, please see WP:ALT#Maps for a guideline and examples. For the lead image, please imagine that you're describing the image to a non-expert over the telephone.Eubulides (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for your comment. How do you like the current text? Ucucha 22:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The alt text for the mandibles is good; thanks.
For the map, though, "Map of South America marked by red and blue colors." doesn't tell the visually impaired reader what a sighted reader can see at a glance, for example, that the current range is roughly coterminous with Uruguay. Again, please see WP:ALT#Maps.Eubulides (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Revised the map alt again to say where the red and blue is. Is that sufficient? Thanks, Ucucha 01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that looks good. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised the map alt again to say where the red and blue is. Is that sufficient? Thanks, Ucucha 01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The alt text for the mandibles is good; thanks.
- Thanks for your comment. How do you like the current text? Ucucha 22:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
CommentJimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reeds is a DAB page.- First of all, thanks for your comments. On the "reed" link: My source only talks about "reed", not about the specific kind of reed. I could link to reed bed, but that is not completely appropriate as the link does not refer to the habitat, but to the individual plants. I would think that most people know what "reed" is, so I deleted the link.
The only(!) ext link is dead, you probably need to update the link- Wow, IUCN apparently changed all their link locations overnight. I fixed this one; we'll probably need a bot to do that across all the many articles which also link to the Red List. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- still didn't work. you need to be careful to link to the full details page with iucn, now done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it does work, but so does the link you edited in, so that doesn't matter. Ucucha 14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
in Frietas ref, the families should not be italicised- I know it is wrong, but it is what the title of the article is. I already placed a "sic" in hidden text to indicate that. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate the languages of the non-English refsAny reason why the publication names are not italicised?- I see that as unnecessary formatting. It's in keeping with the house style of journals like American Museum Novitates. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that was the case, just checking it wasn't an oversight. The only requirement is for consistency, so no problem Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of red-linked technical terms, eg lophodont. You need to either write something for the link to go to, or explain the terms in the text, or remove the redlink if its already explained. Conversely, why do common words like "fur" need a link, or even worse, a redlink (tufts of hair)- Lophodont is now explained. I believe all other technical terms that need it also have an explanation. "Tufts of hair" links to the specific anatomical term for these tufts, "ungual tuft", which will one day get an article and, I think, merit a link. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
posterolateral palatal pits?Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It now says "the palate ... is perforated near the third molars by conspicuous posterolateral palatal pits." Doesn't that make it clear enough what those pits are? In a couple of other articles, I used something like "PPPs, perforations of the palate near the third molar", but I think the sentence flows better like this. Ucucha 14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The karyotype is 2n = 52, FN = 58 and consists mostly of acrocentric or telocentric autosomes I shouldn't have to read another article to make sense of this. Are we talking about the number of chromosome pairs? What's FN? What's an autosome (no link) what's metacentric (no link)?- I rewrote that paragraph now. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It builds nests up to 1.5 metres (5 ft) above the water, similar to those of Holochilus Strangely, I don't know what a Holochilus nest looks like (must have missed that lesson), please describe.
- The intention of that was not actually to enable people to understand what the nest of the either of the two looks like, but only to provide the notable fact that these two animals build nests which are similar in many respects. I clarified that now by taking the similarity part out to the next sentence. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Having said that, do we know what the nest looks like? It's supported by reeds, so is it above the ground? Is it open or enclosed? Is it made from reeds, twigs or what? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a long quote in Spanish about this in Voss and Carleton (p. 34), but I couldn't make too much sense of it. I'll see what I can do. Ucucha 14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, it would be good to have a bit more about lifestyle, and nests are usually easier than obscure mating behaviour Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a little more. There's no information, unfortunately, on what it actually does in these nests. I don't think a lot of them would fit in. Ucucha 20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardinas 1995, at least, has on-line text. Can you please check if any other papaers can be linked- Almost all do. I provided links now. It's funny that this article is now actually the top search result in Google for a number of the article titles of the references. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - all the new links checked with the linkchecker tool except iucn, although it does actually work.
Can you add to the Steppan ref that it requires a subscription please?Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Did so, and same for the other ones which are not open access. Ucucha 14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - all the new links checked with the linkchecker tool except iucn, although it does actually work.
- Apart from the minor issues outstanding above, I have no other specific issues. I'm not far off supporting, but I still have some nagging doubts about the accessibility to someone lacking a scientific background. I'll wait a couple of days and have another read through, and see if there are any comments in the meantime. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. I've tried as I could to avoid making the article too inaccessible for non-specialists, but I'm open to any suggestions for further improvement. Ucucha 14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Carleton and Olson describe the nest on p52 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. They're describing both Holochilus and Lundomys nests together, which are similar but may not be identical. They mention nests 2 to 3 m above the ground, for example, but the quote in Voss and Carleton (1993, p. 34) says 1.5 m, and I am more inclined to believe the original source. I'll see what I can make of it later today. Ucucha 18:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment. One danger of using the wildly inaccurate convert template is that you can end up with nonsense like 9 to 11 centimetres (4 to 4 in). Please recalculate by hand or replace with 3.5 to 4.3
- Changed to "about 4 in". Ucucha 12:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- Sources look good but
you need to italicise your journal titles and put article titles in quotation marks.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for having a look at the links. As far as I am aware, I do not need to use any particular style of citation as long as the style is consistent within the article. As I mentioned above, the style I use is consistent with what journals in the field do. Ucucha 18:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is an image available of a living animal? Its preservation status in the infobox indicates that it is not rare, endangered or extinct. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 06:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there is not, and actually it is fairly exceptional that we could get as much as an image of the skull. Ucucha 12:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I read that it is rarely encountered (the reason for no images perhaps?), could that be added to the first line of the lead ... 'a rarely encountered rodent species ...'?
I think that 'taxonomic' could be wikilinked, this would explain the section header of 'Taxonomy' as I (as a person who knows very little about biology) did not know what it meant, I looked it up using the search box.The only other suggestion I can think of is the use of sub-headers in the text for readability if that could be achieved. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. Some of the reasons both for the lack of photos and for its apparent rarity may be that it is active at night, has a limited distribution, doesn't live in a very accessible habitat, and is probably fairly difficult to distinguish from Holochilus brasiliensis in a photograph. I would prefer not to put the "rarely encountered" bit in the lead, because its apparent rarity may actually only be the result of insufficient effort to locate it, as the text explains. I think it would be misleading to say that it is rare without this bit of context.
- I wikilinked "taxonomy" in the lead.
- The article is not that long, so I don't think section headers are that important. Also, I can see few other ways to divide the long sections (Taxonomy and Description) than by creating a separate subsection for each paragraph, which I don't think is appropriate. Ucucha 13:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, it is your call. I tried some headers in my sandbox [10] to see how it would look, not technically correct headings perhaps (and one latin name spelt incorrectly I notice, apologies!) but I did manage to divide some related paragraphs. This section of an article recently passed FAC with many paragraph sub-headers, although it could be said that the need for them was greater there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also tried something like that (didn't save it, though), but the problems I see with it are that "Reclassification" is not a completely accurate summary of what happened (it was discovered again independently, not reclassified, by Hershkovitz) and that, to me at least, your organization of the "Description" section suggests that the first paragraph is a summary of the following three subsections, which it is not.
- I think a comparison to the Rolls-Royce FA you mention reinforces my point: it only has one-paragraph sections where information relevant to the article is relatively limited ("Derby" there, "Natural history" and "Conservation status" in Lundomys), but still uses long sections where appropriate (the "Supercharger" sub-subsection, which is about as long as the "Taxonomy" section in Lundomys). Ucucha 16:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, as I said the headings I used just to illustrate the principle would not necessarily be technically correct or summarise the paragraphs accurately using one word. Each editor is bound to have a different interpretation of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 2b and Help:Section, it's a style comment only. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think my comments illustrate the problems every attempt to insert subsections into this article. When there is consensus that subsections are needed here, I will insert them; but I feel that they are not needed and hard to insert in an accurate way. Ucucha 16:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I read that it is rarely encountered (the reason for no images perhaps?), could that be added to the first line of the lead ... 'a rarely encountered rodent species ...'?
- Support
CommentsI'll begin a lookover and make any straightforward changes (feel free to revert if I change the meaning!). Looks good but the clear challenge here is the balance between plain English and exactness of meaning.If we can reduce technical words and make it more accessible then this is desirableGood work in trying to reconcile some plain and technical english - a very tricky task! :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...recognized five synapomorphies for the group --> "recognized five (common) features unique to the group" I was thinking that "synapomorphies" is a pretty esoteric word to the non-taxonomist. However, it is important not to change or lose meaning.
- ..in the morphology of the first lower molar --> "in the shape of the first lower molar" (any meaning lost by this use of a plainer word?)
- Any plainer English conversions of anatomical bits in the Description section would be a bonus :)
Overall good work, and should pass this FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! With the synapomorphies, we have the problem that they are not unique to oryzomyines: there is some homoplasy, with Reithrodon also lacking the suspensory process and various akodontines and others also lacking the gall bladder. I could replace "synapomorphies" with "shared derived features", but I'm not sure whether someone who doesn't know what a synapomorphy is is any more likely to know what "derived" means in this context.
- I've attempted several other changes to make the text less jargon-ridden. I didn't say "shape", because that to me refers to the actual outline of the molar (whether it's broad at the front or narrow, for example), but did get rid of the "morphology". Ucucha 13:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3 File:Lundomys distribution.png - Please add a source for this diagram to the image description page. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it good now? If not, what specifically is the problem with the sourcing? Ucucha 01:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is fine now. I've stricken my oppose. Awadewit (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, an image of the skin does in fact exist, thanks to the Smithsonian. I uploaded it as a fair use image and it's in the article now. Ucucha 15:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Lundomys skin USNM.jpg - Please add the name of the copyright owner to the fair use rationale. Your explanation of why the fair use image is justified is convincing to me. To make it super-duper strong, however, you might add a source for your statement on the talk page. Awadewit (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your further comments. I added to the file description page that it is (C) Smithsonian Institution and added some sources to my comment on the talk page. Ucucha 01:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now started a threat at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content about images like this one, which may result in the skin image being deleted from the article. Ucucha 13:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems perfectly fine to me, i do have some experience in rating articles :) . ZooPro 13:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I do agree that the jargon could be cut down a little, but overall, this is an excellent example of getting a lot out of a little for a Wikipedia article. If only there were a few dozen more contributors like you, Ucucha… innotata (Talk | Contribs) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: very good use of WP:RED; when jargon terms are redlinked, they are defined in text. Please do one more check for WP:NBSPs between numbers and measurement units. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I fixed the NBSPs. Ucucha 18:52, 22 November 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 14:44, 15 November 2009 [11].
2009 Giro d'Italia
- Nominator(s): Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 07:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for featured status because I believe it comes as close to satisfying the criteria as (essentially) one editor can get it. I've been editing this article like crazy since May, and I believe that if it does not, as I type this, satisfy the FA criteria, it will once I have addressed concerns of persons more experienced in vetting FA's than I am. I am nominating this article because it seems to be the only step left. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 07:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by AnOddName
- No dab links or dead external links, which is good.
- The larger images, and some of the smaller ones, have decent alt text. The smaller "stage" icons in the "Route and stages" table already have text next to them, so you can use "|link=" in the image tag to exempt them from alt text.
- Done.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation dates are consistent ISO style.
- User Kov 93 appears to be the primary article contributor (you're a close second). If Kov 93 doesn't know about the nomination, remember to notify them soon.
--an odd name 15:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kov 93 hasn't edited the article since July, but still should have been notifed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kov 93 is not the primary contributor to the article. He edited the article in a handful of bursts of 30 or 40 consecutive edits within a couple of hours (I have also made numerous consecutive edits, but they've been over days at a time),
most of which were wholly rolled backand needn't have at all been made in that way. Further, he does not have a very good command over the English language, so I doubt how helpful he could be here. I'm trying not to sound like a complete jerk here, but he really did not contribute much. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- S'pose that's not entirely fair...most of Kov's editing was updating the standings as the race went on. Not really in improving the quality of the article. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 23:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kov 93 is not the primary contributor to the article. He edited the article in a handful of bursts of 30 or 40 consecutive edits within a couple of hours (I have also made numerous consecutive edits, but they've been over days at a time),
- Comment by SandyGeorgia
There is some WP:MOS cleanup needed. The section headings include incorrect uppercase (see WP:MSH); there is unnecessary bolding in the "World Rankings points" section (see WP:MOSBOLD); there is unnecessary use of WP:ITALICS in several places (example, ... and so shared leadership of the Fair play classification and throughout at least the "Other classifications" section); there are WP:MOSNUM cleanup needs (example, ... and 2 for twentieth going to Lars Bak); and punctuation of image captions needs review per WP:MOS#Captions (sentence fragments vs. full sentences). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am so used to "General Classification" that I was thinking of arguments to keep it like that, but it looks like there is no real argument. Therefore, I changed most of the section headings, but I kept a few: "Trofeo Fast Team" and "Trofeo Super Team", because I don't know for sure if these are names or not, and "World Rankings points", because this refers to the UCI World Ranking, which is capitalized.
- Are we sure the Giro uses "King of the mountains" at all? "Demystified" doesn't use it, and Gazzetta dello Sport just uses "GPM",
which my limited Italian can't really decipher.It also shows that "TV," "Trofeo Fast Team," "Trofeo Super Team," and "Trofeo Fuga Cervelo" all are capitalized, but also that "Classifiche Generali" is as well. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 00:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Got it - Gran Premio della Montagna (Mountains grand prize). So just "Mountains classification" would probably be best here. The Tour obviously uses King of the Mountains and I'm pretty sure I've seen rey de la montaña for the Vuelta, but it doesn't seem to be in use for the Giro. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 01:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and this change has already been made. Awesome. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 01:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it - Gran Premio della Montagna (Mountains grand prize). So just "Mountains classification" would probably be best here. The Tour obviously uses King of the Mountains and I'm pretty sure I've seen rey de la montaña for the Vuelta, but it doesn't seem to be in use for the Giro. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 01:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The World Rankings table sorts awkwardly - it is alphabetical by first name. The top ten after the Giro table does likewise, and it also sorts previous rankings as 1 then 127 then 2 then 27. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we sure the Giro uses "King of the mountains" at all? "Demystified" doesn't use it, and Gazzetta dello Sport just uses "GPM",
- The bold text in the World Rankings points tables has been removed. I also improved the table in other ways that I think MOS requires.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The italic text: I removed most, and kept some as foreign terms according to the MOS. I removed the references to the jersey in the classification leadership table, because I don't think they serve a goal. The jersey icons are already there, and the Italian name for that jersey is not really important. I don't know what to do with the "no award" in that table; the italic makes clear that it is not the name of a cyclist, is that allowed by the MoS, with function emphasis?? Not clear to me. I left the "Traguardo Volante" italic. The classification is named that way, so the name should be kept, but I don't know what the correct English translation is. (Traguardo might be a sponsor?) Same goes for "Trofeo Fuga Cervelo": it is the name of the classification, but should an english translation be given here? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Traguardo Volante would roughly mean flying sprint, a name used in other cycling events. Traguardo itself literally means "aim," "purpose," "goal," or (perhaps most appropriately) "finish line." [12] Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Observations by Kevin McE
Several small, mainly semantic, issues:
- We have already discussed on the talk page the mathematically unsound nature of trying to give a total race distance to the nearest 100m. If a footnote is needed to explain why the total for the race is not the total of the stages, let's have a footnote.
- The number is sourced. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By the definition of queen stage, two stages cannot claim the status. If there is not unanimous sourced allocation of the epiphet, drop it. Totalling two non-consecutive stage times seems a very odd piece of data.
- I disagree. It is verifiable that both stages were called the queen stage (Blockhaus was also referred to as "one of three stages vying for the status as queen stage," but I only found that in one article). The times I thought was interesting in that most stages in a stage race are completed in 3-4 hours, but I'm not too attached to it.
- Di Luca did not "come in" second, 41 seconds behind the winner: he "came in" over the last finishing line a couple of minutes before Menchov. Suggest "Second place overall went to Di Luca, who also won ..."
- I don't think we should have rolled over so easily to one person who wanted CERA spelled out in full. Like Alex, I think the normal English usage rule should apply, and that this aids readability.
- Wasn't one person. Both GA reviewers and the FL reviewers for the teams/cyclists list wanted it spelled out. I disagree, but I believe in consensus. I look forward to reading about the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing in other articles. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I suggest categories, classifications, or even types of stage, rather than 'brandings, and eliminated rather than taken out to explain the consequence of finishing after the cut-off?
- To say that stages are meant to end in a bunch sprint suggests intention on the part of the organisers. While this might be true, it would be unverifiable, and I would suggest predicted to instead. Premier doesn't seem an appropriate adjective for the top sprinters.
- Did you mean to say that Milan is a traditional city? The city in which the city traditionally finishes, or in which the race has finished each year since 1989. Either way, that stage being showy and prestigious seems unencyclopaedic as a description.
- What did Columbia do to upset the winners of the team time trial, and who were they anyway? Yes, I know what the article is meant to mean, but in UK English at least, this is the question raised by wound up. Keep the formal tone: were/finished as/became/ended the day as/etc etc.
- Changed, but I have to ask, are WP:CYC articles meant to be written in British English? I'm actually not terribly opposed to that, but it would mean a lot of coming after me to clean up my "kilometer"s and "November 2"s and surely countless other phrases of which I'm not even aware. As I think I can safely say I'm the most prodigious prose writer in our Project, what I write will often "grate on" your sensibilities just as what you would write might grate on mine. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, nobody has said that cycling articles should be in UK English, but wp:Engvar suggests version neutral language wherever possible. Of course users of one dialect will not always be aware of the effect of their words on the users of another: that is why we seek to work together. Kevin McE (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- stage 3 to, not in, Valdobbiadene
- Will all readers know that "the Manx sprinter" refers to Cavendish? Is the word Manx a familiar one at all outside the UK?
- I'd think so, unless we're trying to be accessible to people who don't read English very well. He's the subject of the sentence, and the only other rider named in prose to that point is Petacchi, who is described as Cavendish's rival. Seems clear to me (but, of course it does, I wrote it). And "Manx" is certainly familiar to someone outside the UK ;) Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume that that is the agreed, accessibility approved version of Columbia-HTC, and LPR Brakes-Farini: it looks to me more as though it is separating two concepts instead of joining them.
- The next day, he claimed the jersey, when he was second to stage winner Denis Menchov at Alpe di Siusi and an elite group of favorites emerged.: first comma definitely unnecessary, second one arguably also redundant. It would be good to make a second sentence here, to say who comprised this elite group of contenders.
- In the following para, the sentence beginning There he claimed a convincing... does not need a comma after the first word.
- nearly two minutes back of him : is that English? nearly two minutes behind him" seems infinitely preferable to me.
- King of the mountains points are won at passes that are not stage finishes: that is not the impression given by the sentence about Garzelli's win. Very few roads, and therefore few races, go to the summit of a mountain.
- Probably a revision would help, but points are won on summit stage finishes. Garzelli was second to Blockhaus, and got 10 mountains points for it - [13]. Garzelli was in the top five (points for the top five) for four of the six summit finishes. That along with the breakaway over Sestrière and having the best time at the intermediate time checks that came at the tops of the climbs in the Cinque Terre time trial is what won him the jersey. It's not as off as you're indicating. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 23:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, points are not won on mountain summits, because civil engineers build roads that follow the easiest route, which means they go through cols and passes, not over peaks. Kevin McE (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it truly unclear that "summit stage finish" means "a stage finish that ends on a mountain climb" and not "the very tippy tip top of the mountain" ? If so, please revise, because I don't see it. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stage 9: a protest of...: in UK English, at least, protests are at, about or against something, but never of...
- I'll never claim to be able to write UK English :P Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 23:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick Step's Seeldraeyers winning the white jersey, Garzelli of Acqua & Sapone winning the green jersey, and Astana winning the Trofeo Fast Team made it eleven teams coming away with a significant prize. Several gerunds as the subject of an informally phrased verb doesn't have the right tone for an encyclopaedia: maybe With wins for Quick Step's Seeldraeyers in the youth classification, Garzelli of Acqua & Sapone in the climbers' competition, and Astana in the Trofeo Fast Team ranking, eleven teams won significant prizes during the race.
- Should the description of the various competitions not precede the description of their outcomes?
- Di Luca was announced to have given two positive tests: jars on UK ears: is this the correct construction in US English? Can a more version neutral phrasing be found?
- I don't see the problem with it (but, I wouldn't, I wrote it). Do you suggest an alternative? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we give dates or stage numbers rather than the description of the stages on which Di Luca returned dodgy tests?
- Dates may be suitable, but I think it's more significant to describe that the tests came before two of the Giro's hardest stages rather than just "Stage 12" and "Stage 19." Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There were also two classifications for teams: plural.
- "The first is the Trofeo Fast Team. In this classification, the times of the best three cyclists per team on each stage are added,..."
- Surely the description of the non-jersey awards should immediately follow the statement that they exist, rather than about 5 screen-lengths farther down the page. The team awards are non-jersey awards.
- Yeah, order of information has been a bit confounding for me the whole time I've been revising this article. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've finally got it in a logical order, with minor classifications under the jersey table, but should references 33 and 65 be repeated like they are right now, or would one instance of both at the end of the section suffice? They are consistently used to reference the explanations of each classification and then its winner. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 05:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, order of information has been a bit confounding for me the whole time I've been revising this article. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO, the usual bullet list is a far clearer way of listing the "reserve" jersey wearers. Even if the current prose remains, the sentence Each of the first eleven podium presentations awarded multiple jerseys to a particular rider is far from clear. Suggest appending "Such a situation occured after each of the first 11 stages." to the previous paragraph.
- I'm more than happy to go back to it if it's preferred, but I thought bulleted lists were meant to be avoided like the plague. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 23:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence on the Trofeo Fuga Cervelo needs to be re-written in a past tense.
I don't know if anyone else shares these views. Kevin McE (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by EdgeNavidad
- In the "Final standings" tables, the winner's row is boldfaced. Although I have seen this in many tables in Wikipedia, I have not seen it in a FA-article, nor can I find justification for this in the MoS. What about this?--EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text comments by Eubulides
Alt text is done; thanks. Images have alt text (thanks) but the alt text needs some work.
A couple of the phrases are not verifiable by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and need to be removed or moved to caption as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. These phrases are "various cycling teams in the race be publicly presented", and the word "team" in "preparation to start a team race",- I had a really hard time doing alt text for that image. Do you suggest an alternative? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For File:TeamsPresentationsGiro2009Venice.jpg, how about replacing "the various cycling teams in the race be" with "a cycling team be"? A non-expert can tell from the image that one cycling team is being presented, not that multiple teams are being presented; also, a non-expert can't tell from the image that the team is in the race. For File:Venice, lido, stage-1, giro, italy 050.jpg, how about replacing "a team race" with "a race"? A non-expert can't tell from the image that it's a team race as opposed to being an individual race.Eubulides (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done, though I don't know how nine riders together in the start house could be seen as for an individual race. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. (As a certified non-expert in bicycling, I can testify that I didn't know that the image had to be that of a team race....) Eubulides (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, though I don't know how nine riders together in the start house could be seen as for an individual race. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a really hard time doing alt text for that image. Do you suggest an alternative? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead map's alt text doesn't describe the gist of the map well. It shouldn't contain irrelevant detail like the color used in the map legend; instead, it should briefly say where the path goes (out of Italy, for example; or down past Naples) and should say that the path is interrupted. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for a guideline on this.- I'm having trouble with this one, too. How much knowledge of Italian geography should the alt text assume? Map of a boot-shaped country... obviously seems absurd, but Map of Italy showing the path of the race, going counter-clockwise from Venice and through Austria and Switzerland to finish in Rome seems to be assuming an awful lot. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 00:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The goal is to help the visually impaired reader, who can be assumed to have a bit of knowledge of Italy (and if you say, "across the border into Switzerland" can be assumed to be intelligent enough to deduce that Italy borders Switzerland, even if they didn't know it already). The alt text you substituted is OK
, though I wish it'd mention that the path has gaps (non-experts won't know this) and that it goes as far south as Naples before ending in Rome.Eubulides (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Map of Italy showing the path of the race, going counter-clockwise from Venice and crossing the border to pass through Austria and Switzerland, reaching Naples in the south of Italy before finishing in Rome ? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that looks great. Eubulides (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Map of Italy showing the path of the race, going counter-clockwise from Venice and crossing the border to pass through Austria and Switzerland, reaching Naples in the south of Italy before finishing in Rome ? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The goal is to help the visually impaired reader, who can be assumed to have a bit of knowledge of Italy (and if you say, "across the border into Switzerland" can be assumed to be intelligent enough to deduce that Italy borders Switzerland, even if they didn't know it already). The alt text you substituted is OK
- I'm having trouble with this one, too. How much knowledge of Italian geography should the alt text assume? Map of a boot-shaped country... obviously seems absurd, but Map of Italy showing the path of the race, going counter-clockwise from Venice and through Austria and Switzerland to finish in Rome seems to be assuming an awful lot. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 00:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image File:Jersey pink.svg has the alt text "Menchov was awarded the final pink jersey as general classification winner", but that alt text doesn't describe the image (which is of a pink jersey). There are ten instances of this sort of thing. Each should have a textual description as well as the jersey, e.g., "[[Image:Jersey pink.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] pink jersey
" → " pink jersey", or alt text that simply describes the image, e.g., "[[Image:Jersey pink.svg|20px|alt=Pink jersey]]
" → "".- Done, but I'll raise why this was done in the first place. In our own discussions of setting up style guidelines for various types of pages (which, by the way, we need to get back to someday), it came up that just putting the jersey icon there doesn't explain what it's for. That's why the alt text came in. Do you think this is still a concern, or should those icons maybe just be eliminated altogether (I'm starting to feel that way). Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 00:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a legend, which I made during the WP:FL upgrade of List of teams and cyclists in the 2009 Giro d'Italia, which should solve the problem for this article. Since we first now fully understand the concept of "alt text", we should maybe consider implementing the legend I made last year (shown in the bottom of this discussion) to the stage articles? lil2mas (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The legend is an improvement (thanks) and I think it's good enough. There may be ways to further improve it but that's beyond the scope of this article review. Eubulides (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a legend, which I made during the WP:FL upgrade of List of teams and cyclists in the 2009 Giro d'Italia, which should solve the problem for this article. Since we first now fully understand the concept of "alt text", we should maybe consider implementing the legend I made last year (shown in the bottom of this discussion) to the stage articles? lil2mas (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, but I'll raise why this was done in the first place. In our own discussions of setting up style guidelines for various types of pages (which, by the way, we need to get back to someday), it came up that just putting the jersey icon there doesn't explain what it's for. That's why the alt text came in. Do you think this is still a concern, or should those icons maybe just be eliminated altogether (I'm starting to feel that way). Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 00:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The alt text tool (at upper right of this review page) reports three usages of File:History.gif that have the alt text "image page". Please fix these images to use empty "|link=
|alt=
" instead, as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. You may have to track down which template is generating that.- Done...I think. I have to admit being a little confused by this. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It confused me too! I had no idea where which template that image was coming from. Anyway, thanks for fixing it. Eubulides (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done...I think. I have to admit being a little confused by this. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eubulides (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference- Two deadlinks in the link checker tool.
- "Bertagnolli shrugs off heat" is available plenty of other places
, but I only found "Giro stage turns into farce" here. Is that okay?The Google cache of Universal Sports' page is still available - is that okay? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- "Canada.com" edits out the relevant text I used as a reference (Pozzato's words). Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Found it here. I have no clue what "stuff.co.nz" is, though. Does that take precedence or does Reuters when thinking of RS? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reuters would be more reliable, and the google cache of Universal is fine. (Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been sick.) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stuff.co.nz is a production of Fairfax New Zealand, which I used in the citations. Should I just use the google cache from Universal Sports instead? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reuters would be more reliable, and the google cache of Universal is fine. (Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been sick.) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Found it here. I have no clue what "stuff.co.nz" is, though. Does that take precedence or does Reuters when thinking of RS? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Canada.com" edits out the relevant text I used as a reference (Pozzato's words). Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bertagnolli shrugs off heat" is available plenty of other places
Newspapers/magazine titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper- Ugh. I hate wading through these templates. I'll give it a shot. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes http://www.dailypeloton.com/ a reliable source?
- Likewise http://www.steephill.tv/2009/giro-d-italia/previews-results/stage-16/?
- They are independent of the race or anyone running it, and consistently provide content on the world of cycling. Steephill frequently culls other sources (such as cyclingnews, which is used in the article extensively, and velonews, which is used occasionally). Steephill is likely replaceable,
particularlyand will be unnecessary if we nix mentioning that 10 and 16 were both called the queen stage, as Kevin suggested. Dailypeloton is the only source I found detailing the sprinters in the Giro; I'll see if it's replaceable (if it needs to be). So these two sources are definitely highly specialized (I can't cite the New York Times every time :P ) but I think they're fair to use. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are independent of the race or anyone running it, and consistently provide content on the world of cycling. Steephill frequently culls other sources (such as cyclingnews, which is used in the article extensively, and velonews, which is used occasionally). Steephill is likely replaceable,
- I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit afraid of this failing because of inactivity (nobody's said anything here for three days). Is there more that needs to be done, or is the article just hopeless? Please let me know what more I can do. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 00:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Giro d Italia 2009.png - Please add a source for this diagram to the image description page.- Well, it was made by User:NielsB at Commons. Do you mean something like this as a source, because I'm sure that was NielsB's source.
- That would be a fine source. Awadewit (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it was made by User:NielsB at Commons. Do you mean something like this as a source, because I'm sure that was NielsB's source.
File:Denis Menchov 2.jpg - I can't find the license for the original image. Could you point me to it? Thanks.- Eep. It reportedly was put into the public domain by the Liberty Seguros team, a claim which is supported by a long-dead link to the official page of a long-defunct team. All it's used for is a glamor shot of Menchov, so I'll look for a replacement. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 06:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible replacement. Would ALT text for this image need to describe the partly-visible individual wearing a pink shirt and glasses with his right arm around Menchov? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 06:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't speak to the alt text, but I'm curious where at the source it releases the image under CC-by-SA 2.1 license. Can you point me to that? I don't speak Spanish, so it is a bit difficult for me to browse the site. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know the licensing terms terribly well in English, much less Spanish, but this seems pretty boilerplate. "Feel free *to copy, distribute, and publicly post our work. *to make derivative works. *to make commercial use (?) of our work on the internet" "Under the following conditions *Recognition: You must recognize and cite us as authors, and in the case of a web page, link to the original URL. *Share under the same license: If you alter or transform our work, or if you create a derivative work, you may only distribute it under a license identical to this one." "With the following particular cases 1. This license is not applicable to content published by 20minutos coming from the following third-party sources: Text, graphics, information and images that come signed by or attributed to Agencias, Reuters, Efe, Europa Press, Korpa, Atlas, France Press, AP, Lanetro, Meteotemp, TPI, J.M. Nieto or Jorge París. 2. The drawings of Eneko, Humberto and Calpurnio in their 20minutos comic strips cannot be reproduced with commercial intention." Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - the above indicates that the license does not apply to "J.M." - do you think that applies to the author the replacement photo, Javier Morales or is J.M. something else? Awadewit (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it refers to "J.M. Nieto" actually. Per these search results, he appears to be a cartoonist. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah...I'm almost positive it refers to the author of this. So the Menchov picture should be free and clear. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 04:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - the above indicates that the license does not apply to "J.M." - do you think that applies to the author the replacement photo, Javier Morales or is J.M. something else? Awadewit (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know the licensing terms terribly well in English, much less Spanish, but this seems pretty boilerplate. "Feel free *to copy, distribute, and publicly post our work. *to make derivative works. *to make commercial use (?) of our work on the internet" "Under the following conditions *Recognition: You must recognize and cite us as authors, and in the case of a web page, link to the original URL. *Share under the same license: If you alter or transform our work, or if you create a derivative work, you may only distribute it under a license identical to this one." "With the following particular cases 1. This license is not applicable to content published by 20minutos coming from the following third-party sources: Text, graphics, information and images that come signed by or attributed to Agencias, Reuters, Efe, Europa Press, Korpa, Atlas, France Press, AP, Lanetro, Meteotemp, TPI, J.M. Nieto or Jorge París. 2. The drawings of Eneko, Humberto and Calpurnio in their 20minutos comic strips cannot be reproduced with commercial intention." Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't speak to the alt text, but I'm curious where at the source it releases the image under CC-by-SA 2.1 license. Can you point me to that? I don't speak Spanish, so it is a bit difficult for me to browse the site. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are small issues, easily resolved. Awadewit (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – First couple of sections read pretty well to me, but I was left with one question at first. Initially I was unsure whether Di Luca's finish would hold up even after his failed drug tests, but one of the footnotes covers it. Would it be possible to briefly mention this in the body, so that other readers won't have the same confusion I did? Another thing I just saw on a quick glance is that reference 8 shouldn't have "FUJI-SERVETTO" in all caps. Hopefully I'll get a chance to do a proper review at some point. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The formatting of this article doesn't work. To see the problem you need to view it on a wide shallow screen. The pic of the presentation of teams is being pushed down by the large info box. This causes orphaning of text. Amandajm (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you do a screen capture and show it? What do you suggest to resolve the problem? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 23:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just moved the pic down to the routes and stages paragraph. It's fine there. Amandajm (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. I'm still curious what the problem was, because on my screen the picture was a good three or four inches from the infobox, and it's usually me finding elements that collide because of my screen size. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 00:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is something of an undue weight issue in the section about the jerseys in contrast to the main race description/evolution. I don't believe that the mentions of the second guy wearing a jersey because of the multiple holdings are as important as some more discussion of the changes in the top few guys, who are not there. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 04:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand what you think is missing. I understand the thought that the reserve wearers don't bear mentioning (I disagree, but I understand). What exactly is this "some more discussion" you'd like to see? Every transition of the pink jersey is mentioned, as is every other transition involving someone who held a jersey for more than a day. Is this what you think is missing, mentions of García, Facci, and Farrar as classification leaders? I, again, disagree, but would love to see others' opinions. Even if something about them were to be included, it would only comprise maybe one further paragraph. The article is only 18K of prose, so we're hardly at an either/or point. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 05:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:32, 2 December 2009 [14].
Cato June
- Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because. This is a very complete and detailed biographical account and it is worthy of consideration for FA.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical comments
- No dab links, and all images have alt text with no obvious errors.
- Cite date formats are consistent ISO-style.
- The external links appear fine, except:
- Ref 22 comes up as a not-found page and I couldn't find an archive after checking archive.org, WebCite, and several search engines. :(
- If I remove the ref, it becomes a fact without a citation. Must I remove this fact if I can not find a citation or is it believable enough in context that it can slip by in this extremely well-cited article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would've just left it as is, with a {{dead link}} tag right before or right after the {{cite ___}} or {{citation}} tag. Something good is bound to happen—in New Cutie Honey, lots of links suddenly went "dead" for me, only to be found somewhere else on their site or to have just been "asleep" for a time. --an odd name 00:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought a {{dead link}} disqualified a WP:FAC. I know it is not asleep because the university has moved all that content to a new host server. I think only current player bios got moved and old bios got tossed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll let others resolve the issue then. :) --an odd name 01:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought a {{dead link}} disqualified a WP:FAC. I know it is not asleep because the university has moved all that content to a new host server. I think only current player bios got moved and old bios got tossed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would've just left it as is, with a {{dead link}} tag right before or right after the {{cite ___}} or {{citation}} tag. Something good is bound to happen—in New Cutie Honey, lots of links suddenly went "dead" for me, only to be found somewhere else on their site or to have just been "asleep" for a time. --an odd name 00:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a way to provide a reference using the google results of the following search term: site:mgoblue.com "Cato June" "triple jump"?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I remove the ref, it becomes a fact without a citation. Must I remove this fact if I can not find a citation or is it believable enough in context that it can slip by in this extremely well-cited article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the newsbank links (and there's a lot) appear green or blue at the link checker (probably because they're subscription or whatever). They seem fine from a random glance, but review them if you want to be sure.
- Ref 22 comes up as a not-found page and I couldn't find an archive after checking archive.org, WebCite, and several search engines. :(
--an odd name 23:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm ready to support based on everything else but experienced this as well. Connection times out on the tool so I started going through by hand and received several "Headline cannot be found" errors. Some of these were sources I remember looking at so I hit reload and it popped up just fine. It looks like an error on their end but I am not sure. Has anyone experienced something like this? I'm under the impression that we don't need to use only online sources but since they appear to work most of the time it is nice to have them.Cptnono (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just tried the tool too and got numerous "Connnection timeout" response errors as well. Not sure what is going on. Will check in a few hours.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just tried the tool with the Justin Boren article, half of which was created from links accessed earlier this morning, and had the same issue. Maybe a server is down at newsbank. Let's give them some time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The server seems to be back up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I have read through the article as the GA reviewer, and have also read through most of the references to make sure that they matched up with the text of the article. There is great detail, needless to say, in the article, and I do think this represents Wikipedia's best work. Wizardman 20:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I took the liberty of doing a few small formatting tweaks. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments – Quite a few little prose issues that I picked up on in the early part of the article. The lead looks okay, but the body could use a fresh pair of eyes. If I can ever find some time, maybe I could provide them. Can't promise anything, though.
Not sure about the two Super Bowl XLI links in the lead.Dropping to the references for a second, I see a red link in ref 148. I discovered that there is a Key West Citizen article here; just drop "The" from the publisher title or pipe the link, and the red will be gone.Early years: found a long, winding sentence that verges on a run-on: "As a sophomore, on Thanksgiving Day in the District of Columbia Interscholastic Athletic Association championship game, known as the Turkey Bowl... (keeps going for a while after this)."That season he earned a selection to by The Washington Post's...".- Good catch.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comma after "June fumbled on the 1-yard-line in the fourth quarter".- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the football team would deal with the adversity of D.C. school crisis". Should it be "a D.C. school crisis"?"During the championship game, June scored the touchdown that gave Anacostia its only lead at 8–6. However, in the championship game". Honestly, I feel the last four words can be dropped. It's already clear this is about the title game, and the language is only repeating itself."He visited Florida in Mid-January 1998." De-capitalize Mid."He was part of a recruiting class for the Heisman Trophy-winning Charles Woodson-led undefeated national champion Wolverines that was ranked as the best in the nation." The opening part strikes me as convoluted, especially considering that Woodson had left for the NFL by the time of June's redshirt freshman season.- Removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comma after Drew Henson.- Not sure about this one, but I will go with your advice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
College career: "June played college football at the University of Michigan, where switched from cornerback...". Missing word after the comma.De-capitalize Winner later in the same sentence.Giants2008 (17–14) 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just quickly adding one thing I found while editing one of the sections: I couldn't figure out whether June's fourth-most tackles in 2001 referred to all of Division I-A or just his conference. That was somewhat unclear as I read it.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- That paragraph is pretty detailed. Feel free to edit it. He was only fourth on his team.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing I found while cleaning the prose a bit: "They were known for having Madden 2003 for Playstation in an apartment known as 'The Stadium'." Having what? Tournaments? Sessions? Without access to the source(s), I can't add the appropriate word in.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- What are you saying is in need of fixing. Madden 2003 was the name of a video game and playstation is a platform. I added ", where competition among football team members often occurred". Not sure if this addresses your concern.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you click on the refs to see the sources?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't have a Newsbank subscription. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to use public permalinks. Are there refs that you have been unable to open.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Turns out that I can read the references for free. Who knew? I tweaked this sentence a bit, and corrected the system in the process. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to use public permalinks. Are there refs that you have been unable to open.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't have a Newsbank subscription. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That paragraph is pretty detailed. Feel free to edit it. He was only fourth on his team.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "June was born in Riverside, California.....?" What country? Don't expect every reader on the planet to know what country a state is in. Amandajm (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed the text, but the infobox uses some code that makes it impossible.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support More comments Everything below has been addressed. This is a thorough and complete treatment of the subject. Nice work. Cptnono (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Muskogee being part of the Great Plains might be disputed. The source says "Oklahoma plains" and definitions of where the Great Plains start differs. Not a big concern but something to keep in mind.- Based on my basic understanding of the term we are not far off, although strict interpretation of the map in the link belies the statement. I will leave it and let locals fight about it who might know unless you upgrade this to a big concern.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"barren field" Dirt? bad grass? divots?- What is the question?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Anacostia's field was a barren, rugged prairie known by players across the city as the 'dust bowl.'" It can't tell if the source is saying patchy grass, dirt, or whatever. "Poor" might be a good replacement since "barren" raises questions and isn't usually associated with sports fields.- I have quoted the source to leave out interpretation isssues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the question?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"As a high schooler with aspirations of making a mark in the NFL like Deion Sanders, he left his mark by writing "Big Time 1" on things whenever the opportunity arose" Is " like Deion Sanders" needed in the line?- I was inferring from the end of sentence ref that he viewed Sanders as his role model. Is this too much of a stretch from the source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source mentions the poster. This borders on assuming and it doesn't seem necessary for this particular line.- Revised to use less inference and let the reader decide.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was inferring from the end of sentence ref that he viewed Sanders as his role model. Is this too much of a stretch from the source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Washington "Huskes" to "Huskies"- O.K. done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In his senior season, June was noted for his individual effort to stop a bootleg play against Notre Dame on September 14" Who noted/why noted?- The source says "After a great individual effort by Michigan safety Cato June to stop a bootleg by Notre Dame quarterback Carlyle Holiday with just over two minutes to play, the Wolverines got the ball back down 25-23 at their own 30-yard line."
- Revised as "In his senior season, one of June's notable performances was his individual effort to stop a bootleg play against Notre Dame on September 14, which forced a change of possession to give Michigan the ball with just over two minutes remaining."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink "American Football Conference Championship Game"?"...when the Colts got to..." "Got" is typically seen in simple English. Any alternative?- Changed to arrived at.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wikilink "Bye (sports)"The images in the Tampa Bay section pinch the text. Consider moving the second image down a paragraph.It could be argued that the "June's first regular season interception..." image should be moved to the right so that the eyes are facing the text but I believe keeping chronological order and staggering them is more important so I would keep it on the left as is.- Image moved down.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wikilink passing down- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider breaking "June made his first interception, which led to a touchdown scoring drive, during his second game as a Buccaneer, which was a 31–14 victory against the New Orleans Saints" into two separate sentences.Consider striking "Cato is a family name;" and relying on "The name is of Nigerian origin and goes back for generations in his family."- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"goes goes" type-o- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "
In college, June and Hobson were roommates. They were known for having Madden 2003 for Playstation in an apartment known as "The Stadium". Interesting stuff right there. Add a line of detail?- What are you asking me to add?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking but see below
- What are you asking me to add?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Boxing training workouts" This almost reads like familiar title or phrase but it isn't common. Consider adjusting "Boxing training during/style workouts "workouts that consist of boxing."- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could tie this into the paragraph by mentioning his other NFL buddies (seems to be the theme of the paragraph)- Not sure what you mean.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph seems to bee a few rabdom facts thrown in together. It is all interesting stuff but it needs an introductory line or tweaking to explain how individual facts are related. "Off the field..." or something cute like that.
- Not sure what you mean.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does the "‹See Tfd›" tag need to be visible to the reader?- That is a notice that will be visible while the TFD discussion is going on. It may last up to a week although I could easily see a WP:SNOW closing of the debate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"When June was a member of the Buccaneers and the Colts had their Super Bowl ring ceremony, June flew to Indianapolis and back without missing any practice."Source might be dead (I'm having connection issues so can not verify).Are you trying to say that he has a good work ethic? This could use a quick line explaining its relevance.- I think I have fixed the link. It just seemed like an interesting fact. Not sure what to add. Suggestion?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Bucs defensive coordinator Monte Kiffin said. 'Cato got his ring and then showed up here in time. That's how dedicated he is. He's a Buccaneer. He fits right in, plays with a lot of enthusiasm and loves football. He could have had an attitude, but he was very respectful of our veterans.'" - Maybe move this out of personal and into the Bucs section. He is a dedicated player is probably the most relevent peice of info to use. Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have fixed the link. It just seemed like an interesting fact. Not sure what to add. Suggestion?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on getting the infobox perfect per the template's parameters. I am impressed that you were able to provide such in depth info from his youth. Nice workCptnono (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do a lot of U of Michigan and Chicago area athletes and have trolled through a lot of newspaper archives to do so. For most guys who went to high school in the last ten or twenty years this kind of detail is easy to find with the source I use. I tend to do athletes off the beaten path. I have not taken on athletes that are surefire HOF or anything where reviewing all their newspaper articles would be impossible. Since I do athletes where you can read every newspaper article, starting with the first one I can find is pretty easy. For Evan Turner, I was even able to find a youth league source and for Tate Forcier, I found stuff from his midget days. I am still looking for someone who wants to help me overhaul Rob Pelinka. If you want to do a co-nom, I would love some help overhauling his article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of papers you go through is apparent with all of the facts you have provided. It is a thorough and complete treatment of the subject. I made a second pass through and saw need for some minor clean up. Consider the notes below and make any needed corrections. I expect that I will be popping in later tonight or tomorrow to support this nomination. The other article looks like fun so I will check it out, too.
It mentions that he was a sophomore twice in the opening Early life paragraph. Is that needed?Is "$81,490 in current dollar terms" in the second paragraph of Early life up to date?- I believe the template is updated regularly by someone.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like it could be broken up and is too much info for one sentence: "He was selected as The Washington Post All-Met Defensive Player of the Year and USA Today District of Columbia Player of the Year and Second-team All-USA for not yielding a touchdown all season and collecting five interceptions (two for touchdowns), 84 solo tackles, 39 assists in addition to his offensive statistics, which included 889 yards and 12 touchdowns."2 concerns in the later paragraph discussing his senior year of high school:"June was also honored by the The Pigskin Club of Washington, D.C" should come before the basketball mention."He was a starting small forward on the three-time DCIAA championship basketball team." Should be moved to the next paragraph that discusses other sports he played his senior year.
"June graduated as salutatorian." Should this be moved up a paragraph along the other scholastic achievements? Alternately, it could stay as it is to close out the section.- I like it where it is to close out the section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"At Michigan, defensive back June's head coach, Lloyd Carr, was a former defensive backs coach." This could cause confusion with him being a defensive back and the possessive being coupled. Wikilinks might be helpful for people who don't understand the structure. Maybe "As a defensive back at Michigan, June's head coach was the former coach for the position" or some other light rewording?"Although a total of nine starters were lost, June was a welcome addition to a lineup with eight returning defensive starters" (third paragraph of College section) could be read as contrasting the loss of 9 starters and him being a welcome addition instead of losing nine starters but keeping 8 others. Consider reworking to remove the "Although".- Reworded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"and losing who Marcus Washington" in the second paragraph of Indianapolis Colts. "who" and "Marcus Washington" need to be swapped.- Good eye.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"June recorded two more interceptions, one of which changed the momentum of the game because quarterback Marc Bulger was injured trying to chase June, and both of which led to touchdowns as the Colts beat the St. Louis Rams 17–0." Consider separating this into two sentences. "...trying to chase June. Both interceptions led to.."The first Tampa Bay image does not need a period in the caption from my understanding of Wikipedia:Captions. It is an extended nominal group not a sentence.- It is a complete sentence. If signs were signing it would be unnecessary. Would you prefer that the caption was changed?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Over the course of the 2007 season June and Brooks divided up time at linebacker during nickel defense coverage." 3rd paragraph in the Tampa Bay section. Simply "divided is OK and "up" can be removed.
Cptnono (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Current ref 206 is a deadlink. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing commentsaddressed —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC) - Ealdgyth hasn't commented on this FAC, so I'll help her out :-)[reply]- Current ref 118 ("Bettis, Jerome and Gene Wojciechowski (September 2007). The Bus: My Life in and out of a Helmet. Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-385-52061-4. Retrieved 2009-07-26.") needs a page number for where it appears in the book. The style also must be consistent with the other citations, ie something like this: Bettis, Jerome; Wojciechowski, Gene (2007-09). The Bus: My Life in and out of a Helmet. Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-385-52061-4.
- Again not sure what you want. I noted the secondary source so that it is clear why the original page number is not available.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Na, on further reflection a page number isn't needed with the link. Fixed this [15] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again not sure what you want. I noted the secondary source so that it is clear why the original page number is not available.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Current ref 210 ("Cato June". buccaneers.com. Retrieved 2009-08-10.") needs full publishing information, etc. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly sure what you want. I changed Buccaneers.com to Tampa Bay Buccaneers. added year 2009.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, that's what I wanted. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly sure what you want. I changed Buccaneers.com to Tampa Bay Buccaneers. added year 2009.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Current ref 118 ("Bettis, Jerome and Gene Wojciechowski (September 2007). The Bus: My Life in and out of a Helmet. Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-385-52061-4. Retrieved 2009-07-26.") needs a page number for where it appears in the book. The style also must be consistent with the other citations, ie something like this: Bettis, Jerome; Wojciechowski, Gene (2007-09). The Bus: My Life in and out of a Helmet. Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-385-52061-4.
- Why are the two images so tiny? Please see MoS on images for how to upsize them. I'd be looking at 250px for that kind of detail.
- They were set for defualt sizing for each user's preferences. However, I will switch the action photo to 250 px. I am not so sure that the image of him autographing really needs to be resized. If you would prefer that one resized as well, I will accommodate that wish.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's very heavily linked throughout, especially at the top. I'd audit the links and remove anything not absolutely necessary ... like "free agent", "college football", "Washington D.C." (where's that? and a moment later, "District of Columbia" is linked ... very similar), "California" (who would click on that link?), "class president". And really, I think you could drop the four links here: "high school football, basketball, track and field and baseball". There are plenty of valuable links already. Tony (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the average sports fan knows what a free agent is, do you really think the average main page reader does. Still looking at other links. Will get to some more today.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have attempted to address your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – After a prose review/cleanup, I'm confident that this is OK on 1a grounds. Sourcing also appears fine; I scanned through all of them and there are none that I would question. Technical stuff has checked out already and photos are fine, and I can't argue that this isn't comprehensive. All in all, FA criteria all appear to be met. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Much of this —I am sorry to say—is completely unintelligible to me and I suspect other readers who are not fans or know little to nothing about the sport because we live outside the US. OK, I expect to become lost with regard to the esoteric aspects of the game, but can we at least make the Lead a little more accessible? This for example, " A Pro Bowl selection in 2006, June earned a Super Bowl ring with the Colts in Super Bowl XLI, as the team's leading tackler for the season" is gibberish to me. What on earth does this mean? Does it mean, "following a selection", I can understand Russian better than this. I am resigned to become completely lost in the Body of the article, but at least make an effort to make the Lead more understandable. He sounds like a great guy, but I would not be able to tell anyone in the UK why after reading this. Please—because clearly you are passionate—you have to say, at least in the Lead, why the subject warrants a Wikipedia Featured Article. PS don't shoot the Brits . Graham Colm Talk 21:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At first, I couldn't understand Graham's confusion (speaking US football), but upon closer examination, I see the problems. He didn't earn a Super Bowl ring as the team's leading tackler; he earned it because his team won the Super Bowl that year. And he may have gotten the Pro Bowl selection because he was the leading tackler, but we aren't told that. In fact, we aren't even told what year Super Bowl XLI was, so we don't know if these events are related at all. The sentence is more than a jargon issue; it mixes unrelated thoughts. This suggests the entire text needs to be gone through by a non-US football person for clarity. Also, the lead says he is "currently" a free agent, which breaches WP:MOSDATE#Precise language and should have a year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am just landing from a Thanksgiving (United States) trip. I will have to take a closer look at this later tonight. However, the sentence seems to be fairly grammatical although jargony. Here is my take on the complaint. I believe the grammatical construction of "A Pro Bowl selection in 2006, June" is that of an appositive. I.E., the sentence "June was a Pro Bowl selection in 2006." is being reconstructed so that the object modifies the subject of another sentence ("June earned a Super Bowl ring with the Colts in Super Bowl XLI, as the team's leading tackler for the season"). I will look more closely at the rest later tonight.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I restructured the beginning of the sentence to eliminate a preposition, but need to examine the end of the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I were to distill Cato June's notability down to any two sentences in the article it would be the two you two have derided. I.E., "Cato Nnamdi June (born November 18, 1979 in Riverside, California, United States) is an American football linebacker who is currently a free agent. . .A 2006 Pro Bowl selection, June earned a Super Bowl ring with the Colts in Super Bowl XLI, as the team's leading tackler for the season." essentially tells you everything you need to know about who he is to understand his importance. Any American sports fan immediately knows his exact notability with these two sentences. The first sentence says he is a currently-active athlete who is unaffiliated with any team. The second sentence describes his two most important points of notability, which are that he is a former Pro Bowler and a player who led a Super Bowl Champion in tackles for a season. In terms of establishing his notability it is not relevant whether he did these in the same year, but I will examine rewriting for clarity. Give me a few minutes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This sentence does not violate WP:MOSDATE#Precise language because National Football League player pages are updated very quickly for team affiliation. As soon as he signs with another team, his team affiliation will reflect as much.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to rework "as the team's leading tackler for the season", which is malplaced to modify Super Bowl XLI.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (copied from User talk page) GrahamColm, I have read your comments on Cato June. You have essentially asked me to explain why he is sufficiently WP:N to be a deserving subject of a WP:FA. Although I do not believe any page that is sufficiently WP:N to be on WP, needs further notability to be deserving of a FA, the problem here lies with you not understanding the subject. A person who does not understand the significance of being a Pro Bowler or a Super Bowl champion's leading tackler should seriously consider whether they even voice a deciding opinion on the matter. I would not voice an opinion on a singer if I did not understand the meaning of platinum albums and grammy awards, for example.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see some changes, but there are still problems. (TTT, please do not badger opposers as you did above; the article has to be understandable to everyone. GrahamColm may not know US football, but I do, and I can't get past the first paragraph.)
- Cato Nnamdi June (born November 18, 1979 in Riverside, California, United States) is an American football linebacker who is currently a free agent. ... A 2006 Pro Bowl selection, June earned a Super Bowl ring the following season with the Colts in Super Bowl XLI. During the Super Bowl championship season, June was the Colts' leading tackler.
- This is better, but we still need an as of date on the free agency, and "earned a Super Bowl ring" is unnecessary jargon; you need to tell the audience that means his team won the Super Bowl. This is the first paragraph only; I'm concerned the entire article needs a thorough look. Strangely, although the as of date is missing from the lead, the reader is entertained with every single irrelevant date in his college football career (see WP:PROSELINE, and why is the college career of a Pro Bowler discussed in date-by-date, game-by-game detail?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As of date, not necessary. I can almost guarantee, if a team signs a Pro Bowl linebacker his team affiliation will be changed within 24 hours. Currently, is thus all that is necessary. This is not like the college guys I usually write about that no one else follows. This is the NFL.
- Badgering was not intentional. I wrote my response in parts as I thought about issues. I apologize if this is considered badgering.
- College career, mentions all notable highlights. In a typical 13 game season this means mentioning about three or four games. It is not game-by-game. It is a highlight account. Same for pro career. It only mentions a few games a year that help define his career. I think I only included games that helped the reader develop an understanding of his career history. I would welcome some detailed copyedit assistance with this however. The article has been to WP:PR, but I am willing to make a return visit there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see some changes, but there are still problems. (TTT, please do not badger opposers as you did above; the article has to be understandable to everyone. GrahamColm may not know US football, but I do, and I can't get past the first paragraph.)
- Oppose - I've read one section of this article and I'm not very impressed by it. The article is quite tremendous for a BLP on a relatively obscure football player, and overall I have the feeling that it's way too detailed and presents hundreds of random factoids with no organization. For example, in the Personal section, we have three sentences about the subject's tattoos when they don't really deserve even a mention. In the third paragraph: In college, June and Hobson were roommates. They were known for having sessions of Madden NFL 2003 for PlayStation 2 in an apartment known as "The Stadium", where competition among football team members often occurred. - How is this a notable aspect of June's biography? The fourth paragraph seems to be largely non-notable fluff as well. I glanced through the rest of the article, but was intimidated by the screens upon screens of unbroken, thick, jargon-filled prose that I can't read at all. Finally, there are 227 references, of which all are newspaper entries, which further confirms my suspicion that this article lacks sustenance from major secondary sources. Sorry, but I don't feel this is an example of our best yet. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is unfortunate that you based your entire decision on the least important section of the article without any substantive commentary on the main body of the article. Now both opposes are based on opinions that ignore the main body of the article. Yes the personal section has less organization because by its nature it is a catchall section. It is also unfortunate that you find his video game interest as unnotable, while the United States military disagrees according to the article. However, this is how personal sections work. It includes facts that do not follow the natural chronology of a persons vocation. Yes it mentions tattoos, but I have compiled dozens if not hundreds of biographies and have never encountered as many secondary sources that mention tattoos. Thus, since it our responsibility to summarize secondary sources, I have incorporated some of them in the article. Are you asking that I don't summarize secondary sources, if the emphasis seems peculiar?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask whether you noticed that the United States military considers his video game proclivity notable and did you notice the number of distinct secondary sources that mention his tattoes?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm basing my decision off the feeling I get from reading one section. If I believe a single section falls short of WP:WIAFA, I'm going to assume the rest of the article needs work as well. To sum up my oppose, I feel the article is filled with trivial, insignificant and encyclopedic details that make for a choppy article. I'm sorry I have to object, but I feel this needs quite a bit of work. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The personal section is largely a section of trivia that has risen to an encyclopedic level by virtue of secondary sourcing. Is it possible you could comment on the main body of the article. I can not improve the article if both objections ignore the main body of the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm basing my decision off the feeling I get from reading one section. If I believe a single section falls short of WP:WIAFA, I'm going to assume the rest of the article needs work as well. To sum up my oppose, I feel the article is filled with trivial, insignificant and encyclopedic details that make for a choppy article. I'm sorry I have to object, but I feel this needs quite a bit of work. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)Is sourcing from major newspapers a valid objection? If so almost all of my WP:FAs should be sent to WP:FAR. Please compare the sources here with my other two biographical WP:FAs (Richard Cordray and Tyrone Wheatley)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but an FA should not be written entirely based on newspaper snippets. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, I have previously written two bio FAs almost entirely from newpaper snippets. See the examples given.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Though I'm currently discussing this article. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K., I officially do not understand this point. My last bio FA was written about a year ago. It was almost entirely from newspapers. Are you saying Richard Cordray would fail now because of some new consensus against newspaper sourcing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We're discussing this article. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the abstract, is there a new consensus against newspaper sourcing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read what I said. There's no rule against citing newspapers, but citing exclusively newspapers is not generally a good idea. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the abstract, is there a new consensus against newspaper sourcing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We're discussing this article. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K., I officially do not understand this point. My last bio FA was written about a year ago. It was almost entirely from newspapers. Are you saying Richard Cordray would fail now because of some new consensus against newspaper sourcing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Though I'm currently discussing this article. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, I have previously written two bio FAs almost entirely from newpaper snippets. See the examples given.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but an FA should not be written entirely based on newspaper snippets. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TTT, sorry, if "free agent" is used in a specialist sense here, a link is appropriate. I should have checked out the target, and have just done so. The other issue is that the reader shouldn't have to check out the link target to have a basic understanding of the meaning of the text here, so why not add within commas (or parentheses) on the spot, "(eligible to sign with another franchise)"? I haven't looked at the sentence, too busy in RL for another 48 hours. Then I'm FREEEEE. Tony (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen free agent used like this in at least one hundred WP bios without any explanation beyond the link. Although your suggestion seems unusual, I have incorporated it. This article is probably 48 hours away from failing FA, so I am guessing you will not be able to elaborate on your thoughts in time for me to get your insights to improve its content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can someone tell me why categories where unalphabetized before this FAC closes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:27, 2 December 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 19:19, 29 December 2009 [16].
Qwest Field
- Nominator(s): Cptnono (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is one of the best stadium articles I have seen. Specifically, I like how the balance between construction and different types of events has turned out. I am also happy with the images. With so many edits, I am of course biased and would love any feedback.Cptnono (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will be blaming any mistakes on people working on the page before me ;). This is great: Seeing even more things getting fixed is awesome! (13 edits from three different editors in only a couple of hours. Thanks and nice work.) Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Retart, previous nom, images and dabs cleared. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes http://www.soundersfc.com/media-library/Videos/Features/2009/03-March/090312-Public-Stadium-Authority.aspx a reliable source?
- The Sounders video is almost primary. Made sure not to use fluffy words. The interview (which I can't find reprinted as a transcript anywhere else) is by Tony Ventrella (sportscaster in the area [17]) Current work with HLN (TV channel) and KONG (TV)/KING-TV used to be with KIRO-TV and KCPQ. The guy being interviewed is the Public Stadium Authority chairman. Reformatting ref.
- I'll leave this one in for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Sounders video is almost primary. Made sure not to use fluffy words. The interview (which I can't find reprinted as a transcript anywhere else) is by Tony Ventrella (sportscaster in the area [17]) Current work with HLN (TV channel) and KONG (TV)/KING-TV used to be with KIRO-TV and KCPQ. The guy being interviewed is the Public Stadium Authority chairman. Reformatting ref.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment very close to supporting per my comments on the previous nom. However, while the reference mentioned above is perfectly suitable for uses a and b (non-controversial, relevant and unlikely to be covered by third-party sources), a secondary source should be used for the claim that Qwest Field was the first stadium to use LED signage. WFCforLife (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Surprisingly, I can't find info on the "crown" anywhere else (too boring?). I removed the LED line since it is trivial and a claim not supported by other sources.Cptnono (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, citations need cleanup, see my sample edits. Incorrect use of WP:ITALICS and incorrect names on publishers.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How did they move (once) in two different years, and not play there until the year later?
The Seahawks moved to Husky Stadium during the new stadium's construction in 2000 and 2001. Their first game at the new facility was a 28–10 preseason loss to the Indianapolis Colts on August 11, 2002.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2001 season ended on January 6, 2002. They didn't take the field again until the '02 preseason. I'll add "seasons" to '00 and '01. They moved from the Kingdome so I changed it to "played at".Cptnono (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2001 season ended on January 6, 2002. They didn't take the field again until the '02 preseason. I'll add "seasons" to '00 and '01. They moved from the Kingdome so I changed it to "played at".Cptnono (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A great article. Read the article, and liked what I read. Didn't go over the minutiae of it, but if others who do find that here all is well, then I support the promotion of this article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Supported this before the restart, but I'm concerned about Tony's repeated comments that a third-party copy-edit was needed. Has copy-editing been done yet? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not "independent" as he mentioned.Cptnono (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up: there were two Tonys by the way. I have grabbed everything Tonythetiger has asked for. This is a different (better) article because of him. That initial FAC wasn't supposed to be a peer review so, despite my initial confusion, the restart is not a terrible idea at all. Tony1 has a great background but I question some of what he pointed out. A few of the things were invaluable, though. Besides those two, SandyGeorgia pointed to a few examples which I worked with, Skotywa just pointed out several quick grabs, a bot did a couple caps in reference templates, and there were a couple tweaks by others.Cptnono (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not "independent" as he mentioned.Cptnono (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport - Some things I found as I read the article from start to finish...
The design comprises of two distinctive arched roofs spanning the length of the stadium. - awkward sentence
- "The roof, at 210,000 sq ft (20,000 m2), covers most of the east and west seating sections. In total, 70% of the seats are covered." ?
- I'm not saying rewrite it, I'm saying that "comprises of" is awkward. Would "is comprised of" be better perhaps? --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The roof utilizes a damper system that disconnects it from the support pylons so it is able to slide independently of the structure in the event of an earthquake. - awkward sentence
- I honestly couldn't fugure out a way to write it. One source says it resembles two clamshells but I thought that soundeded silly. I just redid it this way.. Cptnono (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "To minimize damage in the event of an earthquake, the roof utilizes a friction pendulum damper system. This disconnects the roof from the support pylons so it can move independently of the structure." (there is no Wikipeida for this type of damper system so I added the type for an engineering junkies and a simple explanation for the rest of us)
- This just felt like a run-on sentence. No need to rewrite it, just break it up, add some commas, or something.
- I agree. I can remove the type of damper system but I think it is cool info.
This system has been used at the base of small buildings and in some bridges, but this is world’s first use in a large-scale roof. needs to be paraphrased. It appears word-for-word in the source.- Found a wikilink for the previous line and adjusted to "The technology had never been applied to a large-scale roof until construction of the stadium."
Instead of being rounded, the ends of the field were squared to allow be a regulation size. - awkward sentence
- "The lower bowl was constructed to fit a larger pitch."
- "to allow be a regulation size" is awkward. Would "to allow it to be a a regulation size" be what you were going for?
- Ug...grammerer bad. I did mean it to be (do'h). I kind of like the new wording, though. It makes more sense mentioning the construction of the bowl. "The lower bowl was constructed to fit a larger pitch by squaring the ends." Cptnono (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Seahawks' Josh Brown, who has adjusted to the problem, believes other kickers experience problems due to the moisture in the air. - he no longer plays for the Hawks.
- "A former Seahawks' kicker, Josh Brown, had adjusted to the problem. He believed other kickers experienced problems due to the moisture in the air."
- That's better. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Seahawks", "Sounders (USL)", and "Sounders FC" sections should have main article links I think.
- Can't link them in the section headers per MoS but duplicated the wikilinks in the first mention of the sections for better navigation.
- Sorry, when I said "main article links" I meant that {{Main}} or {{Seealso}} should be used just below the section header. If you make that change, then the wikilinks in the prose should be reverted. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 16:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha. Chose "see also" template after reading their descriptions.Cptnono (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha. Chose "see also" template after reading their descriptions.Cptnono (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, when I said "main article links" I meant that {{Main}} or {{Seealso}} should be used just below the section header. If you make that change, then the wikilinks in the prose should be reverted. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 16:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Qwest Field Events Center was built adjacent to the stadium for $44 million. - this is duplicate infromation from earlier in the article
- Removed the second instance.
Commuter rail running between Tacoma and Everett also operates every Sunday Seahawks game with service to nearby King Street Station. - awkward sentence
- Broke it up "Seattle's King Street Station is near the stadium. It is serviced by regional commuter rail. Trains operate on Sundays if the Seahawks have a home game."
- Better. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I've got. Overall, the article is complete in it's coverage of the topic. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 08:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Interesting read, now meets all the criteria. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note A couple editors have gone through recently. Some type-os were grabbed. Images were all right aligned. I'll be without internet until the 22nd and unable to respond to any feedback.Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One thing that isn't particularly clear is where the Seahawks played before, and why a new stadium was considered necessary. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Seahawks played in the Kingdome before. The owner said they couldn't be profitable until they left. I included this in the Seahawks section. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strafpeloton2 has done some good work on the tone, grammar, and a few other tweaks over the last few days. Awsome stuff, Strafpeloton2.Cptnono (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been hanging around for a looooooong time. The writing is not good enough. Oppose.
- Why are some of the highly detailed pics at thumbnail size? Try 240px.
- Such a change isn't necessarily supported by the MoS. Thumbnails keep the images from overwhelming the prose and fit.
- Spot-check of the writing:
- "Allen rejected plans for a retractable roof so that the stadium was open to the elements, provided views, and reduced costs." Ambiguous: was it the rejection that did this, or would failure to have rejected done it? And the stadium "reduced costs"?
- "Covers the majority of the ...". Then within two seconds we have to read that it was 70%. Let me think ... is that a majority?
- "Utilized"—I still can't fathom why people use such an ugly word. What is wrong with "used"? Twice within two seconds. And we have ize ize ize in three consecutive sentences as well.
- Telegram language: "until construction of the stadium". If you can't bear "the", try "until the stadium was constructed".
- "To reduce costs, the exterior was not completed with brick or ornate steel work." Sorry, I missed it: that was in the plan, or it would be considered standard practice?
- There's the ugly duckling again: "The product utilizes". Erk. Use, consists of, comprises, includes, is based on ...?
- Noun plus -ing clunky ungrammatical sentence: "The field was replaced in the spring of 2008 due to safety concerns caused by the sand and rubber becoming compressed and due to the color of the field fading." See my tutorial on fixing this. Tony (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the second time you have mentioned some pretty trivial stuff. A couple great points both times, though. I agree with you on the repetition of "utilize" being a problem. I grabbed some of the utilyzes and tweaked the retractable roof and compression bits.Cptnono (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:50, 23 December 2009 [18].
Winter War
- Nominator(s): Peltimikko (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. 30 November 2009 will be the 70th anniversary of the start of the war. Currently GA, and A-Class on WikiProject Military history. Peltimikko (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restart, old nom. Images, alt text and dabs cleared. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
- Comments -
What makes http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=6299 a reliable source?
- Semi-reliable. Other book source (Jowett; Snodgrass) gives pretty similar figures. Peltimikko (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- LIkewise http://www.karjalanliitto.fi/english?
- A source is semi-reliable. However, added more reliable Helsingin Sanomat. Peltimikko (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't regard either www.axishistory.com or www.feldgrau.com as being reliable sources as they both rely on material submitted by amateurs, and would strongly suggest that you replace these references with refs to the books you mention. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. Peltimikko (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't regard either www.axishistory.com or www.feldgrau.com as being reliable sources as they both rely on material submitted by amateurs, and would strongly suggest that you replace these references with refs to the books you mention. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 6 November 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. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like to point out that the FA criteria now require "high-quality reliable sources" so things that the nominator themselves admits are "semi-reliable" aren't good enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Karjalan liitto and Helsingin Sanomat have basicly a same message. The issue is well known, and there is the article Karelian question in Finnish politics. Still, maybe remove of Karjalan liitto as a source? Furthermore, axishistory.com, feldgrau.com and db2.com are removed. Peltimikko (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like to point out that the FA criteria now require "high-quality reliable sources" so things that the nominator themselves admits are "semi-reliable" aren't good enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (I'm not sure if I need to vote again in this relisted FA) Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—Overall a fine article on an obscure (for most of the world) conflict. My main issue is that the lead section does not properly cover the actual war. I would at least expect to see mention of the motti tactics, the Mannerheim line, and the main Russian assaults. The word "revanche" is used in the article but not explained or wikilinked. But otherwise I think the article is of FA quality. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but I would like to see one or two lines in the section Winter_War#Aftermath about the current politics about the return of Karelia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Offered some suggestions at the first FAC and will do so here as well.
Soviet–Finnish prewar negotiations: Commas before and after first use of Boris Yartsev?- Not sure, but a comma added. Peltimikko (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
War preparations: "Furthermore, the Finns would lease the Hanko Peninsula for the thirty years". I'm a bit confused by "the thirty years" since I don't see a mention of such a time period before this. Not sure what this is supposed to be referring to.- "have to" added? Peltimikko (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The shelling of Mainila: Remove space before three-reference block."claimed that the Finnish response was hostile and the non-aggression pact." Sentence cuts off abruptly, and an important part is not present.- The section now re-edited by Illythr. Peltimikko (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet policy and military offensive: Delink the date here. Linked days have been discouraged in most cases for a while now.- Done. Peltimikko (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finnish order of battle: "The frontier with the Soviet Union was more than ." Get that excess period out of there, while you're handling these other tasks.- Not sure, suggestions? Peltimikko (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit concerned about a few of the simple typographical errors, but most of what I read was okay. Best of luck. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- Nowhere in the article does it actually state why it's called the "Winter War". Yes, it was fought during the northern winter of 1939-40, but assuming that people can infer this without having the information supplied to them assumes a particular POV of the reader. Perhaps the lead sentence in the article could have something like "during the northern winter of 1939-40" added to it?
- The puppet regime was unsuccessful and was quietly disbanded during the winter of 1940.
- Is a more precise date available from primary references to comply with WP:SEASON?
- If a more precise date cannot be sourced from primary references, this still needs amendment because it is ambiguous. Which "winter of 1940" is intended here, 1939-40 or 1940-41?
- "in early 1940." Peltimikko (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had consented to Soviet demands in autumn 1939: Does not comply with WP:SEASON. I suggest rewording this to something like "in late 1939" or "by mid-October, 1939" to comply with WP:SEASON.
- "by October 1939." Peltimikko (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The plural of "aircraft" in English is "aircraft", not "aircrafts". -- B.D.Mills (T, C) 03:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Peltimikko (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
This is a great article and I enjoyed reading it. I do have a few comments; once these have been resolved, I'll be ready to support.
Explanation of some of the edits I made:
- Deleted "However because of failures" - felt this was unnecessary, as the note should only be about who commanded when. If you wish to reinstate it, I have no problem with that, but it should be rephrased, because this wording is vague.
- Deleted "While the Government of Sweden was aware..." - I think the information that they were aware is unnecessary; unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, it's fairly reasonable to assume that governments know whom their militaries are cooperating with.
Comments:
- Shouldn't references be placed within the notes in the infobox? That makes for less clutter.
- Multiple sources used here. Besides, every detailed number is continuously under doubt, so in many cases numbers presented need good source + commentary. Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. My question is: would it be good to place the other refs inside the narrative footnotes that explain the numbers, so that fewer refs appear directly in the infobox? Ucucha 12:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple sources used here. Besides, every detailed number is continuously under doubt, so in many cases numbers presented need good source + commentary. Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you get to the total of 235 aircraft? 114 + 7 + <100 = <221- 173 aircraft and 43 reserve aircraft. Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Sovereignty was fully achieved in May, 1918 after a short civil war and the expulsion of Bolshevik troops." - you obviously don't want to go into too much detail here, but I am afraid this is unclear. In what way was sovereignty not fully achieved before? What were those Bolsheviks doing there when they had already recognized the country's independence?- Bolsheviks recognized the country's independence, but they also wanted a revolution. This was one of reasons for Finnish Civil War. Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On second reading, it looks good enough. Ucucha 12:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bolsheviks recognized the country's independence, but they also wanted a revolution. This was one of reasons for Finnish Civil War. Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"two parishes" - I would consider the USSR to be among the most unlikely countries in the world to be divided into parishes.- Municipalities. Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you address the historiography of the casus belli twice in separate paragraphs?
- "Fewer than half of the officers remained in total." - lead says that "up to" (i.e., less than) 50% were purged.
- Added "over 30,000", which is also mentioned in book Talvisodan pikkujättiläinen. Peltimikko (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "more than 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) long" - any chance on getting the precise figure?
- "Soviet movements were frozen solid" - beautiful wording
"Although the Karelian Isthmus front was less active in December than in January," - can't understand this. It's not the other way around, is it?- You are correct. Done. Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
German invasion plan - of Finland? Or Sweden? Or is this the invasion of Denmark and Norway they actually carried out?- Scandinavian Countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark - not Finland). Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A bit weird to start talking about aerial and naval warfare after the part about the peace negotiations. Perhaps you should move the entire negotiations part to the "Peace of Moscow" section. Or is this established MILHIST structure?
Ucucha 04:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now. Sadly, because this is a great article that is really very close, but we can't have an FA that contradicts itself (on how many Soviet officers were purged, see comment above). Ucucha 02:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This is factually deficient. This piece of writing is unsophisticated in both content and style. The presentations of the Soviet military concerns and of the negotiations are superficial and minimal. There is a totally misleading insinuation—cleverly just an insinuation—that the USSR actually wanted to reacquire all of Finland. No use is made of the book, Anthony F. Upton, 1974, Finland, 1939-1940. Presenting the progress of the hostilities to the level of minutiae is unencyclopedic. Even leaving objections to the content aside, the lead does not represent the content well; this is a very poor lead. Yes, the article can boast photos and a long list of references most of them not in English, and often this is what earns an FA. But the way things are is not necessarily the way they ought to be. Some trivial flaws: (1) the word "operation" in the lead is inappropriate; (2) the language labeling in the bibliography is not in the latest Wikipedia style because it does not use the "language icon" template. I will apply them myself. Hurmata (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closed, so response in user talk page. Peltimikko (talk) 08:26, 23 December 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:41, 8 November 2009 [19].
John Lloyd Waddy
- Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating this article on one of the RAAF's top-scoring fighter aces, who went on to become a New South Wales parliamentarian, because I think it fits the criteria. Currently GA, and A-Class on two Wikiprojects. Any and all comments welcome...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical comments
- No dab links, which is good.
Two dead external links, both in ref 15 and both from nla.gov.au (no response at all); all others work.- All images have alt text.
You could probably mention the three other men near the craft in the South West Pacific pic's alt, but I'm not entirely sure that's necessary. Otherwise,I think the alts are perfect.- Tweaked said picture's alt text per suggestion, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation dates are all Day Month Year.
--an odd name 18:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the newspapers.nla.gov.au url is still being advertised from the main page of the NLA website http://www.nla.gov.au so this is probably just a temporary glitch. David Underdown (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly right David - I checked just after OddName's post and the whole site was not responding; it's now working fine as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nla links are working now. :) --an odd name 02:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly right David - I checked just after OddName's post and the whole site was not responding; it's now working fine as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the newspapers.nla.gov.au url is still being advertised from the main page of the NLA website http://www.nla.gov.au so this is probably just a temporary glitch. David Underdown (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsI think that this article is close to the FA criteria, but needs a little bit more work:- The statement that his half-share in a kill on 9 December 1941 was his 'first confirmed victory' is a bit imprecise - were there any unconfirmed victories before this? (if not, 'confirmed' could be left out to avoid confusion).
- Altered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we know what 'Falkiner, Caldwell Pty Ltd' sold?
- Been described as an import-export business so will go with that unless I find any additional info in the library this evening. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Was it unusual for ex-NSW ministers to continue to use 'Honourable' as their title? I thought that this is a standard courtesy Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Same here but apparently not; my official source Parliamentary Record 1824–1999 makes a point of listing all retired MPs so entitled so 'twould appear it's not automatic... Cheers,
- The statement that his half-share in a kill on 9 December 1941 was his 'first confirmed victory' is a bit imprecise - were there any unconfirmed victories before this? (if not, 'confirmed' could be left out to avoid confusion).
- Support comments above addressed Nick-D (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Decline1c 2c2c22:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Location nitpick, we all know Oxford for Osprey is Oxford, UK. Please specify due to US locations.Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Date formatting inconsistent. Author (Year) Title Provenance. or Author Title Provenance Year. Footnotes and bibliography conflict. Pick one.Accepting response below, the origin of the problem is the templates being ickypoo. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Sorry, I must've missed where I've used year in the footnotes - can you be more specific? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- fn 11 16 25 31 43 45 46. Compare ^ "Australian Industry SOS". Flight: p. 635. 19 October 1956. Retrieved on 25 September 2009. to ^ (19 October 1956) "Australian Industry SOS". Flight: p. 635. which is the style consistent with the references Draper, W.S. (ed.) (1980). Who's Who in Australia 1980. Melbourne: The Herald and Weekly Times. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Some one probably needs to produce Template:cite turabian with an autoshort option to avoid this style error produced by use of cite book in articles where it probably is a lesser option) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the conflict between consistently using the citation templates provided vs. enforcing a consistent style by manual formatting. I don't think it's something that should hold up promotion of an individual article. From memory (don't have time to experiment right now), cite journal renders Last, First (Date). Title etc... (like cite book) when Last and First are present but Title. Work. Date etc... if not. Frankly I prefer the latter to (Date). Title etc... even if it's not consistent with cite book. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I must've missed where I've used year in the footnotes - can you be more specific? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple Author inconsistency. In bibliography: Last, First; Last2, First2. In notes, Last & Last2. Easiest solution, change notes to Last; Last2, format. Pick a solution.Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- While it may appear more consistent, I'm not sure it's really an improvement, but I'll give it a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another reason for someone to write cite turabian Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While it may appear more consistent, I'm not sure it's really an improvement, but I'll give it a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fn16 requires a full citation (Staff, "R.A.A.F. Pilot's Greetings," The Canberra Times," 2 April 1943, p. 2. at Australian Newspapers. Retrieved.)Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Fair enough, a case of not tidying up early draft shorthand... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, a case of not tidying up early draft shorthand... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fn32 and fn45 require full cites, ala fn16. Year, issue, page, etc...Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Ditto. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recheck spacing throughout, see fn30. versus fn25. Are you going to non-space or space page numbers?- Ho-hum, the London Gazette template puts spaces in, I tend not to, I guess the template wins... ;-)
- Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ho-hum, the London Gazette template puts spaces in, I tend not to, I guess the template wins... ;-)
Recheck punctuation throughout, see fn1 versus fn2. Ending with fullstops or not?cheers Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Applying a similar rule to image captions, i.e. if it's all one phrase like fn2, no full stop. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Non decline related Comment: Footnote raiding from Alexander 2004, you don't use Garrisson, Air Commodore A D: Australian Fighter Aces 1914-1953. Air Power Studies Centre Fairbairn ACT and Australian War Memorial Canberra ACT 1999. . Why?
- See next point re. Garrison. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support related comment: 1c mostly met, would like to hear why more detailed footnote raiding from sources wasn't done. Did you exhaust them rapidly, or are sources like Garrison1999Australian redundant given Thomas2002Tomahawk? Also would like to hear if Sabretache is a Highest Quality source, and about the publishers Aerospace (ACT) which moved suburbs 1995/6 and might be a backyard press, Also Kangaroo, Kenthurst NSW, and National Frenchs Forest NSW. This isn't a problem in 1c, the other sources meet the Highest Quality requirements, would like to know. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to jump in, Sabretache is the journal of the Military Historical Society of Australia (see [20]) and is very reliable. The author of the article in question, Kristen Alexander, is currently one of Australia's leading air historians, and has had two well-regarded biographies of RAAF figures published by a major firm in the last few years. Aerospace Publications is a small firm, but what they publish is reliable and works put out by them are held in the collection of university libraries such as the Australian Defence Force Academy. At the time the book in question was published they were the publisher of Australian Aviation magazine, which claims to have been Australia's largest selling aviation magazine at the time (see: [21]), though it's now owned by a different company). Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Nick. As far as the other comments go, Garrison is rendered redundant not so much by Thomas (though partly) but more by Newton's similarly-titled/themed Australian Air Aces. The general advantage Newton has is that for a number of the subjects (though not Waddy) he produces claim-by-claim analyses which Garrison does not. As far as Kangaroo and National go, have to admit I probably couldn't tell you anything about them you wouldn't find yourself on the web, but if the question relates to the reliability of the works I'd tend to look at the authors' pedigrees and their sourcing. As well as being a writer at Australian Aviation for at least 6 years, Newton's also been published by the Australian War Memorial, and his Australian Air Aces and Clash of Eagles rely on combat reports, unit histories and other official records from the RAAF Historical Section and the AWM. Odgers is one of Australia's official historians of World War II, and Air Force Australia is a book that was updated and republished four times in the 1980s and 90s. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I took the liberty of making a few reference tweaks. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments.
- Lead
- He then commanded... or he later commanded
- Altered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:Family etc. Second sentence/second paragraph about brothers is long and complicated. Can you break it up?
- Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WWII
:Kittyhawks aren't linked?
- The link for Kittyhawks and Tomahawks is the same, to Curtiss P-40; I've hopefully equated the two by removing Tomahawk from the piped link. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The RAAF's top-scoring ace, Clive "Killer" Caldwell, befriended and mentored him, and later became godfather to Waddy's daughter.
- Waddy's first operational sortie was as Caldwell's wingman; he found the ensuing dogfight so fast and confusing that he had no idea what was happening and afterwards had to ask the more experienced pilot how things had gone In his first operational sortie, as Caldwell's wingman, he found the ensuing dogfight fast and confusing. Having no idea what had happened, afterwards he asked a more experienced pilot how things had gone....?
- Tend to prefer the wording as I have it because I think it flows better that way, but still open to suggestions; "the more experienced pilot" refers to Caldwell without repeating his name in the same sentence. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just that passive or almost passive voice. It's an awkward sentence. In his first operational sortie, he found the dogfight fast and confusing; when it was over, he asked Caldwell how things had gone...? (Caldwell's lucky he didn't get his wing shot off, I suppose). Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tend to prefer the wording as I have it because I think it flows better that way, but still open to suggestions; "the more experienced pilot" refers to Caldwell without repeating his name in the same sentence. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On 9 December,
however,he registered his first victory—in a Tomahawk that had previously been Caldwell's personal mount...- Felt the "however" aided the flow, implying that while he was confused in his early combat, by December he'd matured to the stage where he'd made his first kill. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By 9 December, he had become more accustomed to the dog-fighting pace, and made his first "kill" flying Caldwell's old Tomahawk. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Felt the "however" aided the flow, implying that while he was confused in his early combat, by December he'd matured to the stage where he'd made his first kill. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- gazetted links to London Gazette...is this really what you mean?
- Yep, this is a fairly standard expression/link in my experience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but I didn't realize it linked to the gazette. We need an article, or stub or something that explains it better. Comes from the old times when officers usually purchased their commissions, instead of being gazetted (announced) based on their merit. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gazetted (unpiped) redirects to Gazette, which does also explain the use as a verb, but then so does London Gazette in the "Tradition" section. If you know what the use of Gazetted means in this context, you don't need to follow the link, if you don't you get taken to a highly relevant article, so I don't quite see the problem here. David Underdown (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then maybe it could link to the traditions section....? That would make more sense. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gazetted (unpiped) redirects to Gazette, which does also explain the use as a verb, but then so does London Gazette in the "Tradition" section. If you know what the use of Gazetted means in this context, you don't need to follow the link, if you don't you get taken to a highly relevant article, so I don't quite see the problem here. David Underdown (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but I didn't realize it linked to the gazette. We need an article, or stub or something that explains it better. Comes from the old times when officers usually purchased their commissions, instead of being gazetted (announced) based on their merit. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, this is a fairly standard expression/link in my experience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:American air medal....US air medal? American could mean a lot of places (including Canada, although probably then you'd say Canadian).
- No, you're right - altered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Post War Career
:known as the Citizen Air Force (CAF)... known informally? also called .... colloquially known as....
- Altered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:close polling booths at 6 PM rather than 8 PM so as to expedite the reporting of results, and to change the term "Christian name" to "given name" on candidate nominations, in order to reflect changing community attitudes close polling booths at ... to expedite... The provisions also changed the term "Christian name" to "Given name" on candidate nominations, to reflect changing community attitudes....?
- Again I felt it flowed in one sentence but have trimmed a few unnecessary words. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
: Link on Augean? (and capitalized, as it is in article title in Bibliography?)
- Not sure about linking Augean, since the reference work is linked and the writer describes the meaning there. Have capitalised for consistency though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neat article! I like it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
- Remaining quibbles are trivial, and editor can adjust or not depending on his whims. This is a very well done article, good sources (reliable), and well cited. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General - I realise that while responding to everyone's points I haven't actually thanked people for taking the time to review, which I usually like to do whether they're supportive or not, because that time and effort is not something to be taken for granted - so a general thank-you to all for your input thus far... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good article, well referenced and good read. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Firstly, the title of the article is wrong: Wikipedia:Use common names. Secondly, the article is incomplete: you've got three paragraphs about his being one of the most senior politicians in his state of his era, compared to two about his comparatively non-notable business career. What's there is fantastic, but it really needs more on his political career to be reasonably weighted - another couple of paragraphs would make it grand. Rebecca (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, Rebecca. On the naming, we needed disambiguation due to more than one person called John Waddy having a WP article. I made a judgement call that including his middle name was an appropriate way to achieve that, and I'd prefer to hear additional opinions before changing as so far yours is the only objection. As to the weighting, unfortunately the information I've included on his political career is as much as I've been able to discover through a good deal of searching libraries and the web, short of mining further the parliamentary record, and I'm loathe to utilise such primary sources more than I've already done in order to give some examples of bills he sponsored. If you're aware of likely sources I've missed please point them out to me. Further, the two paragraphs that you suggest focussed on his "comparatively non-notable business career" in fact also discuss his leadership of the RAAF Reserve and his involvement in veterans' groups, so I believe the space allocated to his parliamentary career shows quite reasonable balance. In any case, while his political career is important, it must be remembered that his status as a fighter ace in North Africa alone would make him notable enough for a WP article, and I've in fact probably given less space to that period of his career than the political phase. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like John Waddy (politician) may be a more appropriate means of disambiguation; I really dislike seeing middle names where the person wasn't actually known by their full name. I don't think there's any need to use primary sources for his political career; I find it hard to believe there isn't a single book on the relatively-influential Askin government, and in any case, there's bound to be a ton of newspaper articles from the era that could shed further light. Rebecca (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I considered "(politician)" but, as I've said, he was just as notable for his air force career so one could also argue for John Waddy (RAAF officer), hence my plumping for the more neutral name we have now. As far as the Askin government goes, I've combed a number of general NSW political books with only those you see cited mentioning Waddy, though if I can get hold of The Prince & the Premier I'll double-check that I haven't missed anything useful there. I already searched unsuccessfully in the Mitchell Library and NAA online for the sort of biographical cuttings held for some public figures before I commenced the article in earnest. Coming back to your earlier point, however, I'm still not sure about your interpretation of the relative weight given to various phases of his career as they appear in the article at present, because the political part occupies a significant portion of it, certainly compared to other aspects of his post-war life. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like John Waddy (politician) may be a more appropriate means of disambiguation; I really dislike seeing middle names where the person wasn't actually known by their full name. I don't think there's any need to use primary sources for his political career; I find it hard to believe there isn't a single book on the relatively-influential Askin government, and in any case, there's bound to be a ton of newspaper articles from the era that could shed further light. Rebecca (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ian, this looks good. I'll try to go through it in the next few days, but my RL work is heavy at the moment. Linking comments from the top:
- "As a [[Fighter aircraft|fighter]] pilot during [[World War II]]. The "Fighter aircraft" article has a WWII section; you may or may not wish to section link (unless your point is to distinguish from "bomber" definitionally at the top of that link-target. Please note there's a separate article Fighter pilot, which may or may not be relevant. WWII—Isn't there an article on Australia in WWII, or even the Australian airforce in WWII? Please make the links as focused as possible.
- Thanks for your review so far, Tony. Didn't know the fighter pilot article, that will be the preferable link. Re. WWII, I've always just linked the general world war articles in the past but I think you're right to suggest a more precise link. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Infobox pipe to Minister for Health lost info; I forgot to check for the other Minister bits.
- The other ministerial positions will need "NSW" in there to be consistent with Health, which I'll do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably "referendum" and "daylight saving" are too common to require linking. Focus them on your valuable links, of which there are so many.
- I'm not too fussed either way, but I tend not to assume too much of the potential reader's age or knowledge... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, Sandy also commented on possible overlinking so dropped these and a couple of others. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not too fussed either way, but I tend not to assume too much of the potential reader's age or knowledge... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the linking is very good.
- "As a [[Fighter aircraft|fighter]] pilot during [[World War II]]. The "Fighter aircraft" article has a WWII section; you may or may not wish to section link (unless your point is to distinguish from "bomber" definitionally at the top of that link-target. Please note there's a separate article Fighter pilot, which may or may not be relevant. WWII—Isn't there an article on Australia in WWII, or even the Australian airforce in WWII? Please make the links as focused as possible.
- Is the Tomahawk image specific to the Africa section? If not, text sandwiching could be avoided by placing it directly above the Morotai pic in the SW Pacific section.
- Specific to N. Africa, and I did want an image for that section as it was where he scored all his victories. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to be a MoS bore: import–export. Space before and after ... Tony (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I've always seen it the way I wrote it so I'd find spaces around the dash a bit odd; would you settle for "import and export" or "import-and-export"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 8 November 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:12, 15 November 2009 [22].
Shojo Beat
- Nominator(s): -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am renominating this for featured article because all issues from its previous FAC have been fixed and the article meets all of the FA criteria. Currently a GA and was peer reviewed before first FAC. It has not changed substantially since that FAC as there is little new information to add. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical comments
- The one image has alt text, which is good.
However, "the character Nana Komatsu" should be replaced with a brief description of the character's appearance, as it would not be obvious from seeing only the cover that her name is Nana Komatsu. (She is not fully named, or even called a character from Nana, on the cover; big text on a magazine cover is not always related to the picture behind it, either.) - No dab links or dead external links, and citation date formats are consistent Month Day, Year—good job.
--an odd name 18:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I adjusted the alt. How is that? I think alts are now the hardest thing to do :-) Thanks for catching that one date...can't believe I hadn't noticed it! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The alt is perfect now, thanks. No problem on the date—remember, Wikipedia's a group work! --an odd name 19:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I adjusted the alt. How is that? I think alts are now the hardest thing to do :-) Thanks for catching that one date...can't believe I hadn't noticed it! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I went through most or all of the article on the last FAC, and it was good enough. I might not have checked the last couple of sections, so someone may want to look at them a little more closely. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review completed at previous FAC. Awadewit (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain, but would it be better to categorize the magazine in the infobox as shōjo manga?
- The final sentence in the lead could be broken up a bit to clarify the ones that supported continuation of the imprints. Fans and/or industry experts?
- Second to last sentence in the article: "Other participants praised the magazines fashion articles…" → "Other participants praised the magazine's fashion articles…"
- Thanks and those three now all fixed :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know nothing about this subject. Give me some idea in the first paragraph what you mean by "manga" without me having to jump around to a different article to find out. Also, you refere to colour tones but don't say what colour tones. I want to point out here that colours and tones are two different things. Tone refers to lightness and darkness. If you mean colours, it only takes one word. Amandajm (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Manga is a fairly common word among literary, and is generally not explained in any of the other manga oriented featured articles/lists, nor good articles. It would be akin to explaining what a comic is in comic articles, or what is meant by thriller in saying something is a thriller film. Made color sentence clearer. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's similar to the issue we discussed last time, with parentheticals and all that. We couldn't come up with anything good that time, but it would be nice if we could. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Manga does not need to be defined - certain ideas we have to assume that readers understand. Since the definition of manga is not being disputed in this article and the article is fundamentally about manga, I think we can assume readers will come to the article knowing what manga is. Awadewit (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, here's what I said at the last FAC: "It would be nice to have a little bit of explanation of the lesser known terms in the lead. Something so people don't have to click on "shōjo manga" and "light novel". We can probably assume that readers (of this article, anyways) know what manga and anime are. Although, if it gets on the main page, they would probably need more or orient them." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Manga does not need to be defined - certain ideas we have to assume that readers understand. Since the definition of manga is not being disputed in this article and the article is fundamentally about manga, I think we can assume readers will come to the article knowing what manga is. Awadewit (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's similar to the issue we discussed last time, with parentheticals and all that. We couldn't come up with anything good that time, but it would be nice if we could. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Manga is a fairly common word among literary, and is generally not explained in any of the other manga oriented featured articles/lists, nor good articles. It would be akin to explaining what a comic is in comic articles, or what is meant by thriller in saying something is a thriller film. Made color sentence clearer. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The article needs to more clearly describe the contents of the magazine. For example, what kinds of stories were these series? What kinds of themes did they have? What types of plot lines did they typically focus on? If this kind of information is not available in the sources, at least include a brief plot summary in the table so that readers don't have to click on each story to get an idea of what was published in the magazine. Awadewit (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does clearly describe the contents - shōjo manga titles and several features which are all described. That is the type of stories. There is no central theme among them, they were a variety of titles with no specific focus in plot beyond shojo. And plot summaries do not belong in a magazine article. If people want to know details about each story, they are properly linked. The series are not first run series, they are not original works. The article is about the magazine itself, not the individual manga series which all have their own articles. Manga is a common term. The New York Times even does a manga best seller list. The lead notes that the series was targetted at young women - i.e. what shōjo is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are confusing some of your responses with the demand for a definition of manga above (which I agree is unnecessary) and my demand for an expansion of the description of the magazine's contents. Adding a brief description of the plot of the stories in the table will only help the reader - I had to click on each on of these links to see what kinds of stories this magazine published. It was tiring. We can fix this problem by providing just a little bit more information. Awadewit (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think summaries are needed and I think it would set a very bad precedent for other similar magazine articles. Shojo Beat was a short run magazine, but that would still be 15 plot summaries added. Can you imagine what Shonen Jump would look like if summaries were added for every series, or worse Weekly Shonen Jump which has featured hundreds, if not thousands of series? Would adding the genres be a workable compromise? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Awadewit (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I would have preferred more detail on the plots, but in my view this is an acceptable compromise. In my view, the article is comprehensive and well-written. I can't speak to the quality of the sources, as I did not take time to review them all and I don't know much about manga, so I don't know if anything else is available. Awadewit (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Awadewit (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think summaries are needed and I think it would set a very bad precedent for other similar magazine articles. Shojo Beat was a short run magazine, but that would still be 15 plot summaries added. Can you imagine what Shonen Jump would look like if summaries were added for every series, or worse Weekly Shonen Jump which has featured hundreds, if not thousands of series? Would adding the genres be a workable compromise? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are confusing some of your responses with the demand for a definition of manga above (which I agree is unnecessary) and my demand for an expansion of the description of the magazine's contents. Adding a brief description of the plot of the stories in the table will only help the reader - I had to click on each on of these links to see what kinds of stories this magazine published. It was tiring. We can fix this problem by providing just a little bit more information. Awadewit (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does clearly describe the contents - shōjo manga titles and several features which are all described. That is the type of stories. There is no central theme among them, they were a variety of titles with no specific focus in plot beyond shojo. And plot summaries do not belong in a magazine article. If people want to know details about each story, they are properly linked. The series are not first run series, they are not original works. The article is about the magazine itself, not the individual manga series which all have their own articles. Manga is a common term. The New York Times even does a manga best seller list. The lead notes that the series was targetted at young women - i.e. what shōjo is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note The "Author" column needs to be made sortable by last name; use {{sortname}}. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:21, 14 November 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 promoted by Karanacs 20:44, 10 November 2009 [23].
Control (Janet Jackson album)
- Nominator(s): The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... I spent a great deal of time preparing the article for GA, which passed with relative ease. I believe the article is both comprehensive and well written. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The one linked image (the album cover) lacks alternate text for readers who can't see the image. (The star ratings are fine.)Speaking of images, try to find any other relevant ones (ideally free ones of people involved in the recording, of critics, etc.). Surely there could be one more to illustrate the article body?- No dab links or dead external links, which is very good considering the size and number of web citations.
- Citation date formats are consistent ISO-style. (added on 17:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
--an odd name 17:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text added. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and after a minor edit, great. --an odd name 23:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Free images, btw, from that time period are non-existent, and its equally difficult to find non-free images that would actually benefit the article rather than violating WP:FUR. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well. --an odd name 23:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Free images, btw, from that time period are non-existent, and its equally difficult to find non-free images that would actually benefit the article rather than violating WP:FUR. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text added. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-comments I sorted out the infobox a bit, but the reviews need to be referenced like all the other citations. See Remain in Light. RB88 (T) 03:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks really, really good. ceranthor 11:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Control is the third studio album by American recording artist Janet Jackson, released on February 6, 1986 by A&M Records, and is widely regarded as the breakthrough album of her career. - run on. Better as ... by A&M records. It is...
- Her collaboration - Her collaborations
Support with some nitpicks Sources fine. All-round excellence. Welcome to the high-quality album article club. If only I had a Green Jacket to give out.
- Go through the citations: If a singular page is cited, then it only needs "p." and not "pp."
- Try and find another review to complete the 10-review limit in the infobox. (User:Andrzejbanas has the Spin guide which may have reviewed it.)
- The Personnel section needs a citation, usually the album liner notes.
- Sort the Accolades by year, a couple are out of sync.
RB88 (T) 20:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thank you for the kind words! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - Both images check out. Awadewit (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very well written. My only quibble is the use of "African American" in the "Release and Promotion" section. It's not a term used outside the US and in a paragraph with copious usage of the word "black" to describe black women, it looks odd. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 16:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) first certified Control gold on April 18, 1986, denoting 500,000 units shipped within the United States. Two months later, on June 13, 1986, the album was RIAA certified platinum, denoting 1,000,000 units shipped. The following year [1987, right?], Control was RIAA certified 5x [fivefold] platinum on October 26, 1989." [1989 came after 1986, is not 1987?]--Cannibaloki 16:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Adjusted. I had reorganized the section long ago, but forgot to change the dates. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Overall the article is quite good; I left some minor comments on Bookkeeper's talk page. I'm leaning towards a support. Two issues, though. One, the prose could use some polish. Some sentences run on a bit, or have garbled structure. Not too much of it, though. Second, and more serious: were no Janet Jackson biographies consulted as sources? Even if they're worthless as sources, we need to know that you consulted them in order to fulfill the comprehensiveness criteria of the FAC process. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only decent biography (actually the only legitimate biography) is Janet Jackson by Jane Cornwell which is no more comprehensive than any music encyclopedia which has written about her. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to acknowledge it anyway under a "Further reading" section. It is authoritative on the subject, after all. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only decent biography (actually the only legitimate biography) is Janet Jackson by Jane Cornwell which is no more comprehensive than any music encyclopedia which has written about her. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:57, 10 November 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 promoted by Karanacs 20:44, 10 November 2009 [24].
Upper Pine Bottom State Park
We are nominating this for featured article because we believe it represents some of the best work that Wikipedia has to offer regarding state parks. It follows a format and style very similar to that of Black Moshannon State Park, Worlds End State Park, Leonard Harrison State Park, Colton Point State Park, and Cherry Springs State Park, which are all featured articles that we have worked on. It has undergone an extensive peer review (thanks to Brianboulton and Niagara). This follows the MOS here, specifically In articles that cover two or more taxonomic groups, a consistent style of capitalization should be used for species names. This could involve the use of: ...title case for common names of species throughout (see WP:BIRDS) and lower case for non-specific names such as eagle or bilberry, which may work well for articles with a broad coverage of natural history.
Although there is not much there today beyond picnic tables, a parking lot, and a lovely trout stream, it has an interesting history. Thanks in advance for any feedback, Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical comments No dab links, all external links check out, and there's no obvious errors in alt text after minor fixes. (A red flag does show up at the alt checker for the little expand icon under the panorama, but that's a minor template bug, not one with the actual article.) --an odd name 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking these and for the copyedits. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice article, but can we get a better lead image than a picnic table? Reywas92Talk 23:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your kind words. All of the images are on Commons, so do you have any suggestions? My rationale for the lead image is that the park today is essentially a picnic area and parking lot and a trout stream and it shows two of those (table and stream). There's nothing else man-made there now except for a few signs and the reinforced stream banks. I personally think that File:Upper Pine Bottom State Park Run 1.jpg is the prettiest image, but it is a bit dark and fits better in the Ecology section (I think). I am open to suggestions though, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS There is also a funny story about the lead image - maybe I'll relate it on the article talk page someday, but it makes it a special pic for me. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, but a picnic table is awfully generic. It doesn't have to be man-made. I think File:Upper Pine Bottom State Park Run 3.jpg would work fine, or else the table can swap positions with File:Upper Pine Bottom State Park Sign.jpg; the run in it is difficult to notice anyway.
- I do like the sign pic. But I will leave this up to Ruhrfisch. Dincher (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have swapped the images per your suggestion - thanks for the idea. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do like the sign pic. But I will leave this up to Ruhrfisch. Dincher (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments:
- "traces its existence back to the early 1920s" > "traces its existence to the early 1920s"
- changed this, thanks. Dincher (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "one of the smallest state park" > "one of the smallest state parks"
- fixed Dincher (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "large predators such as Wolves, Lynx, Wolverines, Panthers, Fishers, Bobcats and foxes" Lowercase, as with next sentence.
- you'll find this note here and at the top of the other Pennsylvania state park FAs. -- Note - the convention used for this article is that species names are capitalized, but other plant and animals are not: so "Cooper's Hawk", but just "hawks". -- Dincher (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "recreational opportunities witihin" sp. Reywas92Talk 00:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- fixed this too, Dincher (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to Reywas92 for catching these and Dincher for the fixes Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, but a picnic table is awfully generic. It doesn't have to be man-made. I think File:Upper Pine Bottom State Park Run 3.jpg would work fine, or else the table can swap positions with File:Upper Pine Bottom State Park Sign.jpg; the run in it is difficult to notice anyway.
Support Great job! Pictures look good. Reywas92Talk 03:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks)
, except that it's missing for File:Upper Pine Bottom State Park.JPG; can you please fix this?Eubulides (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks, it is fixed now. It got messed up when I moved the image down into the body of the article from the lead. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, it is fixed now. It got messed up when I moved the image down into the body of the article from the lead. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: My detailed comments were made at peer review, where all my concerns were satisfactorily addressed. I like the new lead image. I'm sure that further minor fixes will arise from this review, since every article is capable of further improvement, but in my view the featured article criteria are satisfied here. The detail is thorough, the images are awesome. A worthy addition to the Parks series. Brianboulton (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your supprt, thorough peer review, and kind words, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your support! Dincher (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking those Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
Oppose until Pennsylvania Route 44 is written. Erm, I mean support. Another great job for Pennsylvania's great state parks. :D - Do some of the ones out my way (Promised Land, etc.) - You could have a Penn State Parks Featured Topic at your rate.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 14:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks very much for your support and kind words - there 120 Pennsylvania State Parks, so we'd need 40 FAs and 80 GAs (eek). The are 21 parks in the "20 must see parks" list (they count two as one) so that might be a better potential FT. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, as of May 2010, 60 - 60. :( - But you can also divide them by region if you must. (PennDOT supplies 11 regions if you need splitting for the topics.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support! Dincher (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, as of May 2010, 60 - 60. :( - But you can also divide them by region if you must. (PennDOT supplies 11 regions if you need splitting for the topics.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for your support and kind words - there 120 Pennsylvania State Parks, so we'd need 40 FAs and 80 GAs (eek). The are 21 parks in the "20 must see parks" list (they count two as one) so that might be a better potential FT. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (by Finetooth) and comments. I made a few minor c/e changes; please revert any you don't find suitable.
In the last sentence of "Native Americans", I believe "natives" should be lowercase.
- changed, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lumber and turnpike
This sentence is missing a word or words: "A post office was established in nearby Waterville in 1849; other early business establishments there were two stores, and a hotel which still stands." Maybe "... other early businesses included two stores and a hotel, which still stands."
- Brianboulton suggested we change the last comma to its current location in the PR, my guess is it is an AE vs. BE issue. Anyway, changed now to your version, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Economic development and increased settlement led the Pennsylvania General Assembly to establish Cummings Township in 1832, with land taken from parts of Mifflin and Brown Townships." - Maybe "Economic development and increased settlement led the Pennsylvania General Assembly to establish Cummings Township in 1832 from land taken from parts of Mifflin and Brown Townships."
- Changed to your version, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The boom was a series of artificial islands with chains between them to catch logs and led to an expansion of the lumber industry, with Williamsport becoming the "Lumber Capital of the World". - Maybe "The boom, a series of artificial islands with chains between them to catch logs, led to an expansion of the lumber industry and to Williamsport's nickname, "Lumber Capital of the World".
- Also changed to your version, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Nothing was left except the dried-out tree tops, which became a fire hazard." - For readers who know nothing about logging, should something be added to explain that the tree tops were discards littering the floor of the former forest?
- Added "discarded" so it now reads Nothing was left except the discarded, dried-out tree tops, which became a fire hazard, so much of the land burned and was left barren. Tried to add that they were on the ground, but it didn't read well. Also tried adding "and stumps" after tree tops, but it also seemed awkward. How is the current version? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- State forest and park
Conservationists like Dr. Joseph Rothrock became concerned that the forests would not regrow if they were not managed properly." - Delete "Dr." per WP:CREDENTIAL. You could add, "a physician" after his name, but his medical degree doesn't seem directly related to his forest expertise.
- Good catch, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Although the roof of a structure was still visible in the park in a 1959 aerial photo, as of 2009 there are no pavilions or other structures in the park." - Maybe "buildings" instead of "structures" since picnic tables and signs might be considered structures?
- Changed, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Geology and climate
When Pine Creek flowed northeast, where was the mouth? Maybe this is unknown, but I can't help wondering.
- I did not add this to the article as it seems too off topic, but Dillon's book (which I happened to have at hand) says that Pine Creek followed what is now Marsh Creek northeast from where Ansonia is now (the northern end of the gorge, where US 6 crosses Pine Creek). My recollection from Owlett's book is that the proto-Pine Creek is believed to have followed the rough course of Crooked Creek after that, which flows into the Tioga River, which in turn flows north into New York state and the Chemung River and that eventually flows into the Susquehanna River. You can see follow most of this on the PennDOT Tioga County map here (follow US 6 NE out of Ansonia, then PA 287 to the NY line). Probably more detail than you wanted. ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be helpful to say approximately when the land around what is now the park was part of a shallow sea? I'm thinking of readers who might wrongly conclude that the "20,000 years ago" in the first paragraph applied also or almost to the shallow sea.
- An excellent job overall. I love reading about these parks. Finetooth (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for your support, copyedits, helpful comments, and kind words. Will start responding individually to the comments next, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suppport and copy edit. We enjoy working on the park articles! Dincher (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking all. Everything I mentioned has been resolved. Thanks for the Pine Creek flow details; I thought maybe proto-Allegheny, but proto-North Branch Susquehanna is an interesting answer. Finetooth (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suppport and copy edit. We enjoy working on the park articles! Dincher (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for your support, copyedits, helpful comments, and kind words. Will start responding individually to the comments next, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have taken a few more photos of the park, which are shown at Talk:Upper Pine Bottom State Park, and added one to the article (with alt text). Any comments on the new image(s) are welcome. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - File:Pine Creek Log Raft.jpg - As the copyright claim for this photo rests on the claim that it was published before 1923, please list pre-1923 publication information for it. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking the images. I scanned and uploaded the photo originally and included all available information in Owlett's book (my source). Later when I saw the same image in Taber's book, I added all of the information Taber's book contained about it. I have three ideas:
- I will email the Pennsylvania Lumber Museum next and ask if they have any publication information on the image.
- Owlett's book (the source) identifies this as on Pine Creek and says that the last log drive on Pine Creek was in 1905. Is there any sort of "over 100 years old" license?
- If you knew the author's name, there would be "life of the author + 70 years". Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I do not know any more about the author / photographer. I have emailed the Lumber Museum - will wait and see what they say. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you knew the author's name, there would be "life of the author + 70 years". Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If all else fails, I plan to upload a low res version here for Fair Use and request deletion on Commons. Does that seem reasonable? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - I emailed the Lumber Museum before they opened Thursday. It has been two business days and I have heard nothing yet. How long should I wait? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess wait until Tues., then upload low res. Dincher (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I will wait until the end of the business day Tuesday (which will be four business days). I have already made a low res version of the image just in case. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ruhrfisch, will you leave a note on my talk page when the image issue is resolved? I'll be promoting/archiving later today. Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, after 3.5+ business days I have heard nothing back from the Pennsylvania Lumber Museum, so I put a copyvio tag on the high res scan on Commons here and uploaded a low res, fair use justified verison here at File:Pine Creek Log Raft.jpg. I will also leave this not on Karanacs' talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ruhrfisch, will you leave a note on my talk page when the image issue is resolved? I'll be promoting/archiving later today. Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I will wait until the end of the business day Tuesday (which will be four business days). I have already made a low res version of the image just in case. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess wait until Tues., then upload low res. Dincher (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - I emailed the Lumber Museum before they opened Thursday. It has been two business days and I have heard nothing yet. How long should I wait? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 5 November 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 14:27, 24 November 2009 [25].
Rhode Island Route 4
- Nominator(s): Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 02:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC) and Rai•me 10:20 pm, Today (UTC−4)[reply]
We am nominating this for featured article because after months of work, this dual research project of a Rhode Island freeway is probably ready for Featured Article status. The route went under a partially-excruiating A-class review, solving the AltText in the process. And for once the prose isn't mine, but theco-nominator, User:Raime's. We are open to all comments Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 02:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC) and Rai•me 10:22 pm, Today (UTC−4)[reply]
- Support 2c.
Decline: 2c.resolved and checked at Fifelfoo (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Inconsistent Author ordering (Some corporate authors before title, some corporate authors after title, individuals before). Inconsistent date formatting YYYY-MM-DD; Month D, YYYY. Inconsistent date positioning: Author (Year), Author ... Year. Lack of Provenance information. Italics indicates published material, if the reports are published, they were published by an Authority, unclear if Institution is Author and Publisher, or just Author. Any consistent resolution is fine for these problems. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the ones published by the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (or its predecessor, the Rhode Island Department of Public Works) are in correct form, as no author is cited. Also, a lot of these depend on the citation template used, which I have little control on.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 02:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The date order within citation issue comes from the fact that the works aren't authored, this is controlled by if you've entered an author field. The date style (YYYY-MM-DD, Month D, YYYY) is entirely controlled by the editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Cite report, which is in the same style / formatting system package as Template:Cite book correctly formats your reports with the data you currently have. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got the date consistency solved. Also, I changed the books to reports per that. Help me fix them, because I actually have never used the template.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 09:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments No dabs or dead links (per the link checker tool), and the given alt text has no obvious problems, which is good. I'm a stickler for consistent date formats, so I thank Fifelfoo for checking those. Featured articles have consistent citation formats (see criterion 2c) and I think date formats are integral to that. --an odd name 03:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - I have reviewed this article twice and at this point only have a few concerns before I can support the article:
- As discussed above, the references should use consistent date formats.
- In References 5-9 and 13, "report" should not be wikilinked.
- Template error, corrected at Template. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It may help if some non-map sources can be added to the route description. Dough4872 (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 the template does that. #3, RIDOT produces nothing.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 00:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are probably other non-map sources that are not RIDOT. Dough4872 (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've spent hours looking, I've been unable to find anything, especially because we're talking an expressway here.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe we need to wait and see if Raime can find more sources. Dough4872 (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My worry is that Raime only edits un so often, so I may end up doing the work in this co-nom, but its fine.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 16:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm back now. I can try and find other sources, but I doubt I will find anything. Why is it that adding non-map sources would be more helpful? Everything stated in the RD is supported by the cited maps. Cheers, Rai•me 08:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While the map sources are good to have in the route description, it is also good to back them up with non-map sources as well. There have been discussions about this, such as in the AFD for New Jersey Route 64, where it was argued more secondary sources were needed in addition to Bing Maps. ---Dough4872 14:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The arguments from that AfD seem to be that an entire article needs more secondary sources than just maps to be notable; it didn't seem to be specifically related to citations in the RD. If the map sources from reliable sources back all statements adequately, I'm still not sure why other sources are needed. However, I cited this article from RIDOT in The RD's mentioning of the new exit 7. Cheers, Rai•me 21:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That helps. ---Dough4872 16:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The arguments from that AfD seem to be that an entire article needs more secondary sources than just maps to be notable; it didn't seem to be specifically related to citations in the RD. If the map sources from reliable sources back all statements adequately, I'm still not sure why other sources are needed. However, I cited this article from RIDOT in The RD's mentioning of the new exit 7. Cheers, Rai•me 21:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While the map sources are good to have in the route description, it is also good to back them up with non-map sources as well. There have been discussions about this, such as in the AFD for New Jersey Route 64, where it was argued more secondary sources were needed in addition to Bing Maps. ---Dough4872 14:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm back now. I can try and find other sources, but I doubt I will find anything. Why is it that adding non-map sources would be more helpful? Everything stated in the RD is supported by the cited maps. Cheers, Rai•me 08:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I will support the article the way it is now, but it would still help if more non-map sources can be added. ---Dough4872 03:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My worry is that Raime only edits un so often, so I may end up doing the work in this co-nom, but its fine.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 16:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe we need to wait and see if Raime can find more sources. Dough4872 (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've spent hours looking, I've been unable to find anything, especially because we're talking an expressway here.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1a comments—as a lifelong Rhode Islander, I just have to offer my two cents. At quick glance, it looks like a great article. I'm getting ready for class, so I'll make this quick for now:
- In the second para of the lead, shouldn't "long-range" be "long-term"?
- Perhaps you could change "slightly more than" to "approximately"? Pretty much means the same thing in this context, and it flows a bit better.
- "Makes a curve" can be shortened to "curves".
- You use the phrase "a partial cloverleaf interchange" twice in the same paragraph and in the same manner. I know it's hard to spice up such sections, but you could change "a partial" to "another partial" to give the reader a bit of fresh air.
- Fixed, but it was in 2 paragraphs, not one.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was actually referring to the proceeding paragraph, but I see what you did now. — Deckiller 02:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, but it was in 2 paragraphs, not one.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "After exit 7, Route 4 continues due north as a six-lane expressway" Considering your use of accurate directionals (I.E. northeast, northwest), "due" is somewhat redundant.
- "Route 4 has an overpass at Middle Road..." "Has" seems bland.
- "...the Rhode Island Department of Public Works (RIDPW) proposed a relocation of Route 2 which," Comma before "which".
- "During the time of the study," can be shortened to "during the study".
- "in 1972. In 1972," I recommend restructuring one of these sentences to avoid such repetition.
- "The Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) has laid out long-term plans for changes to both the southern and northern termini of Route 4." Sentence can be tightened. Perhaps something like "The.....RIDOT has long-term plans to change both the southern and northern termini of Route 4."
- Changed to something else. Your suggestion would suggest a different occurrance.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably drop "long" after stating the lengths of the roads. I know many copy-editors suggest this.
- That's all for now. — Deckiller 22:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The last one is not correct, as then you could mean 9 miles high as well. All done otherwise.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.— Deckiller 01:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3
File:Rhode Island Route 401 Street Sign.JPG - Please verify that the author and uploader of this image are the same. You can do this by having the uploader add such a statement to the image description page.
- Wouldn't happen. Not one contribution since June.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the image will have to be removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - removed image in question and added another one of the freeway section. Cheers, Rai•me 08:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please link to it here, so I can check it out. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:RI 4 south North Kingstown.jpg. Cheers, Rai•me 05:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Checks out. Awadewit (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:RI 4 south North Kingstown.jpg. Cheers, Rai•me 05:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please link to it here, so I can check it out. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - removed image in question and added another one of the freeway section. Cheers, Rai•me 08:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the image will have to be removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't happen. Not one contribution since June.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:RI-4 map.svg - Please add a source for the information contained in this map to the image description page.
- Fixed.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose by karanacs on prose and comprehensiveness grounds.
- Prose - Although the prose is not awful, it still needs work, as it is often quite repetitive and does not necessarily flow well. For example, the first three sentences in the section Route description all begin "Route 4 ...".
- Comprehensiveness - I am highly suspicious of road articles that rely almost entirely on maps and state department of transportation reports, so I went searching for more information.
- Per [26], it appears that much of the roadside in a certain area is covered by invasive plants. I suspect that with more digging you may be able to find out why that is - did the road construction or an effect of the road impact this?
- Unnecessary. Marshlands are the main reason, which I have added mention of.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This study [27] gives information about red-light running at some Route 4 intersections
- I found indications of multiple state and federal reports that were studying expanding the road in the late 1980s/early 1990s. In particular, it appears that there were related archealogical finds, which would be very interesting to see. The following list is not comprehensive [28] [29] [30] [31]. The archaelogical evidence has been discussed in newspapers as well: example [32]
- You're not making anything easier for Google Books - No access - and I don't live in Rhode Island, so accessing those aren't easy unless Raime has access. I can use the abstract of the newspaper, but without access, I can't get anything else.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Used the abstract, which covers enough I think.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are more newspaper articles available about at least the 1980s construction [33], which may provide background or local interest information not included in a government report.
- Related to the point directly above, this article provides no justification for the road. Why was it a good idea to originally build the road? Why did it need to be expanded? (some article snippets I've seen suggest that the road could be the site of many fatal/serious car accidents?)
- From some news article abstracts, it looks like Rhode Island resisted raising the speed limits when first allowed by the federal government. Is there any information on whether/when the speed limit was raised on Route 4, and what objections there might have been?
- That was on Interstate 95 between 4 and the CT line, not worthy (I looked at the articles).Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like traffic cameras are on at least one Route 4 intersection and the ACLU got involved [34]
- Not the reason, but did find something involved.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like some groups in the 1990s were protesting any further expansion [35] - why?
The article needs context, and although not all of these ideas may be useful, they will hopefully point you in the direction of what types of context might be useful. Karanacs (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to a question up there, I found these links in a ten-minute search of Google books, Google scholar, and Google news (search terms "Rhode Island" "Route 4"). I don't have easy access to any of them; I strongly encourage you to find good access to the Providence Journal archives. Karanacs (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Got significant amounts in. I hope this covers more than enough.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am concerned by the comment above that you "Used the abstract, which covers enough I think." That is not acceptable for research. While abstracts often mention the highlights of an issue, they cannot place events/issues/etc in proper context. It's better not to use the information at all rather than rely on a short abstract. Karanacs (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was the abstract of the lone news article in that section.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 02:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The links I provided are examples only. It is up to you to do more research and determine whether there is enough information to include in the article. That means doing searches of your own and actually reading full articles, not just article abstracts. I suspect this will take considerable effort and recommend that you withdraw the FAC nomination in the meantime. I'm taking this off my watchlist; once the research has been done, feel free to ping me on my talk page. Karanacs (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you get me money to read such stuff. I don't have any money to pay towards the full stuff. This FAC isn't moving. I've added considerable information to this from what you provided and if the abstract of a newspaper article isn't going to satisfy you, then I don't care. This FAC is not moving and I did the research.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 14:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To write a solid featured article, you'll need access to the complete articles. The blurbs (abstracts) that Google News or other archival sites (NewsBank, etc.) really aren't sufficient for FAC for the reasons Karanacs gave above. The information given in the blurbs is often too vague to write anything based solely on it, or at least too vague to accurately write anything based on it.
- FAC shouldn't be easy. To write a good, comprehensive, solid FAC, you need to devote considerable amounts of time to gathering resources (and not just ones online), researching, and writing the article. I've seen editors spend weeks, even months gathering different resources from vastly different IRL (print) sources to ensure that they had done enough research to write a rock-solid featured article. That doesn't seem to be the case here at all, at least not compared to the amount of time and effort that those editors devoted to their articles.
- The generally negative tone of the reply above is very similar to what I've seen by you in different venues when similar points are brought up by other editors. Consider this: had the appropriate amount of time been invested on research for this article, and for that matter any article before it was taken to FAC, this point wouldn't keep being raised by reviewers. The same is true for article prose on some of the other FACs in the past; the more time is spent refining it, the less it will be an issue come FAC time. – TMF 04:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a wiki - ask people for help. If you don't have access to a particular source, perhaps someone else does. Why don't you try asking around? The solution is not to refuse to do the work, but to find a way to solve the problem. Leave a message on the FAC talk page or on the talk pages of editors who live in Rhode Island and who might have access to the archives of that particular paper. Awadewit (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange for help in finding sources, pictures, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a wiki - ask people for help. If you don't have access to a particular source, perhaps someone else does. Why don't you try asking around? The solution is not to refuse to do the work, but to find a way to solve the problem. Leave a message on the FAC talk page or on the talk pages of editors who live in Rhode Island and who might have access to the archives of that particular paper. Awadewit (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you get me money to read such stuff. I don't have any money to pay towards the full stuff. This FAC isn't moving. I've added considerable information to this from what you provided and if the abstract of a newspaper article isn't going to satisfy you, then I don't care. This FAC is not moving and I did the research.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 14:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The links I provided are examples only. It is up to you to do more research and determine whether there is enough information to include in the article. That means doing searches of your own and actually reading full articles, not just article abstracts. I suspect this will take considerable effort and recommend that you withdraw the FAC nomination in the meantime. I'm taking this off my watchlist; once the research has been done, feel free to ping me on my talk page. Karanacs (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was the abstract of the lone news article in that section.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 02:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am concerned by the comment above that you "Used the abstract, which covers enough I think." That is not acceptable for research. While abstracts often mention the highlights of an issue, they cannot place events/issues/etc in proper context. It's better not to use the information at all rather than rely on a short abstract. Karanacs (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Status? No comments here since November 14; what is being done to resolve remaining issues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know. I've done as much as I physically can without using the suggested parts of Wikipedia, which I will doubt work anyway. Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 19:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My oppose (on comprehensiveness) stands until off-line sources have been consulted. Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 23 November 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 promoted by Karanacs 21:15, 17 November 2009 [36].
Nikita Khrushchev
- Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. This article has been an astonishing amount of work, btw, it had to be completely rewritten. It is still in the course of an A class review at MilHist, but as comments had ceased I felt it was ready to go here. That got rid of a lot of image issues! I think you'll find it a good read of a guy often remembered for the wrong things (shoe banging).Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - having read this for about the third time (once per request, another during the milhist ACR, and a final time just now), I am convinced that it is ready for the star. Great job Wehwalt. —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appears to be a free version of ref 30, the NYTimes article, as an On This Day feature! Verify, if you wish, that it matches the pay version you used. --an odd name 23:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the same; it is used as an EL. I will note in the ref that it is "available free at" but think it best to keep the link to the pay version as well, there are pictures in that version.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind. I pretty much glanced the References and not the ELs...*headdesk* --an odd name 23:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I modified ref 30 anyway so readers can view the article. No great harm in giving readers two routes to his free obit.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind. I pretty much glanced the References and not the ELs...*headdesk* --an odd name 23:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With that aside, there's no dab links (no easy task in a big article like this). An external link comes up "404" in the link checker, and even has "Page not found" in the window title, but works for me otherwise. A few images lack alt text—I assume those were intentional omissions—and the rest have alt text with no obvious problems. --an odd name 00:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll remove the dead link. Oddly, that was just added to the article by someone else. I need to look at the alts, I had to add several images because several were found to have copyright problems. I have to go out now but will report back in the morning, either with alt text added or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not really a dead link (it does have text of a Khrushchev speech), it just appears as such to the link checker and to the site's own database (per the page's own window title). --an odd name 00:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text is complete now. I didn't bring back the EL, because given Khrushchev's prominence and the number of EL's we already have, a link to the text of what seems a fairly random speech isn't needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not really a dead link (it does have text of a Khrushchev speech), it just appears as such to the link checker and to the site's own database (per the page's own window title). --an odd name 00:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline 1c (still) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC),
2cFifelfoo (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC). See reasons below.SameSome of the same reasons for Decline at Military History assessment.[reply]- Comment: 2c checked and fine. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To the closer, please note that extensive debate exists below in relation to my decline for 1c reasons Fifelfoo (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline reasons not addressed at Military history assessment
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nikita Khrushchev transclusion:
2c: One news article is in the bibliographyNIB (Not in bibliography): ^ Schwartz, Harry (1971-09-12), "We know now that he was a giant among men", The New York Times, retrieved 2009-09-25 (fee for article)NIB: ^ Shabad, Theodore (1970-11-24), "Izvestia likens 'memoirs' to forgeries", The New York Times, retrieved 2009-09-25 (fee for article)NIB: ^ "Text of speech on Stalin by Khrushchev as released by the State Department", The New York Times, 1956-05-06, retrieved 2009-08-23 (fee for article)NIB: ^ "Vast Riddle", The New York Times, 1953-03-10, retrieved 2009-08-23 (fee for article)NIB: ^ a b c Birch, Douglas (2008-08-02), "Khrushchev kin allege family honor slurred", USAToday, retrieved 2009-08-14(These four may be a style debate, but I hold fairly strongly to the disciplinary expectation from History for full bibliographies).
Otherwise2c is acceptable, consistent.- 1c: Sourcing shows a US source bias.
- 1c: Where are the scholarly journal articles?
- 1c: Where are the scholarly edited collections?
- WP:MILMOS#SOURCES not met. Wouldn't meet Featured Article 1c as it lacks a full survey of the highest quality sources available (no scholarly journal article search conducted).
- New Criticism related to Decline not from Military assessment Expansion of 1c concerns
- FUTON via Scholar: Lenoe, Matthew, "Khrushchev Era Politics and the Investigation of the Kirov Murder", 1956-1957, Acta Slavica Iaponica 24 2007: 47-74.
- FUTON via Scholar: P Jones "Iurii...ISBN 5733103299." Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 8, 3 (Summer 2007): 695–704.. Review article of Thaw Scholarship. (Note, not a book review, this is a RS Journal article).
- FUTON via Scholar: John Rettie "How Khrushchev Leaked his Secret Speech to the World" History Workshop Journal 2006 62(1):187-193; doi:10.1093/hwj/dbl018
- FUTON via Scholar: Another Review Article: David Wedgwood Benn "Review: On Re-Examining the Khrushchev Era: A Review Article" Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Jun., 2004), pp. 615-621
- FUTON via Scholar: Mie Nakachi, "N. S. Khrushchev and the 1944 Soviet Family Law: Politics, Reproduction, and Language" East European Politics & Societies, Vol. 20, No. 1, 40-68 (2006) DOI: 10.1177/0888325405284313
- Citation from Scholar: @article{loewenstein2006re, title={Re-emergence of public opinion in the Soviet Union: Khrushchev and responses to the secret speech}, author={LOEWENSTEIN, K.E.}, journal={Europe-Asia Studies}, volume={58}, number={8}, pages={1329--1345}, year={2006}, publisher={Routledge}}
- FUTON via Scholar: V.V. ZHURAVLEV "N.S. Khrushchev : A Leader's Self-Identification as a Political Actor" Russian Studies in History 42, Number 4 / Spring 2004 70 - 79
- FUTON via Scholar: Paul Du Quenoy "The Role of Foreign Affairs in the Fall of Nikita Khrushchev in October 1964" The International History Review, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Jun., 2003), pp. 334-356
- I am seriously not convinced of 1c. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nikita Khrushchev transclusion:
- I understand that. I think some journal articles as you have cited would be very helpful for the article, and I'll see if I can find some access to some of them. I note that 1c says "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic." I think some of those articles could well be useful for points like the Secret Speecch and Khrushchev's overthrow, some of them look too specialized to be helpful in a survey which necessarily has to keep to the high points and is long even so (but not long when compared to articles on US Presidents at FA, and Khrushchev led his country for longer than any US pres except FDR. Certainly most of the biographical details and much of the description of what he did do not need to be sourced to scholarly journals. As for US bias, while the newspapers are all US, they are used for only a small part of the article. Taubman was American, I'm still searching for Tompson's, but the other authors are non-American.
- The bibilography, I'll change that this weekend.
- Anyhoo, I'll see about trying to get ahold of some of these journals. I'd appreciate the URL of the page where you ran that search, I had no luck with the search through Wilson that you proposed at MilHist.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've raised concerns about the applicability of this oppose at WT:FAC and will be guided by the ensuing discussion there, if any. While I want the best possible article, I don't want to throw in a couple of scholarly articles only to be told that that's not enough, or only for the sake of doing it. Therefore, I've requested some community input so we are all on the same page as to the standard to be applied regarding 1c.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All images now have alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've raised concerns about the applicability of this oppose at WT:FAC and will be guided by the ensuing discussion there, if any. While I want the best possible article, I don't want to throw in a couple of scholarly articles only to be told that that's not enough, or only for the sake of doing it. Therefore, I've requested some community input so we are all on the same page as to the standard to be applied regarding 1c.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, getting back to Fifelfoo's concern re sourcing, based on the discussions on the changes to 1c, the non-adopted proposals to enact a 1f and the discussion at WT:FAC, I am inclined to think that unless there is a showing that there is something missing or seriously wrong with the article, I do not believe that Fifelfoo's sourcing objection is completely applicable. It was plainly not the intent of those who voted for the present form of 1c to require the "highest" (even if scholarly articles are, and I would question that) sourcing, but merely insist on a high level of sourcing, which the sources in this article meet easily. Taubman won the Pulitzer Prize for his bio of Khrushchev, for example. No trivial or kid's works are used in this article. This is a bio of a figure in history about whom there is a large amount written. It is written in summary style, meaning that we don't get into intricacies. Scholarly articles generally do not replow the cornfields; they look for the intricacies. Here, the article is extensively, and I mean extensively sourced to well regarded books on Khrushchev and his era. The bibliographies for those books list many scholarly articles and collections. There may be articles which require the use of such scholarly articles. This is not one of them. It is comprehensive, verifiable, and uses solid works on the subject, most of recent publication (2009, 2008, 2006, 2003, 2001, 1996, plus Khrushchev's annotated memoirs published 2002-05 and used very cautiously). I will address Fifelfoo's 2c concern, that is placing all news articles used into the biblio, this weekend, as I said.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The citations above are complete academic citations in a common historical style. Some have DOIs. 1c is "1(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic." Review articles, and recent specialist scholarship on aspects of biography or major political contributions (such as family law) should be addressed to be a "thorough and representative survey". V.V. ZHURAVLEV "N.S. Khrushchev : A Leader's Self-Identification as a Political Actor" Russian Studies in History 42, Number 4 / Spring 2004 70 - 79 is, in particular, a biographical article. For the article to meet 1c, it needs to account for the scholarship in journals. It doesn't not need to exhaustively reference every journal article; but I would be very surprised if Zhuravlev wasn't relevant. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, I do not believe the article needs to discuss a family law passed ten years before Khrushchev attained power. Summary style is the name of the game here; this is a long article and I see little likelihood such a journal article will have anything which is worth adding to this article. To a certain extent, I feel as if the goalposts are on wheels here. I have no objection to obtaining, if reasonably possible, a small number of specific articles if it will satisfy your 1c concerns, or else explaining why I think they are not needed for the article as I did with the family law one. I should add that I have ordered a scholarly collection of articles edited by Taubman in 2000, though I don't know if it will come and be absorbed and inserted into the article during the course of the FAC, and the fact that they are from 2000 means that they were certainly used for Taubman's subsequent Pulitzer Prize winning biography of Khrushchev. But if you are going to require obtaining large numbers of articles "on spec", well, in that case, I will stand on the fact that no other FA reviewer has agreed with your objection, most have repudiated it, and I'll leave it to the good graces of the FA delegate. The fact that you think 1c should be interpreted in the way you do is interesting but does not govern. I am aware you have a 2c objection, but I will move the articles into the biblio. I should note that you have not yet addressed my similar question at WT:FAC. where I asked you if the article was cited in books which are cited, whether you felt that was sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have adequately expressed myself at length in relation to this FAC's process, and will review it periodically in relation to my reasons for declining. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently not, as I have indicated that I don't fully understand your reasoning or what you would like to see. Since you decline my request for clarification, I consider your oppose unactionable for that reason as well as the fact that multiple reviewers disagree and multiple commentors at WT:FAC state that your view of 1c is not valid. Thank you for your contribution.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As you appear to have literacy problems, and are not familiar with the disciplinary practice of history, in relation to 1c a thorough literature survey has not been conducted, in particular you have not used general or specific relevant journal articles, a key form of historical literature, please correct this. There is no time limit. If you don't have access to material, seek editors who do to collaborate with you. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly suggest you avoid the personal invective. No one who brings a seriously considered FA candidate here has "literacy problems". Please note WP:NPA ("Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.") If you wish to state your requirements with specificity, I'm available to listen. Otherwise, I am content with the judgment of the FAC community, which has come down against you and is fully aware of whether I have "literacy problems", as it has passed 13 FA's in which I was a major contributor before the FAC. Including a number in the field of history.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MILMOS#SOURCES Fifelfoo (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WIAFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, let me quote, yet again, "1 It is - (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic." You are resistant to acquiring and using the variety of literature in edited collections and journals. The article is not thorough, and is not representative, as it fails to take account of two major publishing modes of academic history. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting to Milmos for a sec, "articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians." Which this is. However, recent books, or monographs, as you put it, by respected historians which rely on the field of published works, are superior for encyclopedia purposes because of the fact that they are in a better position to judge weight than we. The article contains up to date sources by respected scholars (Carlson, the most recent book, is not a scholar on Soviet matters, but his book generally covers Khrushchev's two US visits and is used for that purpose). I'm going to leave it at this, because long pieces turn off reviewers, and we can continue this at WT:FAC if you want, but you are for sure prizing form over substance. That being said, I admire your having the courage of your convictions, though I don't agree with you and don't think your opinion should override that of the FAC community. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding this article and WEIGHTing in relation to 1c, you've neglected the Review Article mode of publication in journals which is the premier manner in which academic historians evaluate secondary source weighting. WT:FAC would be the more general issues, which can probably proceed there. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We are not academic historians, and a Wikipedia article is not a master's thesis. I appreciate the effort to upgrade WP's standards, but doing it by unilateral opposes based on what you think our standards should be is not the way to go. WP works by consensus, and while there are times that one person has to drag consensus with him, this isn't one of those times! Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting to Milmos for a sec, "articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians." Which this is. However, recent books, or monographs, as you put it, by respected historians which rely on the field of published works, are superior for encyclopedia purposes because of the fact that they are in a better position to judge weight than we. The article contains up to date sources by respected scholars (Carlson, the most recent book, is not a scholar on Soviet matters, but his book generally covers Khrushchev's two US visits and is used for that purpose). I'm going to leave it at this, because long pieces turn off reviewers, and we can continue this at WT:FAC if you want, but you are for sure prizing form over substance. That being said, I admire your having the courage of your convictions, though I don't agree with you and don't think your opinion should override that of the FAC community. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, let me quote, yet again, "1 It is - (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic." You are resistant to acquiring and using the variety of literature in edited collections and journals. The article is not thorough, and is not representative, as it fails to take account of two major publishing modes of academic history. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WIAFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MILMOS#SOURCES Fifelfoo (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly suggest you avoid the personal invective. No one who brings a seriously considered FA candidate here has "literacy problems". Please note WP:NPA ("Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.") If you wish to state your requirements with specificity, I'm available to listen. Otherwise, I am content with the judgment of the FAC community, which has come down against you and is fully aware of whether I have "literacy problems", as it has passed 13 FA's in which I was a major contributor before the FAC. Including a number in the field of history.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As you appear to have literacy problems, and are not familiar with the disciplinary practice of history, in relation to 1c a thorough literature survey has not been conducted, in particular you have not used general or specific relevant journal articles, a key form of historical literature, please correct this. There is no time limit. If you don't have access to material, seek editors who do to collaborate with you. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently not, as I have indicated that I don't fully understand your reasoning or what you would like to see. Since you decline my request for clarification, I consider your oppose unactionable for that reason as well as the fact that multiple reviewers disagree and multiple commentors at WT:FAC state that your view of 1c is not valid. Thank you for your contribution.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have adequately expressed myself at length in relation to this FAC's process, and will review it periodically in relation to my reasons for declining. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, I do not believe the article needs to discuss a family law passed ten years before Khrushchev attained power. Summary style is the name of the game here; this is a long article and I see little likelihood such a journal article will have anything which is worth adding to this article. To a certain extent, I feel as if the goalposts are on wheels here. I have no objection to obtaining, if reasonably possible, a small number of specific articles if it will satisfy your 1c concerns, or else explaining why I think they are not needed for the article as I did with the family law one. I should add that I have ordered a scholarly collection of articles edited by Taubman in 2000, though I don't know if it will come and be absorbed and inserted into the article during the course of the FAC, and the fact that they are from 2000 means that they were certainly used for Taubman's subsequent Pulitzer Prize winning biography of Khrushchev. But if you are going to require obtaining large numbers of articles "on spec", well, in that case, I will stand on the fact that no other FA reviewer has agreed with your objection, most have repudiated it, and I'll leave it to the good graces of the FA delegate. The fact that you think 1c should be interpreted in the way you do is interesting but does not govern. I am aware you have a 2c objection, but I will move the articles into the biblio. I should note that you have not yet addressed my similar question at WT:FAC. where I asked you if the article was cited in books which are cited, whether you felt that was sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons stated here by many editors, it is clear that Fifelfoo's concerns do not reflect a consensus view of WP:WIAFA, since his comments there have not attracted support, whereas the opposite views have. Accordingly, I consider them unactionable for purposes of FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on 1c concerns - the article relies on seven academically published works across four academic publishers. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on 1c per Ottava and discussion here. I'll try to conduct a thorough review of some other criteria later. Steve Smith (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments leaning to support (support now unconditional, see below): First, I entirely agree with the above declarations that 1(c) is satisfied in this article. The "decliner" would need show specific instances of material omitted or inadequately covered, to justify an insistence on further sources. This is my first reading of the article (I missed the peer review); it is rather long so it may take me a few days to complete my comments. In general the article looks meaty and impressive - my comments on the first quarter are below. They are mostly nitpicks, an art at which I excel. To help differentiate I have put my slightly more substantial concerns into italics.
- Early years
- I can't sort out who is who here: "According to Khrushchev in his memoirs, Shevchenko was a freethinker who upset the villagers by not attending church, and when her brother visited, he gave him books which had been banned by the Imperial Government." Exactly who gave books, to whom?
- Just a thought: "Employed by a workshop which serviced ten mines..." This is "ten", not "tin", is it?
- "With the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917, the government in St. Petersburg..." Presumably this means the Menshevik government, should say so.
- The last sentence of the fifth paragraph (re his appointment as a commissar) really belongs to the following paragraph.
- We need more information in the text to indicate when WWI ended (so far as the Russians were concerned) when the civil was began and who the combatants were in that civil war. OK, anyone reasonably well-read in 20thC history will know these things, but assumptions shouldn't be made about foreknowledge.
- As now written, you have the Germans "invading" the Donbas after the conclusion of the peace treaty. Shouldn't this be "occupied" rather than invaded? Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "...loyal to his Bolshevik principles" - the article has not clarified when Khruschev actually became a Bolshevik by conviction. A word or two should explain what Bolshevik principles would be offended by setting foot in a church.
- Better yet, I just piped to Opium of the People. The others I all did. And yes, it was ten, not tin.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Donbas years
- There is no reference to "Donbas" in the section, so the title is somewhat cryptic.
- This section is dateless until the third paragraph. When did he go to Rutchenkovo? When was he offered the Pastukhov post? When did he join the CP and when was he appointed a party secretary?
- "Bailiwick" should preferably be linked, though the link article is unsatisfactory since it doesn't give the secondary meaning. Maybe consider an alternative term?
- Kaganovich protege
- "Rightists" may be too vague a term to use in this context. Is it possible to extend this description?
Tompson says the Moscow organization was a "bastion of support for the right opposition", that is, to Stalin, and that after the First Five-Year Plan, there was a resurgence of rightism. After that, he calls them "rightists". I will add they to some extent opposed the government. I doubt they lived long, under the circumstances that would shortly arise.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Third paragraph, first line: "he" needs definition
- Early relationship with Stalin; involvement in purges
- This is an unwieldy section heading. I'm not sure a semicolon is a good idea (it should probably be a colon anyway). The section is basically about Khruschev's role in the purges, so perhaps that should be the main focus within the title.
- Clumsy sentence: "Khrushchev expressed his support for these trials as the trials proceeded in 1936:" Perhaps "In 1936, as the trials proceeded, Khruschev expressed his support:" (though "expressed his support" is a bit of a euphemism, considering what he actually said!)
- "Party leaders were given numerical quotas of "enemies" to be turned in and arrested." I would like to see a specific citation for this statement.
- "...Kiev, which was again the Ukrainian capital.." Unexplained unnecessary detail. Suggest delete "which was again"
- Dodgy sentence construction: "Since Khrushchev was again unsuccessfully denounced while in Kiev, his biographer, William Taubman, suggests that he must have known that some of the denunciations were not true and that innocent people were suffering." I suggest "Biographer William Taubman suggests that, since Khrushchev was again unsuccessfully denounced while in Kiev, he must have known that some of the denunciations were not true and that innocent people were suffering."
- Done all this. On the Kiev as capital, though, I think we have to leave something about that in there, as Kharkov is mentioned as the Ukrainian capital, so a reader might see that as a factual error. I shortened it though.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Brian: Thanks for the review, I agree it is a long article. I will implement them today if I possibly can. I will only leave comments if I do not accept a change or there is some comment I need to have made.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of Brian's concerns have been addressed, so far as I can tell.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I am continuing to read and comment on the article, but to avoid this review becoming impossibly lengthy I will post routine comments/queries to the talk page. I will only bring issues here if I consider them significant. Please bear with me if this process takes a little while, but I want to do the article justice. Brianboulton (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take your time, Brian. This is a long article, the longest I've done (though Neville Chamberlain is going to be longer) and everyone has been focused on the 1c issue. Someone has to go in and check for dust on top of the furniture, and you are an excellent person to do so.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I am continuing to read and comment on the article, but to avoid this review becoming impossibly lengthy I will post routine comments/queries to the talk page. I will only bring issues here if I consider them significant. Please bear with me if this process takes a little while, but I want to do the article justice. Brianboulton (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of Brian's concerns have been addressed, so far as I can tell.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here are some points of concern, all fairly minor, picked up on reading through to the "Education" section. A much longer list of nitpicks awaits your attention on the talkpage. Unless something untoward happens (collapse of civilization as we know it etc.) I should finish the review tomorrow (ominous news re Chamberlain, though):-
- A brief explanation of what Operation Uranus was, might be better than relying on the link. (Great Patriotic War)
- Likewise with the fabricated Leningrad case. (Stalin's final years and Struggle for power)
- "In September, Khrushchev was elected as First Secretary of the Party." Who "elected" him? (Struggle for control)
- Last paragraph of the "Struggle for power" section needs to indicate the direct role played by Khruschev in the demotion of Malenkov, otherwise the final sentence is difficult to understand.
- "During Khrushchev's rule, forced hospitalization for the "socially dangerous" was introduced." (Political reform) I would like to see a small amplification of this rather sinister-sounding statement.
- The source leaves it at that. I'll see what I can find out.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "One adviser to Khrushchev was agricultural charlatan Trofim Lysenko,..." Not an encyclopedic, or neutral, introduction to this man, even if the description appears warranted.
- Fine. I'll alter it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Education: the final paragraph of this subsection is perhaps a little dismissive of the progress made in the Soviet school education system in the Khruschev era. I believe there were some positive reforms. I know the article isn't about that, but perhaps a sentence could be found that recognises that there were some achievements in the education field?
- (later)Additional thought: back in the eighties I did a study of post-war Russian education in an option module on Comparative Education as part of an MA course. I don't have those books or notes any more, but I seem to remember that while Khruschev's "polytechnical" educational reforms (broadly what you describe) were deemed a failure, there were significant advances in nursery education and in the develpoment of elite academies. Maybe a source could confirm this?
- I've come up with a couple of google books sources on this, I will compose a paragraph in the next day or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (later)Additional thought: back in the eighties I did a study of post-war Russian education in an option module on Comparative Education as part of an MA course. I don't have those books or notes any more, but I seem to remember that while Khruschev's "polytechnical" educational reforms (broadly what you describe) were deemed a failure, there were significant advances in nursery education and in the develpoment of elite academies. Maybe a source could confirm this?
Despite these quibbles, the article is generally very absorbing, and instructional for those of us for whom Khruschev is a remote, near forgotten figure. Odd to realise that he was once, and relatively recently, the most powerful individual in the world. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything except as noted is taken care of or will be in the next few minutes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. How the mighty have fallen. I will probably need two or three days to address your various points. It all looks reasonable though. Thanks, looking forward to the remainder.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I have completed my prose review. As before, minor points are listed on the talkpage, but I thouht it worth bringing the following here:-
- Space program and US visit, last sentence: Why did De Gaulle have this veto on the summit date?
- He apparently just said he wasn't available. Plus, he was designated to host as K had just been to the US and had gone to London in 1956. I guess they could have moved it and done without him but then the West would have looked disunited, and it would not have been possible to seriously discuss Berlin. Fairly typical of de Gaulle.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- U2 and Berlin crisis: "Emboldened by hints from American officials that East Germany had every right to close its borders,..." Can we have a little more information? What American officials, and when and to whom would such hints have been made?
- Bohlen and Fulbright, I've fleshed it out a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Life in retirement: It would be useful to have some indication as to what 500 rubles per month represented, as an income in the USSR in 1964. Is it possible, by way of a footnote perhaps, to compare this with the average wages of a 1964 USSR manual worker, or white-collar worker, or professional?
- That's pretty difficult, because we don't know exactly what he had to pay for. He did not have to pay rent, I'm pretty sure of that, he had a chauffeur and state car (low grade official grade), plus some other labor was apparently provided for him. Of course, they were KGB, but even so. The only reference I can find is an initial concern by Khrushchev that Nina Petrovna might have trouble making ends meet, but there's no further talk about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a truly monumental article, whch I found interesting from start to finish, to the extent that I scarcely noticed its formidable length. I am sure others will find likewise. I intend to leave it for a day, then re-read it when, presumably, my points will have been absorbed (or refuted). I will then update my declaration. Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done everything or left comments, excepting the education bit, which I will work on in a little while.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's done too subject to the note I put on your talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I have spent considerable time on this article and have seen it improve in the process, from a fairly high base I might add. My various points have been suitably addressed. I have posted one final quibble concerning the WW1 period, but it is very minor, and I look forward to seeing the article's future promotion. A terrific achievement. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addressed Fifelfoo's 2c objections (I don't consider 1c actionable) and have asked him to withdraw his 2c objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think this article's sources are fine, as long as there isn't anything missing, or a theory that is neglected YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive) 08:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and comment. I notice that many of the images have been culled from the article for justifiable copyright concerns (important). But, I have a problem in understanding how freedom of panorama laws apply, for example to this photograph, which I admit is mine (and would love to see put back in the article so perhpas I have a conflict of interest). The "law" did not apply at the time I took this photograph, and his grave looks completely different today. Also, freedom of panorama is surely only a concern wrt images from the Commons, not those on a local server. I am not convinced that the deletion of the more recent photographs of his grave that were taken by both me and the nominator, at different times, is justified. I think a photograph of his grave would gracefully conclude this now excellent contribution. This aside, well done indeed for bringing one of my favourite articles up to FA standard. I could not have done this. Graham Colm Talk 23:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had removed it from the article as I put my own photo of Khrushchev's grave in, which fell to the axe of the A class image review under the freedom of panorama. I had thought only one photo of K's grave needed. I would ask that whoever is doing the image review also review the image GrahamColm has provided (if he misses it, I'll leave a note on his talk page), and if it passes muster I will gladly put it in. Also, if we can get by the freedom of panorama problem on the photos of the monument (perhaps the image reviewer would comment on that too), I'd happily put either mine or GrahamColm's image of the well known grave monument into the article. The image I put in the legacy section of the khrushcheby being destroyed is for sure inferior to the grave image. Thank you for the support and the praise (you sell yourself short, by the way). Khrushchev is quite a character. I have a sneaking admiration for him, sitting staring at the screen next to Stalin, wondering if he would ever have the chance to be #1 ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We now have five supports, one oppose which I've commented on why it should not be deemed a barrier to promotion. We still need the image check, and I know it's been requested. Maybe we'll get lucky and have a vodka celebration this weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments regarding images:
File:Nikita_Khrushchev_Signature.svg - Should be {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-text}} (the Commons versions, of course).File:Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev, 1936.jpg - Who is the author and when did s/he die? This information needs to be known to use the PD-Russia-2008 template.File:May Day Parade 1957 Moscow.jpg - Purpose of "Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the subject of the photo is the subject of the article" is not specific (NFCC#10C) or detailed (WP:FURG vis-a-vis NFCC#10C) and is untrue (this is the Khruschev article, not the May Day or Политбюро article); if it were true, would it not then fail NFCC#1? (The subject, Khrushchev, has a free image.)- Regarding the grave image, I'm not sure I understand where the confusion is. Freedom of panorama is a limitation of a copyright holder's excluive rights to works that are on permanent public display (here, a photograph of Khrushchev). The degree of such limitations, or even their existance in the first place, differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It does not exist in the United States (save an exemption for buildings). The Russian Federation does not limit preclusion of commercial use (i.e. commercial use is disallowed), so Graham's derivative photograph isn't free enough for our purposes. Depending on the degree the grave has changed ("looks completely different today")--i.e. whether the Khrushchev photo has been removed--it might not even be expected to meet the requirement of "permanence". The image of Khruschchev may indeed not have been protected by copyright at the time the photo was taken, however the copyright law of 1993 (No. 5351-1) set forth a term of 50 years p.m.a. that has been determined to be retroactive to previously unprotected works. Эlcobbola talk 16:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Khrushgrave.jpg This shows the grave today; I took it myself in August. It is now entirely different (it is not unusual in that cemetery to have a temporary marker while an artistic permeanent grave monument is being prepared). I have removed the two problematical images and added the pd ineligible tag to the sig image. I won't add Graham's image back into the article without someone's OK, but I think we are now fine on images.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to mention one thing: File:Nikita_Khrushchev_Signature.svg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. From what source was it traced? Otherwise images look fine. Unfortunately, the current grave image has the same issue as the 1973 version (i.e. as a derivative, the copyright of the sculpture needs to be considered). Эlcobbola talk 19:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I struck the image. Signatures are pure decoration, in my view. OK, image check done, links and dab check done, 5 supports, 1 oppose which does not reflect the consensus on 1c.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to mention one thing: File:Nikita_Khrushchev_Signature.svg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. From what source was it traced? Otherwise images look fine. Unfortunately, the current grave image has the same issue as the 1973 version (i.e. as a derivative, the copyright of the sculpture needs to be considered). Эlcobbola talk 19:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Khrushgrave.jpg This shows the grave today; I took it myself in August. It is now entirely different (it is not unusual in that cemetery to have a temporary marker while an artistic permeanent grave monument is being prepared). I have removed the two problematical images and added the pd ineligible tag to the sig image. I won't add Graham's image back into the article without someone's OK, but I think we are now fine on images.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I participated more in the discussion of 1c at WT:FAC, I'm going to leave this to Karanacs (also because she edits in the area of History). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conversion needed here? "sold the USSR 5,000 tons of seed " Dabomb87 (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Template inserted. @Sandy, thanks then.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but there are a few more needed: "the harvest of 107.5 million tons of grain was down from a peak of 134.7 million tons in 1958." Check throughout the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Template inserted. @Sandy, thanks then.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article size
Can reviewers please comment on the page size? The readable prose size is currently 85 kB (13743 words), which would make this tied for the 4th longest FA, and is significantly above the WP:SIZE recommendation of 6,000 - 10,000 words. Proper use of summary style is part ofWP:WIAFA (criterion 4), and I want to make sure that this has been adequately examined before closing the FAC. Thanks. Karanacs (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with splitting is that I cannot find a section that justifiably should be split... the guy had a very interesting life, including presiding over one of the most interesting periods of Soviet-American relations. I think that the plethora of events that Krush took part in justifies an article of this length. —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with the above. Khrushchev was the leader of the powerful and vast Soviet Union at a most interesting time. It would be difficult to reduce the length of the article without subsequent complaints on the Talk Page that important events were not adequately covered. It might be just my old and biased view, but it seems to me that the importance of this man to the history of the 20th century is in danger of being forgotten. The article is so well written that it is a joy rather than a chore to read. I say keep it as it is with regard to the length—I think the balance between comprehensiveness and summary style has been well struck. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 21:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur as nominator. The bulkiest part of the article is the foreign policy, especially US, and that is also what most people will be looking to read about, and should not be spun off. Khrushchev did a lot of stuff in his life, and this is simply the number of words needed to do justice, in summary style, to his life.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, in this case, that an extraordinary length is justified. Wouldn't want to see it used, however, as a precedent for other world leader articles that may turn up here in the future. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As our longest FA biography (in terms of readable prose), this would set a precedent. Khrushchev is not the only former world leader about whom much has been written, and an acceptance of this length for this article implies that the length will be acceptable about other leaders who have been heavily covered. Karanacs (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well ... what if I were to split off the pre 1949 material into an article, say, Life of Nikita Khrushchev prior to 1949. Because I'm really getting a sense from the delegates that this is an issue for them and I'm not willing to swim upstream. I will say I am not convinced it is an improvement to the article. I can't very well call the article "early life of" by the way, given that he was 55 in 1949.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By having subarticles, you could reduce this article in size while also opening up room for a great deal more content about Khrushchev. A long article is justified, but it's important to have subarticles to facilitate further growth of the content. Everyking (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, creation of spin-off articles is important, but I cannot see how breaking up this would help improve Wikipedia. It says at the top of my page "We’ve created the greatest collection of shared knowledge in history" - dare I say this: although content building is important, more important is quality. Of the millions of articles on Wikipedia, relatively few are anywhere near the standard of this article. To me, the FAC process is not about building content, it is about encouraging high quality contributions. OK, it is a long article, but not so long that it should be denied FA recognition.Graham Colm Talk 21:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By having subarticles, you could reduce this article in size while also opening up room for a great deal more content about Khrushchev. A long article is justified, but it's important to have subarticles to facilitate further growth of the content. Everyking (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well ... what if I were to split off the pre 1949 material into an article, say, Life of Nikita Khrushchev prior to 1949. Because I'm really getting a sense from the delegates that this is an issue for them and I'm not willing to swim upstream. I will say I am not convinced it is an improvement to the article. I can't very well call the article "early life of" by the way, given that he was 55 in 1949.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As our longest FA biography (in terms of readable prose), this would set a precedent. Khrushchev is not the only former world leader about whom much has been written, and an acceptance of this length for this article implies that the length will be acceptable about other leaders who have been heavily covered. Karanacs (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, in this case, that an extraordinary length is justified. Wouldn't want to see it used, however, as a precedent for other world leader articles that may turn up here in the future. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't commented on the FAC, but happened to see this question posed. As the main editor of a couple of long GA/almost-FA biographies that go over the 10,000 word suggested guideline, I feel that limit is too low for certain kinds of articles, and this here is one of them. It's often better to tell a coherent biographical narrative in one place than to split it up, especially given that page view stats consistently show that readership of biographical subarticles ("Early life of X", etc.) is very, very low, for every subject from Isaac Newton to Sarah Palin. So I think this article size is appropriate. And also, the load time for this article is surprisingly quick, probably because of the citation style used and not having too many navboxes and the like. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, I have to agree with Wasted Time R. Although this is a fairly long article, I don't think it should be split up into smaller articles to reduce its length. It loads quickly, it isn't a terribly long read like the German Inner Border FAC was, and quite honestly it's a bloody good article. Keep it as it is! Skinny87 (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur as nominator. The bulkiest part of the article is the foreign policy, especially US, and that is also what most people will be looking to read about, and should not be spun off. Khrushchev did a lot of stuff in his life, and this is simply the number of words needed to do justice, in summary style, to his life.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with the above. Khrushchev was the leader of the powerful and vast Soviet Union at a most interesting time. It would be difficult to reduce the length of the article without subsequent complaints on the Talk Page that important events were not adequately covered. It might be just my old and biased view, but it seems to me that the importance of this man to the history of the 20th century is in danger of being forgotten. The article is so well written that it is a joy rather than a chore to read. I say keep it as it is with regard to the length—I think the balance between comprehensiveness and summary style has been well struck. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 21:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick question - does this in the references need a "fee required" disclaimer? ' "Text of speech on Stalin by Khrushchev as released by the State Department", The New York Times, 1956-05-06, retrieved 2009-08-23' —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what the practice in the biblio is, but I've added them to the NY Times ones.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 15 November 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:12, 15 November 2009 [37].
William of Tyre
- Nominator(s): Adam Bishop (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on this article for over six years, and in the past year I've been expanding it and referencing it to bring it up to Featured Article standards. Yes, he's another medieval bishop, but amazingly I am not in collusion with Ealdgyth! His bishopness is only incidental to his importance as a chronicler. I haven't been involved in the FAC process recently, but based on reading other nominations, I'm sure I will enjoy the process - I should have the proper knowledge and resources to answer any questions or make any improvements. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's no dabs or broken links, and all images have alt text (I like the map by the way), so it looks good so far. That said, I made two edits to the lead text; give it and the article another skim to make sure there aren't any remaining errors or if you think I fail at error correction. :) --an odd name 22:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My only concern with the map is the incongruous use of Sans-Serif and Pseudo-Miniscule, and the different layout of the sans that makes it look like two sans fonts have been used. The map obviously drew my attention immediately, even before I went to look at your footnotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I figured someone would comment on the fonts. If there's any doubt about them, it's certainly safer to just use plain old sans-serif (like WP does in text by default, I think) all around. Easier to read, if slightly more boring, that way. --an odd name 00:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, now that I don't know how to fix. I was just using the map from the Kingdom of Jerusalem article. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a deal breaker, it just might be worth improving if you can rustle up support. If I get to keep whinging, Konya is too closely spaced, Euphrates too loosely spaced. Even within the Sans Serif the variations in display are too great. I would humbly suggest that if a Miniscule has to be used, that one with high legibility and visual appeal be used, the one currently in use is of low legibility due to thin sections of characters. (You'll also get a free 1c / 2c review out of me later with a statement on the article's progression) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, well, I left a message with User:MapMaker, its creator. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I responded to your note, Adam, on my talk page. See you there, MapMaster (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A new map has been swapped in, specially designed for the article. I have changed all the characters to a sans serif font, and moved, upon Adam's suggestion, the timeframe to 1165. I added a few places mentioned in the article to the map and removed a less relevant ones. Hope this works for you, MapMaster (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its beautiful. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A new map has been swapped in, specially designed for the article. I have changed all the characters to a sans serif font, and moved, upon Adam's suggestion, the timeframe to 1165. I added a few places mentioned in the article to the map and removed a less relevant ones. Hope this works for you, MapMaster (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I responded to your note, Adam, on my talk page. See you there, MapMaster (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, well, I left a message with User:MapMaker, its creator. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a deal breaker, it just might be worth improving if you can rustle up support. If I get to keep whinging, Konya is too closely spaced, Euphrates too loosely spaced. Even within the Sans Serif the variations in display are too great. I would humbly suggest that if a Miniscule has to be used, that one with high legibility and visual appeal be used, the one currently in use is of low legibility due to thin sections of characters. (You'll also get a free 1c / 2c review out of me later with a statement on the article's progression) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, now that I don't know how to fix. I was just using the map from the Kingdom of Jerusalem article. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I figured someone would comment on the fonts. If there's any doubt about them, it's certainly safer to just use plain old sans-serif (like WP does in text by default, I think) all around. Easier to read, if slightly more boring, that way. --an odd name 00:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, to start with, this is a very well done article. Mostly minor things that cropped up during my read-through, although some may just be questions that I had because of my lack of familiarity with the history:
The prose is exceptional, but I would do a quick read-through to see if it's possible to break up some of the longer sentences into chunks that are more manageable for the reader. For example, the sentence in the lead that starts, "The chronicle was translated into French..."Given the importance of religion in his life story, I would wikilink Christianity early"however, he could not have been German as he had little knowledge of that country" I think this conclusion bears a little (and I do mean a little) more explanation, if it's possible based on your sources. Plenty of people have an ancestry they have little knowledge of.why quote 'apparently well-to-do' instead of converting it into prose?"The scholaster, or school-master, John the Pisan taught" maybe a better copy-editor can weigh in, but shouldn't there be a comma after 'John the Pisan'?"married Maria Comnena grand-niece", missing comma?"was elected archbishop of Tyre to replace Archbishop of Frederick" is the latter a title or a name? should it just be Archbishop Frederick?is it the Third Council of the Lateran, or the Third Lateran Council - you write it both ways in the articleThe sentence that starts, "Peter Edbury and John Rowe" is convoluted and a little unclear"the final book is unfinished, but it may have been completed and the pages may be lost" - it's incongruent to claim that it may have been completed, but state definitely that it is unfinishedThe sentence that starts "William's history can be seen as an apologia," is convoluted as well"His account of the foundation of the Templars is the earliest description" of?"are also a typical topos" explain 'topos'"R. B. C. Huygens notes that..."the French needs translation to English- the last section as a whole strings together a lot of quotes, some of which could perhaps be folded into a regular prose summation
As I said, exceptional work. Geraldk (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Some of those are just missing commas or have leftover words from when I rewrote a sentence (I seem to have done that a lot based on the other comments...). Some of the quotes are there just because I liked them; there is something about the way Huygens says "apparently well-to-do" that amuses me. It is assumed that he wasn't German because whenever there are German crusaders around, he doesn't know anything about them, so he presumably didn't speak German and had no contacts in Germany. The "earliest description" is of the foundation of the Templars...what I mean is, even though people wrote about them before, he is the earliest author to mention their actual foundation, although he wrote it fifty years later. I guess the sentence is backwards currently. I'll clarify all this, thanks! Adam Bishop (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still concerned about that last paragraph. While you've managed to collect a lot of great quotes, it's disconcerting for me as a reader to dig through a long series of them. I would pick one or two to keep as quotes and maybe paraphrase or summarize the rest. Geraldk (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've split up the sentence about the chronicle being an apologia, but could you be more specific? What else is convoluted about it? (Is talking about an apologia too jargon-y?) I'll see what I can do about the last paragraph; what does everyone else think? Too many quotes? (I like them, anyway.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you'd like, we can wait until another reviewer weighs in on that, I don't feel that strongly about it. So I'm set for now, but will wait to support until source and image checks are complete. Geraldk (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've split up the sentence about the chronicle being an apologia, but could you be more specific? What else is convoluted about it? (Is talking about an apologia too jargon-y?) I'll see what I can do about the last paragraph; what does everyone else think? Too many quotes? (I like them, anyway.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still concerned about that last paragraph. While you've managed to collect a lot of great quotes, it's disconcerting for me as a reader to dig through a long series of them. I would pick one or two to keep as quotes and maybe paraphrase or summarize the rest. Geraldk (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that source review issues seem to be resolved. Geraldk (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alt text done; thanks.
Alt text is present (thanks) but it needs some work.
Much of it repeats the captions, but alt text should discuss only the part of the the visual appearance of the image that the caption omits; please see WP:ALT#Repetition. Also, alt text normally should not contain any details that cannot be verified by a nonexpert who is looking only at the images; see WP:ALT#Verifiability. Problematic phrases that should be removed or moved to the caption, on repetition or verifiability grounds, include "from an Old French manuscript", "William of Tyre's chronicle", "showing William", "his history", "the future Baldwin IV", "not being hurt", "a sign of leprosy", "Saladin", "end of chapter heading", "text of chapter", "Godfrey of Bouillon in the Hofkirche of Innsbruck. It was mainly on William's authority that Godfrey became the hero of the First Crusade."The alt text for the map doesn't convey to a visually impaired reader what the gist of the map is, namely the geographical locations and relationships among those regions. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance here.Please try to pretend that you're briefly describing the image over the telephone to a non-expert.
- Eubulides (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I completely misunderstood the point of alt text, sorry. (I didn't even know there was such a concept until the Peer Review!) Is it better now? Would it help if I cropped that image of Saladin burning the town? The text in the image is irrelevant (the others would have it too but they have been cropped differently). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's great now; thanks! There's no need to crop the text from that image from an alt text point of view; if you do crop it for other reasons, please adjust the alt text accordingly. Eubulides (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I completely misunderstood the point of alt text, sorry. (I didn't even know there was such a concept until the Peer Review!) Is it better now? Would it help if I cropped that image of Saladin burning the town? The text in the image is irrelevant (the others would have it too but they have been cropped differently). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: 1c, 2c. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Decline 1c, 2c. (detailed line by line list available later)Fifelfoo (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]1c: Inadequate indication of when commentary chapters are being used from definitive translations versus when the translation is being quoted. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]2c: Inconsistent. p / pp style versus pg style. 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Multiple works in single footnotes which contain the first citation of unbibliographied works. Inadequate bibliography for a historical article (all works go in). The multiple citation styles make me want to go plagiarism hunting, btw. 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC) And I am not impressed that a history article was brought forward with multiple citation styles in the document, 2c as a criterion is pretty clear. Extensive footnotes which should either be incorporated into the article, or culled. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit that my citation style is never perfect (this is a problem in real life as well, actually), but what would you suggest? How should I indicate "commentary chapters"? The Babcock and Krey translation has their own introduction (which I have noted, at least sometimes - I added one that I missed when I was editing just now), and then William's prologue. The Huygens edition also has his own introduction. How can I distinguish these more clearly? I did not think I was using "multiple styles", but perhaps this comes from other editors. Also, I've tolerated a good load of bullshit on Wikipedia over the years, but accusations of plagiarism are a little much. It will help, I'm sure, if you actually tell me which notes you have problems with. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Introductions should be cited as such, Author author (year) Introduction to William Tyre Work Provenance data, in the current style you're using. Works themselves should be cited William Tyre Work trans. Foo and foo. If the manuscript and translation have different titles, the published title should be used.When the article switches, seemlessly, between Foo Work pg. 40 and Foo Work p. 40 it becomes rather obvious two authors have been involved, and that the citations haven't been checked before the FAC.21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it now? I've tried to make it more clear. I don't see the problem with the way I cited things, to be honest. I've also cleaned up the references, so everything I cited in the text is now included. Would you prefer a "notes" section for what you have called "extended footnotes", where I have explained something that I didn't think fit into the text? I don't think it would be useful to cull that information. For "p." vs. "pg.", as far as I can tell there are no instances of "p." so I don't know what you're referring to. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rechecked, you're consistently using pg. for singles... its not a style I've seen, but you're consistent, and that's all that's demanded. Your chapter citations are still out, see "Dictionary of the Middle Ages (ed. Joseph Strayer; article "William of Tyre" by Susan M. Babbitt (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1989), vol. 12, pg. 643)" which is actually "Susan M. Babbitt, "William of Tyre," Dictionary of the Middle Ages ed. Joseph Strayer New York: Charles Scribners's Sons, 1989, vol. 12, pg. 643." (Compare to your citations of articles, or R. C. Schwinges in Tolerance and Intolerance.
- Okay, should be fixed now, but you may still have a problem with more than one work being cited in the same footnote. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have noted where I am referring to the introduction of Babcock/Krey and Huygens, rather than William's text. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (outdent)
2c I discovered I was too hasty declaring your page numbering indicators to be consistent.resolved Fifelfoo (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Latin, or English? You use a mix of pg. for singular, and pp. for plural. pp. is the plural of p. not of pg. The plural of pg. is pgs. (See OED 2 P, (n) 10a.). Pick one of:
- pg. for singular pgs. for plural.
- p. for singular pp. for plural. (Wikipedia's templates follow this style).
- no page prefix indicator. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Latin, or English? You use a mix of pg. for singular, and pp. for plural. pp. is the plural of p. not of pg. The plural of pg. is pgs. (See OED 2 P, (n) 10a.). Pick one of:
- That's a good point. For some reason in high school I learned to use "pg." and I have stubbornly stuck with it ever since, even after learning the plural "pp." later. I've changed it to "p." Adam Bishop (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its all lovely now. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport. Good article. My specific concerns have been addressed.But there are still a lot of over-long sentences, and a few poorly-constructed ones.:*William is praised by current scholars in the section "modern Assesssment" as "one of the greatest medieval writers", "the greatest crusade historian" and "one of the finest historians of the Middle Ages". Isn't this a key element of his notability? And shouldn't mention of this therefore be prominent in the Lead?
"known as William II to distinguish him from William of Malines, the first Archbishop of Tyre by that name"- Shouldn't this be "of that name"?"He grew up in Jerusalem at the height of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which was established in 1099 after the First Crusade, and spent twenty years studying the liberal arts and canon law in the universities of Europe." - Did the Kingdom of Jerusalem study liberal arts and canon law? Sentence should be broken after "Crusade", and then continue with "Then he spent...""In 1179 William led the eastern delegation to the Third Council of the Lateran, but as he was involved in the dynastic struggle that developed during Baldwin IV's reign, his importance waned when a rival faction gained control of royal affairs." - The causality between the first and second parts of this sentence is not very clear. Why not break it after "lateran"? Then the next sentence could be reframed: "However his importance waned after he became involved in a dynastic struggle that developed during Baldwin IV's reign, and a rival faction gained control of royal affairs.""Baldwin II, expanded and secured the kingdom's borders so that the kingdom was roughly contiguous with modern Israel and Lebanon." - It wasn't Baldwin's intention to emulate the borders of modern day Israel and Lebanon. Why not replace "so that" with "until" or something similar?- "
During the first few decades of the kingdom's existence, the population swelled with pilgrims who could now safely visit the holiest sites of Christendom, and with merchants from the Mediterranean city-states of Italy and France who were eager to exploit the rich trade markets of the east"- "was swelled by" would be better than "swelled with". Again can you cut the sentence in two after "Christendom"? Then the next sentence could be: "Merchants from the Mediterranean city-states of Italy and France were also eager to exploit the rich trade markets of the east." "He was born in Jerusalem around 1130, to parents who were probably among the French or Italian merchants who had settled in the kingdom and who were "apparently well-to-do", although it is unknown whether they participated in the First Crusade or arrived later. " - Suggest a sentence split after "1130". Then start "His parents...""He studied liberal arts and theology in Paris and Orleans for about ten years, with professors who had been students of Thierry of Chartres and Gilbert de la Porrée; he also spent time studying under Robert of Melun and Adam de Parvo Ponte, among others. He also studied the classics with Hilary of Orleans, and mathematics ("especially Euclid") with William of Soissons. For six years, he studied theology with Peter Lombard and Maurice de Sully. Afterwards, he studied civil law and canon law in Bologna, with the "Four Doctors", Hugolinus de Porta Ravennate, Bulgarus, Martinus Gosia, and Jacob de Boraigne." - Very long, confusing list. Could be improved by starting: "For about ten years he studied liberal arts and theology in Paris and Orleans, with professors who had been students of Thierry of Chartres and Gilbert de la Porrée." Then a new sentence."William's list "gives us almost a 'Who's Who' of the grammarians, philosophers, theologians and law teachers of the so-called Twelfth-Century Renaissance", and shows that he was as well-educated as any European cleric, such as his contemporary John of Salisbury, who had many of the same teachers." - Not grammatical. Sentence could be split after "European cleric." Then "His contemporary, John of Salisbury, had many of the same teachers.""After his return to the Holy Land in 1165 he was well-suited to rise through the ranks" - "well-fitted" might be better."The subsequent events have often been interpreted as a struggle between two opposing factions, the "court party", made up of Baldwin's mother, Amalric's first wife Agnes of Courtenay, her immediate family, and recent arrivals from Europe who were inexperienced in the affairs of the kingdom and who were in favour of war with Saladin; and the "noble party", led by Raymond III of Tripoli and the native nobility of the kingdom, who favoured peaceful co-existence with the Muslims." - Sentence too long and confusing.
Suggested alternative: "Subsequent events have often been portrayed as a struggle between two opposing factions. These were the "court party", made up of Baldwin's mother, Amalric's first wife Agnes of Courtenay, her immediate family, and recent arrivals from Europe, who were inexperienced in the affairs of the kingdom and were in favour of war with Saladin; and the "noble party", led by Raymond III of Tripoli and the native nobility of the kingdom, who favoured peaceful co-existence with the Muslims."
Xandar 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I am fond of long sentences. I see that some of them were needlessly confusing though. I fixed most of that, so it should be more to your liking. The only one I had a problem with was "so that". It doesn't necessarily imply intent, it can just be a simple result of the main clause. (I don't like "until" as a replacement, but maybe there is something better than both "so that" and "until".) Adam Bishop (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed the "swelled by" comment. I've changed that, and the bit about the borders. Does "which encompassed roughly the same territory" work? I also added Palestine, just to be fair.
Also "by that name" sounds more correct to me than "of that name".I initially changed it but it just didn't seem right. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- On second thought I will defer to Google's 44 million results for "first of that name"! Adam Bishop (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. I think the article flows better now. Xandar 00:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought I will defer to Google's 44 million results for "first of that name"! Adam Bishop (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed the "swelled by" comment. I've changed that, and the bit about the borders. Does "which encompassed roughly the same territory" work? I also added Palestine, just to be fair.
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Note I contributed at the Peer Review) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not yetHow did Ealdgyth miss this?- William's European education allowed him to compose his chronicle in almost flawless Latin, with numerous quotations from classical literature.
- This is unsourced (and unlikely); there were Latinists in Outremer.
- His writing also shows phrasing and spelling which is peculiar to purely classical Latin but not uncommon in medieval Latin, such as:
- confusion between reflexive and possessive pronouns;
- confusion over the use of the accusative and ablative cases, especially after the preposition in;
- To Cicero, these are on a par with English ain't Anyone who does these things, is not writing flawless Latin; he is writing (say) "excellent
- William's European education allowed him to compose his chronicle in almost flawless Latin, with numerous quotations from classical literature.
Latin for his time, studded with quotations from Ovid [or Livy, or whoever it is]." The list of mediaevalisms continues; but the rest is mere spelling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it was unsourced because it's in the lead, heh. Huygens and Edbury/Rowe are my sources for his abilities as a Latinist but perhaps they do not say "flawless". I'm not quite sure what you would like me to say, but I've changed it to "excellent", compared to other medieval authors. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have two problems with the lead:
- It implies that William wrote the Latin of Cicero, Petrarch, or Erasmus - which he plainly did not.
- It implies that he would have written wrose than he did if he had not travelled to Europe. If this is true, it is surprising, and requires a source; there's no reason he should have needed European training any more than the students of Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not the Cicero of the crusades, I don't mean to imply that. The point is just that he's really good for a medieval author. There are certainly other authors of the same period, or a bit earlier or later, who are also very good, or better than William (Bernard of Clairvaux is much better, the Gesta Francorum is much worse, etc etc). But where else would he have learned to write like that? There was no university in Jerusalem. Of course he had to go to Europe. (Even Gildersleeve studied in Europe!) I can probably expand on this, I have a few ideas of where to look. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but Gildersleeve's students didn't have to study in Europe (some of them did, but not all); they had Gildersleeve. Now it may be that no competent Latinist went on Crusade (if so, it would be fascinating); but yes or no, let's have a source. Good luck. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The implications of this line of thought are that William could have written a thousand-page Latin chronicle with just the Latin he learned as a youth, or that he could have gotten a university-level education in a place where there were no universities. But maybe this would not be obvious to the average reader. Sources to come. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm...I thought I would find something in the articles about William as a student by Huygens and Mayer. I am looking for something that specifically says there is no university in Jerusalem so higher education had to be undertaken in Europe, but the best I can find is in Tyerman's "God's War", "the kingdom of Jerusalem...sent its best and brightest students to the west for education, such as William of Tyre." (pg. 218) Is that an appropriate statement and source? I will also look for something that specifically says William must have learned his advanced Latin in Europe, which is what I think you want; maybe the intro to Huygens' edition will have that. (This is harder than I thought, I guess it's more of a logical assumption than something that is ever stated plainly.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I wrote a whole essay about William's education once, and I still have no specific refs for the lack of a university in Jerusalem. I did find a good one from Charles Homer Haskin's "Renaissance of the Twelfth Century" though, which talks about Orleans as a centre of classical study. Does that help? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm...I thought I would find something in the articles about William as a student by Huygens and Mayer. I am looking for something that specifically says there is no university in Jerusalem so higher education had to be undertaken in Europe, but the best I can find is in Tyerman's "God's War", "the kingdom of Jerusalem...sent its best and brightest students to the west for education, such as William of Tyre." (pg. 218) Is that an appropriate statement and source? I will also look for something that specifically says William must have learned his advanced Latin in Europe, which is what I think you want; maybe the intro to Huygens' edition will have that. (This is harder than I thought, I guess it's more of a logical assumption than something that is ever stated plainly.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The implications of this line of thought are that William could have written a thousand-page Latin chronicle with just the Latin he learned as a youth, or that he could have gotten a university-level education in a place where there were no universities. But maybe this would not be obvious to the average reader. Sources to come. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but Gildersleeve's students didn't have to study in Europe (some of them did, but not all); they had Gildersleeve. Now it may be that no competent Latinist went on Crusade (if so, it would be fascinating); but yes or no, let's have a source. Good luck. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have two problems with the lead:
- Some of Adam's responses here are effectively that grammar and rhetoric are university-level work (and presumably the distinction between accusative and ablative transcends the usual course of study). That's not true now; it was even less true in Gildersleeve's time - were medieval universities really that bad? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that can apply to almost any subject. I learned math at school, but am I a mathematician? Of course not. I've studied and taught Latin at university, but can I write a book in Latin? Can you? (With enormous amounts of effort I can perhaps write a few pages.) Obviously that level of composition requires more than simple grammar homework. Sometimes he uses "in" with an ablative when there is movement involved and he should have used an accusative; sometimes he uses nominatives or accusatives where we would expect an ablative absolute; Huygens talks about some of his other quirks. Maybe Cicero doesn't write Latin like that, but not only was Cicero a native speaker, he is also artificially the standard for all Latin grammar. How convenient for him! But Plautus, Caesar, Seneca, and Tacitus didn't write like him either, so why is it so surprising that a medieval author is also different? Hopefully you approve of the clarifications I have made, but if not, I don't think you're arguing against what I have written, but what the sources are saying, and there's not really anything I can do about that. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done a tweak myself, which may solve the implicit comparison with Cicero - or Erasmus, who was also writing a foreign tongue; for the other half, supply a source for the superiority of his European education, and I am answered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "for his time" is perfectly fine with me. I guess we wasted a lot of typing for nothing :) Erasmus (or Petrarch, or Boccaccio) is a little different, I'm sure everyone would agree that humanists are better than medieval writers. For the superiority of his European education, haven't I provided sources for that in my last few edits? What else can I say? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I must be thinking too narrowly. You would like a source that talks about medieval universities in general, not something about Jerusalem or William, right? (That is, the problem is that there is not enough historical context for the non-specialist reader?) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're not thinking as narrowly as I was. But I've ventured another tweak: if his education weren't already in the lead, I would have written William had a European education; his chronicle is written in excellent Latin for his time and let the readers make their own conclusions. But the first clause is redundant, so I left it out. As far as I am concerned, this quibble is settled. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I must be thinking too narrowly. You would like a source that talks about medieval universities in general, not something about Jerusalem or William, right? (That is, the problem is that there is not enough historical context for the non-specialist reader?) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "for his time" is perfectly fine with me. I guess we wasted a lot of typing for nothing :) Erasmus (or Petrarch, or Boccaccio) is a little different, I'm sure everyone would agree that humanists are better than medieval writers. For the superiority of his European education, haven't I provided sources for that in my last few edits? What else can I say? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done a tweak myself, which may solve the implicit comparison with Cicero - or Erasmus, who was also writing a foreign tongue; for the other half, supply a source for the superiority of his European education, and I am answered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that can apply to almost any subject. I learned math at school, but am I a mathematician? Of course not. I've studied and taught Latin at university, but can I write a book in Latin? Can you? (With enormous amounts of effort I can perhaps write a few pages.) Obviously that level of composition requires more than simple grammar homework. Sometimes he uses "in" with an ablative when there is movement involved and he should have used an accusative; sometimes he uses nominatives or accusatives where we would expect an ablative absolute; Huygens talks about some of his other quirks. Maybe Cicero doesn't write Latin like that, but not only was Cicero a native speaker, he is also artificially the standard for all Latin grammar. How convenient for him! But Plautus, Caesar, Seneca, and Tacitus didn't write like him either, so why is it so surprising that a medieval author is also different? Hopefully you approve of the clarifications I have made, but if not, I don't think you're arguing against what I have written, but what the sources are saying, and there's not really anything I can do about that. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of Adam's responses here are effectively that grammar and rhetoric are university-level work (and presumably the distinction between accusative and ablative transcends the usual course of study). That's not true now; it was even less true in Gildersleeve's time - were medieval universities really that bad? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the next sentence it is the only source for the history of Jerusalem at that time written by a lifelong resident I think this is intended to mean that there is no other source which was written by a native of Jerusalem; but it is very easy to read this as the double claim There is no other source for the history of Jerusalem at that time and it was written by a lifelong resident. Recast? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the intended meaning. I'll fix it. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3
File:William of tyre.jpg - Please add a source and author to the image description page for this image.
File:BNF, Mss fr 68, folio 359.jpg - Please add an English translation of the image information to the image description page. Also, please fix the source link.
I look forward to striking this oppose. Awadewit (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've contacted the users who uploaded those images for assistance. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are they okay now? The source link for the second image is currently down, either because Gallica has reorganized its site or because the actual manuscripts in France have been moved (as apparently they have been). If we can't find the link again I guess we could just delink it. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still waiting for the English translation. Awadewit (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've added that in brackets (I don't really use Commons so I'm not sure if there is a fancier way of doing it). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've added that in brackets (I don't really use Commons so I'm not sure if there is a fancier way of doing it). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still waiting for the English translation. Awadewit (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are they okay now? The source link for the second image is currently down, either because Gallica has reorganized its site or because the actual manuscripts in France have been moved (as apparently they have been). If we can't find the link again I guess we could just delink it. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I read the article before it was nominated, have just reread it and nothing jumps at me that's wrong. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to PMAnderson - Ealdgyth missed the above because she's not a grammarian or a linguist, and my eyes glaze over when articles start discussing wording and language choices (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -- I read the article over. An interesting read. You certainly like the perfect tense Adam! Anyway, couldn't get hold of any of the principal works on the topic, so am unable to offer substantial content points. But I'll leave the following comments for now:
- Go over the article and make all the "Xth Century" consistent. I noticed the form in "twelfth century" is the one that is predominant, but "13th century" and "fourteenth-century" are there too.
- The article used the word "also" far too much. I cut many of these out in my c/e
- William's origins have been variously claimed as English, French, German, or Italian; however, he rarely mentions Germany or German affairs, and does not know the names of many German crusaders, so he probably had no connection to that country.
- I think a footnote elaborating this is necessary. I.e. a note describing who, with refs, has claimed what. The debunking of the German claim is likewise unreferenced (or at least, it is not clear where the information is drawn from). Incidentally, surely a guy with the name "William" and a brother called Radulf would likely be [agnatically] French, rather than Italian?
- Amalric died prematurely
- I know what is meant, but that phrase never makes sense out of context. ;) I got rid of the "prematurely".
- Miles of Plancy briefly held the regency for the underaged Baldwin IV, until his assassination in October of 1174; Raymond III was soon appointed to replace him.
- Who was assassinated? And who replaced whom? Needs to be rewritten for clarity.
- Can't this chronicle have an article of its own, and be referred to in the text? It's not very common for chronicles of this era to have "authentic" names known to modern historians, and many if not most are purely conventional. It would read better with something like Historia Rerum than "the chronicle".
- The first half of the articles sorta swings in and out of biographical material, and it isn't always obvious why KoJ stuff is mentioned. I think a lot of the contextualography could go, but having said that it read well going enough, and cutting it out might sacrifice informativeness for the unworthy sake of being concise.
That's my lot for now ... Good work! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Deacon, I will make some more clarifications. The centuries with the hyphens are always the adjectival form, or at least that is my intention ("in the twelfth century" vs. "a twelfth-century author"). I did have a lengthier note about who claimed he was English and German but I either cut it out or never inserted it into the article. I thought it might be distracting...in fact it might be distracting the way it is, perhaps I should just say he was French or Italian and leave it at that. And yeah, everyone generally assumes French anyway, not just from the names, but also because Italy is mentioned as "beyond the Alps". The chronicle could have its own article, as it does in Italian and Latin, and the Old French continuations could have their own article as well, but no one has gotten around to them yet. I'm not sure what to call it within the article, sometimes academic literature uses "Historia", sometimes "Chronicon", and sometimes the way it is here. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Excellent writing/punctuation/grammar. Even the sentences on steroids (such as "William gave a more nuanced... ") generally did not distract me from the narrative.
- "His education and ability..." Two sentence "paragraph".
- I'm a little unhappy about the citation format. I know that we only require consistency, but that's a lowball standard. I've never seen this firstname-first style; I think it's a disservice to readers to buck the lastname-first system that is, as far as I know, consistent across all major citation styles.
- Can you explain three cites to "Babcock and Krey" vs. five to "William of Tyre, trans. Babcock and Krey" vs. a lone cite to "Emily Atwater Babcock and August C. Krey"... all in the notes. OK, so... the full cite is given in the first instance; abbreviated cites later. Even if I accept that (which is problematic, since the full cite is given in the Sources section, so why redundantly repeat it redundantly?), the other two are inconsistent.
- IIRC I demanded the article differentiate between Babcock and Krey's commentary, versus the actual text by Tyre which they merely translate. One's the scholarly introduction, the other's the MS text as assembled and translated. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "after the disastrous Second Crusade in 1148, when the crusader armies were defeated at Damascus, Muslim territory to the east of Jerusalem had fallen under the control of the powerful sultan Nur ad-Din" Wasn't it 1154 when Nur ad-Din took control of Damascus? The sentence makes it seem as if that happened immediately after the siege in 1148. Moreover, isn't Egypt southwest, not west, of Jerusalem?
- " Amalric had come to power in 1164..." This sentence is a bit disjointed. Suggest: " Amalric had come to power in 1164, and had made it his goal to expand the Kingdom of Jerusalem to the southwest by conquering Egypt. Muslim territory to the east of Jerusalem had fallen under the control of the powerful sultan Nur ad-Din after the disastrous Second Crusade in 1148, when the crusader armies were defeated at Damascus. However, the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt was a far weaker opponent."
- "was often taken for granted in the past." Can we get something a bit more concrete? What general time period (a certain decade, forex?) did opinions begin to change?
- "possessive pronoun (s;" Is that supposed to be pronoun(s)? In other words, what's that (s supposed to indicate?
- While we're here, that whole linguistic section is a bit undercited. Is it all from Huygens? Three or four words to that effect would be good; just add them to the current note. But... the bit about the calque stands out. Should it be cited separately?
- (Sorry Ling.Nut, I accidentally deleted your comments, I must have edited an older version of the page). Do you mean the citations for the sources at the end? That's true, last name should be first there. The footnote format is as Fifelfoo says. The cites for "Babcock and Krey" are for their introduction to the translation (they do say "introduction" in there somewhere), and the others are William, as translated by them. A full citation is given first, then abbreviated, then a full cite again in the bibliography, because, well, isn't that how it's supposed to be done? Yes, Nur ad-Din took control of Damascus in 1154, but it was sort of his protectorate more directly after the Second Crusade; in any case, yeah, "after" is a little ambiguous there. Egypt is southwest, and for that matter Damascus is northwest. The "(s" is part of an explanatory addition that I changed my mind about and apparently incompletely deleted, heh. The linguistic stuff is all from Huygens, yes. I'll work on this and Deacon's notes when I get a chance. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I support First-name first alphabetization; it makes linking easier, and the only reason for last-name first is to make checking alphabetization easier for semi-literate support staff - which we don't have. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It does, but making a piped link is not difficult. And if we want to adopt other stylistic norms like "p." and "pp." why not last-name-first? (I don't care about that so much, I actually wish we could have hanging justification for bibliographies, it's easier to read that way.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I support First-name first alphabetization; it makes linking easier, and the only reason for last-name first is to make checking alphabetization easier for semi-literate support staff - which we don't have. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Sorry Ling.Nut, I accidentally deleted your comments, I must have edited an older version of the page). Do you mean the citations for the sources at the end? That's true, last name should be first there. The footnote format is as Fifelfoo says. The cites for "Babcock and Krey" are for their introduction to the translation (they do say "introduction" in there somewhere), and the others are William, as translated by them. A full citation is given first, then abbreviated, then a full cite again in the bibliography, because, well, isn't that how it's supposed to be done? Yes, Nur ad-Din took control of Damascus in 1154, but it was sort of his protectorate more directly after the Second Crusade; in any case, yeah, "after" is a little ambiguous there. Egypt is southwest, and for that matter Damascus is northwest. The "(s" is part of an explanatory addition that I changed my mind about and apparently incompletely deleted, heh. The linguistic stuff is all from Huygens, yes. I'll work on this and Deacon's notes when I get a chance. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, plus comments. This is an honor system support; I'm sure you'll go ahead and clear up that small pesky patch of disjointed prose and other minor blemishes. I won't (cannot!) oppose because of the citation format. But linking is no more difficult one way or the other, since it can be done via piped links (as mentioned above):[[Steve Smith|Smith, Steve]].. The present system makes it darn awful inconvenient for me to check for alpha sorting when there's a given name in the way... [Note to self: Create "Semi-Literate Support Staff Barnstar"; award first one to self.] My eyesight is starting to fade a bit, so the less squinting the better. Lastname first also makes it a widdle bit easier for the audience to locate a ref in a long ref list, if theyare interested in doing so. Finally, as I said before, why not go along with ... you know ... everyone else in the whole wide world on this matter?? But this matter is no matter. Rules is rules. The system is consistent, and the article is admirably thorough and well-cited and well-written and so on. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deacon and Ling.Nut, I've incorporated as many of your suggestions as I could. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, it'd still be good to be referring to "the chronicle" by one name, esp. if this goes on the front page. Make an editorial judgment as a historian of the topic (looks like "Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum" is the preferable title, but hard to tell in the absence of a widely available edition bearing a Latin title [e.g. Libellus de Exordio). But this is not an FA/non FA matter. I'll register my support for this. Good to get a historian on board the FA train. BTW, you need to [get someone to] fix the dashes, as the article is using hyphens where n-dashes are required, and so on. Surprised no-one's got on to that already! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just ran the dash tool over the article, so that should be taken care of... oops? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Ealdgyth! Deacon, for the title, the conventional shorthand for Huygen's edition in crusader studies is just "WT", so that's not too helpful. Edbury and Rowe call it "the Historia" and I think I've seen that elsewhere as well. Since the English translation also uses "History" I think we can legitimately call it "the Historia". Adam Bishop (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Historia as a short-hand isn't perfect for the article, as one of the titles among his lost works begins with the same word. Historia Rerum +/- Gestarum maybe. Do you plan on making a stub for the chronicle? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but I don't think there would be any confusion with a lost work which is only mentioned once (and obviously we can't be referring to any edition of it). "Historia rerum gestarum" doesn't sound right to me, and I don't think it is ever referred to that way. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I left out the assumed title of the "history of the eastern princes", which leaves us free to use "Historia" for the surviving chronicle. I don't know if I'll make an article for the chronicle. There is more to say about it but I don't think I have the time to do a good job on it (same for the Old French translation). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but I don't think there would be any confusion with a lost work which is only mentioned once (and obviously we can't be referring to any edition of it). "Historia rerum gestarum" doesn't sound right to me, and I don't think it is ever referred to that way. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Historia as a short-hand isn't perfect for the article, as one of the titles among his lost works begins with the same word. Historia Rerum +/- Gestarum maybe. Do you plan on making a stub for the chronicle? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Ealdgyth! Deacon, for the title, the conventional shorthand for Huygen's edition in crusader studies is just "WT", so that's not too helpful. Edbury and Rowe call it "the Historia" and I think I've seen that elsewhere as well. Since the English translation also uses "History" I think we can legitimately call it "the Historia". Adam Bishop (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just ran the dash tool over the article, so that should be taken care of... oops? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- I not very fussy about capitalization, but: "Raymond named William chancellor of Jerusalem, as well as archdeacon of Nazareth, and on June 6, 1175, William was elected Archbishop of Tyre to replace...among the others was Heraclius, Archbishop of Caesarea, Joscius, bishop of Acre and William's future successor in Tyre, the bishops of Sebastea, Bethlehem, Tripoli, and Jabala, and the abbot of Mount Sion." can't all be right. I've changed "was" to "were". Also "On his return from Rome in 1170 he may have been commissioned by Amalric to begin writing a history of the Kingdom" higher up.
- "His writing also shows phrasing and spelling which is peculiar to purely classical Latin but not uncommon in medieval Latin, such as:..." - "peculiar to" means "only found in"; presumably what is meant here is "sound peculiar in". I am surprised PMA missed this :)
- We have a precise link for Maximilian II's tomb at Innsbruck (the picture) but I can't be bothered to find it. It won't take you long. Is Godfrey of Bouillon linked above? He should be linked in the caption too. - These now done. "It was mainly on William's authority that Godfrey became the hero of the First Crusade" appears only in the caption & needs a cite.
- "emphasis on the miraculous intervention of God in human affairs" - "miraculous" is the wrong word here; maybe just cut it.
- "probably more knowledgeable of Byzantine affairs" awkward in UK English; maybe ok in US?
- I found a number of missing words etc which I have corrected, but the prose could do with a careful run-through.
Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed to the best of my abilities. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:41, 14 November 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 14:44, 15 November 2009 [38].
The Ex-Girlfriend
- Nominator(s): --Music26/11 19:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. After the previous FAc the article has been through a peer review and all concerns have been adressed. Thank you for your time.--Music26/11 19:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 21:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Seems fine. ceranthor 23:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Needs considerable work before it meets 1a's "professional" standard. Logical flow is lacking throughout, and the article employs an oddly informal tone. Examples:
- "but Jerry discovers he finds her" Unnecessary awkwardness with "discovers" + "finds".
- Fixed.--Music26/11 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Jerry tries to convince George that he does not need the books because he has already read them, but George persuades Jerry to get them for him." Just one example of some yawningly pedestrian prose throughout the plot section.
- Better now?--Music26/11 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "that she and Jerry can still be friends, despite her recent break-up" be more explicit here...why would it be a problem for them to remain friends? She broke up with George, right, not Jerry?
- She's George's ex, I don't know how I can make that any clearer.--Music26/11 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "This takes Jerry by surprise as Marlene worked as a cashier." Huh?
- Please be a little more specific on what I need to do here.--Music26/11 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The characters seem to do a lot of "finding" in this article...
- Reduced.--Music26/11 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the deal with this cultural references section? Random trivia thrown together into a paragraph does not make for feature article quality. Nor does the random picture of Tony Bennett.
- If this really keeps you from supporting I'll remove it, but these sections are getting more and more frequent in TV episode articles.--Music26/11 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "It was based on one of David's experiences, when he gave..." One example where prose can be tightened (active voice: "David based the story on...")
- Fixed.--Music26/11 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's with the odd shifts to conditional tense in random places? ("On Seinfeld, David would frequently come up with the idea for an episode and would make it into a teleplay with Seinfeld's help", "Seinfeld would change wardrobe between takes", "One or two members of the crew would shake the car", etc.)
- Fixed.--Music26/11 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Another scene that was cut featured Jerry's neighbor Cosmo Kramer (Michael Richards) entering Jerry's apartment carrying a plate with cantaloupe on toothpicks" And the significance of this is?
- It was a deleted scene, why wouldn't this be significant?--Music26/11 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Although Seinfeld would be considered a hit show by today's standards, NBC was disappointed with its ratings, and, after three weeks, put the show on a two-month break" Very odd way of wording this...Seinfeld is considered a hit show...please be more specific here. ("The Ex-Girlfriend" debuted to disappointing ratings, and...) Also, why are we linking "break"?
- The show was still in its early stages. Unlinked break.--Music26/11 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "In a review of the episode, Jon Burlingame of The Spokesman-Review stated "Seinfeld...". ?? The source isn't reviewing the episode. It mentions the episode, but really, this article is one of those "what's on TV tonight" that's used to fill column-inches.
- Actually, the article reviews the show using this episode.--Music26/11 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please cite quotations. TwilligToves (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one isn't?--Music26/11 20:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "but Jerry discovers he finds her" Unnecessary awkwardness with "discovers" + "finds".
Image review - Images check out. Awadewit (talk) 19:39, 6 November 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 14:44, 15 November 2009 [39].
Operation Crossroads
- Nominator(s): raeky, HowardMorland
I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel it is a strong article and meets all FA criteria. It has gone through a peer review and all issues raised with peer review resolved. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Was HowardMorland (talk · contribs) consulted on this nomination, per WP:FAC instructions? If not, the nominationn should be withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Raeky: that clears that up :) Should he be listed as a co-nom, and will he be following the FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume, not sure how to do it though. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will add his name, if you confirm that he is participating in the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an impressive piece of work, but the disussion at Talk:Operation_Crossroads#Arkansas_upending.3F may indicate a clash between "Truth", and "Verifiability" by external reliable sources. Kablammo (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will be glad to pursue this further. However, I am pretty sure the only external reliable source (in the form of a living expert) is author Jim Delgado, who has changed his mind since he last published on this subject in 1991. It also seems to me that the video which convinced Delgado, and me, is also an external reliable source. The dark object standing free of the water column is clearly not a break in the water column, as Delgado thought when he saw the still picture and video shots from a different angle. The Internet has made available new information that was not available to experts just a few years ago. HowardMorland (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I haven't had time yet to study it enough to support, but leaning that way). I really enjoyed reading this so it fits the "engaging" requirement for FAC. There are some US weights and measures that could do with a metric equivalent (e.g. "about two pounds of fission products", "11.6 pounds of plutonium", not all the "feet" are in metres too). The statement "A percentage of each group working in less contaminated areas was badged." could do with saying what percentage or else admitting it is vague and using a term like"A small number of" or "Only some of". I found the handful of parenthetical sentences to be odd to my eyes. Is this an American thing? One of them isn't a sentence "(Harry K. Daghlian, Jr. and Louis Slotin)". My own citation style is that the footnote ref covers the preceding text in the paragraph. Here there are some ends-of-paragraphs or some whole paragraphs that appear uncited. Many of these contain facts that I'd prefer were cited. Given the comments above about some original research, I'm worried, for instance, that the comments on the "1989 diver's sketch of the wreck [of the Arkansas ]" are original rather than sourced. Is there anything else in this article that has been "discovered" by editors looking at photos and sketches? Can you confirm that "shot" is the term used for the explosion rather than for photographs of the explosion? Refs 6 and 52 need more citation details (publisher, date, access date, etc). Is ref 13 a web link or a book ref with a convenience link to a copy of the text. If a book ref, it covers page 40 and 91 which seem odd if that can be turned into one web page? A book ref needs an ISBN. That's all for now. Colin°Talk 19:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 13 is three different things: an essay posted on the web, and two different pages from a book unrelated to the web essay. Refs 6 and 52 come from Jack Niedenthal's website http://www.bikiniatoll.com/ He is a Harrisburg Pennsylvania native and former Peace Corps volunteer who married a Bikini islander, lives in the Marshall Islands, and now represents the Bikini people to the U.S. government. Johathan Wiesgall, a Washington, DC, lawyer who works with Niedenthal vouches for him, but says that much of Niedenthal's information comes from his (Weisgall's) own 1994 book, which would be a better source to cite. I was unaware of this book, but I will have a copy soon. For what it's worth, Weisgall says he has never doubted that the dark object in the Baker picture is the silhouette of the upended battleship Arkansas. I don't know if he puts that conclusion in his book. The diver's sketch is referenced to p 95 of Delgado's book (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battleship_Arkansas_diver_sketch.png) where it is also described in text. HowardMorland (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there are footnotes in section headings (per MOS section headings should have no special markup). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where should those footnotes go? In the peer review, User:Finetooth complained that the footnotes were floating under the table, so I put them in the titles of the sections. How about in the titles of the tables, instead? HowardMorland (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-breaking spaces are needed between numbers and units (sample edit), and as Colin said above, many measurements need conversions. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- Current ref 6 (Jack Niedenthal..) has the author and title run into the link title. They should be separated out. Also needs publisher and last access date information. And what makes this a reliable soruce?
- Current ref 13 (Cunningham...) has the title run into the link title and lacks a publisher and last access date.
- I'm not sure how to do this. Is ref 13 fixed now? HowardMorland (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Decide if you're going to use Last name first or first name first with your authors and stick with one style.
- In refs, the first time each author appears, full name with first name first; subsequent citations, last name only. I think I got them all. HowardMorland (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes http://www.bikiniscience.com/chronology/1945-1950_SS/LR4601_S/LR4601.html a reliable source?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I took the liberty of doing a few small tweaks and running the dash script on the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments I have started a line-by-line review on the article's talk page (link). Please respond to concerns there. I usually review science articles, but I think this will be a fun change of pace! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes: the article mixes spaced WP:ENDASHes (in the section headings) with spaced WP:EMDASHes in the text. See WP:DASH; emdashes are never spaced on Wiki. The article should consistently use either unspaced emdashes or spaced endashes. External links might need pruning per WP:EL, and some of the "See also" might be incorporated into the article, per WP:LAYOUT. Also, I believe the use of #xx has been replaced by No. xx per MOS; pls check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dashes are fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a dead link; check the toolbox at the top right. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image comments
- File:Operation Crossroads Baker.jpg - source?
- A "source" for these images may be very difficult, they're works of the government. — raeky (talk | edits) 08:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:USS Texas BB-35 aircastle.jpg this image and its deriv are missing source info
- The deriv source is self made, thus doesn't need a source (uploader created it). — raeky (talk | edits) 08:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we do, because there's no source info for the original. Derivative works need their copyright verified like everything else. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The source image has camera metadata, is a high resolution and is an image a Wikipedian would reasonably be expected to have been able to take. I've asked the original uploader to confirm that they are indeed the author, as is likely the case (but Herr Fuchs is correct that provenance for derivatives needs to check out). Эlcobbola talk 03:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we do, because there's no source info for the original. Derivative works need their copyright verified like everything else. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The deriv source is self made, thus doesn't need a source (uploader created it). — raeky (talk | edits) 08:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:AbleLarge.jpg - author info?
- I'm doubting this is a DOE work, most likely US Navy or US Army, but again finding the real source may be very difficult. — raeky (talk | edits) 08:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice that the foreground objects are the same as in the big picture of Baker taken three weeks later. Both pictures were obviously taken by remote control from the same camera tower on Bikini Island. There were no news photographers, or any other people, that close to the explosions. Joint Task Force I (Army and Navy) obviously took the picture. It may have been inherited by DoE later. HowardMorland (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Visual evidence isn't enough. We need sources and actual, clear citations that these are the works of branches of the armed forces. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI: The source credits the photo to the Federation of American Scientists ("The photograph of Able, the color photograph of Baker, and the two video clips are courtesy the Federation of American Scientists"), which is not a federal government entity. What is the factual basis for claiming this is a DoE work? Эlcobbola talk 02:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Visual evidence isn't enough. We need sources and actual, clear citations that these are the works of branches of the armed forces. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice that the foreground objects are the same as in the big picture of Baker taken three weeks later. Both pictures were obviously taken by remote control from the same camera tower on Bikini Island. There were no news photographers, or any other people, that close to the explosions. Joint Task Force I (Army and Navy) obviously took the picture. It may have been inherited by DoE later. HowardMorland (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm doubting this is a DOE work, most likely US Navy or US Army, but again finding the real source may be very difficult. — raeky (talk | edits) 08:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Operation Crossroads Baker.jpg - source?
- Comments: In additon to Herr Fuchs' comments above:
- File:G702126.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP
- A link to the image on its Navy website has been added to the file description. HowardMorland (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Crossroads baker explosion.jpg - Needs a verifiable source ("Image courtesy of US Govt. Defense Threat Reduction Agency" is a credit. From what website was this taken? From what book was it scanned? What is the archive in which it is located? What is its identifier? How else can we verify the license?) http://www.dtra.mil/priv.html, by the way, is a dead link. Эlcobbola talk 02:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:G702126.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP
- Comments
- Shurcliffe listed as author for "Bombs at Bikini", but "Operation Crossroads" by Shurcliffe is cited under "Historian". Reason for discrepancy?
- It's a mystery. I just copied the information off the publisher's pages of the books. HowardMorland (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delgado book sometimes cited as "Archeology of the Atomic Bomb" and sometimes as "Archeology". Reason for inconsistency?
- I shortened titles after their first mention. HowardMorland (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's an idea. References in the King Arthur article are divided into footnotes and a bibliography. The footnote references show author and year, linked to the appropriate bibliography item, and a page number. That would answer all the questions about consistent format, but I haven't seen done elsewhere. HowardMorland (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I shortened titles after their first mention. HowardMorland (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnotes 3 and 4 send the reader to internal links that send the reader to sections of the article. I've never seen this kind of jumping around before. Have you wandered the maze that is MOS for verification that this practice is kosher? I don't know what others think; they seem to me like something that could just be removed. But it is also mostly harmless, and could probably just be left alone.
- Someone requested footnotes for statements in the article's initial summary. Since the issues were explained in detail, and documented, in the body of the article, it seemed logical to send the reader there. I have raised this issue at the Village Pump, without satisfactory result. In some articles, this matter is handled by clustering footnotes in the summary. That seems unattractive and not helpful to the reader. HowardMorland (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is this: Jack Niedenthal, "A Short History of the People of Bikini Atoll."
- I am in the process of redoing that on the basis of an actual book. HowardMorland (talk) 13:17, 13 November 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:41, 8 November 2009 [40].
The Historian
- Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC), Casliber[reply]
Vampires and scholars together in one book? What could be better? We look forward to your helpful commentary during this FAC. Awadewit (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
QueriesHi Awadewit, nice read.
"When the narrator arrives at Saint-Matthieu-des-Pyrénées-Orientales in the 1970s, she finds her father. Individuals mentioned throughout the story converge in a final attempt to defeat Dracula. He is seemingly killed by a silver bullet fired into his heart by Helen." Either she found her parents, or the narrator fired the shot, or the shot was not fired in the 70s but in a previous time.- Is this better? "When the narrator arrives at Saint-Matthieu-des-Pyrénées-Orientales, she finds her father. Individuals mentioned throughout the 1970s timeline converge in a final attempt to defeat Dracula. He is seemingly killed by a silver bullet fired into his heart by Helen." Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah the penny drops ϢereSpielChequers 06:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this better? "When the narrator arrives at Saint-Matthieu-des-Pyrénées-Orientales, she finds her father. Individuals mentioned throughout the 1970s timeline converge in a final attempt to defeat Dracula. He is seemingly killed by a silver bullet fired into his heart by Helen." Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The 26-hour unabridged audio book, released by CS," Who is CS and can that be linked?
- The source just says "CS" - I'm not sure what company it is. Does anyone else know? Awadewit (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The length is criticised but not stated - even in the infobox. Is the book long or short?- First, I'm against the infobox. You'll see my discussion with the editor who added it here. Second, I don't like including the page numbers because it does not really reveal how long the book is. Since each book uses a different font, font size, spacing between letters, and margins, the number of pages does not really express how long a book is. It is better to list the number of words. However, I have no idea how many words are in the book and no easy way to find it out. Awadewit (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be OK with criticised as too long instead of just the length was critised? I'm guessing from the subsequent "ponderous" comment that it was probably criticised as too long rather than too short.ϢereSpielChequers 08:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First, I'm against the infobox. You'll see my discussion with the editor who added it here. Second, I don't like including the page numbers because it does not really reveal how long the book is. Since each book uses a different font, font size, spacing between letters, and margins, the number of pages does not really express how long a book is. It is better to list the number of words. However, I have no idea how many words are in the book and no easy way to find it out. Awadewit (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that would be fine. Awadewit (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The family travels to Europe in an attempt to cheer her up." But their last stated location was a tomb in the Balkans.ϢereSpielChequers 14:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Clarified by mentioning the couple lived in the US. Awadewit (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for tolerating my pedanticisms ϢereSpielChequers 16:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alt text done; thanks.
Please add alt text to images; see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images.Eubulides (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah! I can't believe I forgot! WereSpielChequers added the alt text and I tweaked it a bit. Awadewit (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.
You missed one image, File:Historiancover.jpg; could you please do that too? Also, I suggest removing the phrases "Black-and-white photo of" and "Photograph of" as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid.Eubulides (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I felt that the caption described the cover image sufficiently. I think that media is important, especially when there is a mix in the article, so I think these should be kept. Awadewit (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentioning media is OK here, but alt text isn't optional for the lead image, as otherwise a screen reader will say some gibberish related to the file name. I added some; hope it's OK. Eubulides (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I felt that the caption described the cover image sufficiently. I think that media is important, especially when there is a mix in the article, so I think these should be kept. Awadewit (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.
- Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't expect to find many problems from two such experienced FA writers, but inevitably there are a few queries about this excellent article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sony has bought the film rights and, as of 2007, were planning an adaptation. - any update?
- I haven't found any. Awadewit (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carrel - link?
- Done. Awadewit (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- dragon in the center associated with Dracula. - perhaps worth mentioning that "dracul" means "dragon"?
- I'm unsure that is ever explicitly mentioned in the book. Awadewit (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure it has to be mentioned in the text to be worth mentioning, but no big deal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Rossi disappears; smears of blood on his desk and the ceiling of his office are all that remain. - this phrasing suggests to me that he has ceased to exist, which is not the case, perhaps ...are the only traces?
- Changed. Awadewit (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The librarian is then run over and apparently killed by a car in front of the library. - perhaps The librarian is then run over by a car in front of the library and apparently killed.
- Changed. Awadewit (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
either Dracula or one of his minions is still alive and continuing his legacy. - how can Dracula continue his own legacy?
- Can you suggest a rewording that covers both possibilities? Awadewit (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about something like either Dracula is still alive or one of his minions is imitating the master.? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I love it! Replaced. Awadewit (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- '
'They also singled out the voicing of Dracula for criticism - who was the speaker of this part?
- The review did not say. Awadewit (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I couldn't find this, so fair enough Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three refs have redlinks; personally I wouldn't do this, but your call
- I don't have a problem with redlinks. Awadewit (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with only minor unresolved issues left, I am happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Awadewit (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/lansing/article-518-novel-takes-a-different-look-at-dracula-through-lost-letters.html (Is this an online version of a printed newspaper?)
- See Lansing City Pulse - it is an alternative newspaper, with an online presence. Here is a list of its editorial staff. The article is being used to cite Kostova's views on Stoker. Here is the sentence from the article (found in the caption under Stoker's picture): According to Kostova, Bram Stoker"created Dracula as a brilliant figure; a creature that is part monster and part genius. Dracula represents the best and worst of us." Awadewit (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review - No issues. NW (Talk) 23:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a very fine article and I am happy to support. I read this some years ago, but cannot now remember many of the intricacies of the plot, although I did thoroughly enjoy the book. I have two questions below.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How does she survive jumping off the cliff? Does she not jump or is merely injured?
- She does jump and is slightly injured - she lands on grass (page 662). Should I add this detail? Awadewit (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can the awards section be presented more neatly, perhaps in a short table? I also wonder if there is anything more to say on this: do we know if this is a good haul or not for such a high-selling novel? Since Kostova was aiming at literary fiction, has she commented on whether she was pleased or disappointed with the awards?
- I haven't found any general statements about the awards. I've made a table - let me know if you think that it is neater. Awadewit (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I much prefer the table, and I think that the detail is needed to clarify how she survived the suicide attempt. However neither is essential for my support, and I leave the decision on these things up to you. Regards and congratulations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added bit about grass. Awadewit (talk) 01:11, 9 November 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 00:06, 14 December 2009 [41].
Dan Povenmire
- Nominator(s): The Flash {talk} 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After a copyedit and a GA review, I believe this article successfully complies with FAC criteria. It is well written, contains references to reliable sources, and follows all style/image guidelines. Now, something bound to come up is the sources. Here's what I've got to defend them:
- http://blog.al.com/entertainment-press-register/2008/05/disney_animator_sees_summers_i.html is a press site for news related to Alabama.
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ZEF33WPp4 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ZEF33WPp4 are internet talk shows hosted by internet personality Piper Reese.
- http://www.resource411.com/411Update/Issue/Articles/Story.cfm?StoryID=1020 is a news website which is associated with Variety magazine.
- http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&category2=&article_no=3534&page=1 , http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&category2=&article_no=3534&page=2 , and http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&category2=&article_no=3534&page=3 are e-zine versions of the popular animation website Animation News Network, which is referenced in countless books.
- http://www.hopstudios.com/dtlink/listP.html is a website dedicated to alumni of University of Southern California and funds USC's official magazine, Daily Trojan.
- http://www.badmouth.net/comic-strip-war/ is a website co-published by award-winning writer John Marcotte and also features, as you can see from the article, Povenmire's official drawings.
Thanks in advance, The Flash {talk} 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restart, previous nom. Citations are not consistent or correct (inconsistent date formats and incorrect use of italics), and it's not clear to me that sourcing concerns have been addressed. Images and alt text reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline: 1c/
2c. I've walked through all the bloody citations. They are now what they claim to be. Two of them don't meet WP:RS/N, which I've noted. I'm 1c on that basis. Also a dead link needs removing. Resolved at Talk. Some other sources aren't HQRS, even if they're RS... but I don't know if HQRS have been exhausted for this. To other editors, the citations now accurately represent the sources used, good luck determining if they meet 1b/c. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)citation style is consistent.23:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The archive for Bond, Paul. (2009-06-07). "Q&A: Dan Povenmire". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2009-07-31. is down. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Archive fixed.Also, please just mention supposed unreliable sources here at the FAC in stead of just tagging it as unreliable in the page, like you did with the Toon Zone ref. It's totally reliable and has been cited in several books. Same thing with the Hop Studios thing, just put it here so we can discuss it in stead of tagging, it makes it much easier and doesn't make the page look bad as it does now. The Flash {talk} 05:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch the first bit (wrong archive). It's not messed up, the website just requires log-in to read it. The Flash {talk} 05:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Auntieruth55 comments and SUPPORT (see below) Auntieruth55 (talk) 17
- 24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- There are several good things about this article. This is comprehensive, and reasonably well written, not brilliant, but sturdy (1a, 1b). It is neutral (1d), and seemingly stable (1e) (given the number of people telling him to change this and that, it's stable). The structure is good, lead is sufficiently "summary" style, and individual sections cover what they purport to cover (2a, 2b). The info on "personal life could probably be integrated into the rest of the material, since it is so short, but based on WP:BLPNAME, which is the Biography projects' policy on including names/info of minors and spouses, this is reasonable. Images seem to be okay now, but that is not my bailiwick, and I'm not assessing those; it is sufficient for me to see a few images, and they are distributed to break up the text, and offer me an image to illustrate some point or other. Although I would prefer an image of Phineas, for example, I suspect that falls outside "fair use." The length is good, focused on the subject, no discursiveness (crit. 4).
- I could add this if you'd like, but, like you said, it's fairuse. The Flash {talk} 18:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The remaining problems seem to be with reliability of the sources and citation styles (1c and 2c), which is a contention. It seems to me that the sources are reliable within the realm of current popular culture, and it is perhaps unreasonable to expect a great deal of scholarly discussion of Sponge Bob Square Pants and Phineas and Ferb. One hundred years from now, possibly. But in 2009? Not so much. I've looked at the sources Flash has used. As a scholar and historian I'm not happy with them, but as a reasonable and practical person I must admit they are not only what is available, they seem to be the best of what is available. Is it reasonable to continue demanding specific kinds of sources that are not available for this topic? Flash isn't writing about Milton or Rembrandt, for whom millions of trees have been destroyed, and gallons of ink expended. So in fairness to Flash, I have to say he's met reliability requirements. He did not cite gossip columns, and in most cases, he has two or three citations for the same assertion. Although I find this particular cite style extremely difficult to follow (a b c d etc.) this is not an actionable objection, just a personal preference; others find my cites equally objectionable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks you; I too believe all the sources I'm using fall as RS through some standard. Thanks for the support! :) The Flash {talk} 18:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Specific examples that have raised issues: The website Al.com. This website appears to contain news articles from the Mobile Press Register. It is their online presence, instead of using the newspaper name itself, which is where one goes to advertise, apply for a job, or subscribe. So this is a choice that the newspaper made on how to present its material. It is also an interactive website (hence the word "blog" I suppose). The latest trend! That is some 12-13 citations from an article on the subject. I've read the article from the paper and it is accurately presented in the wiki article. Animation World magazine, while not a scholarly journal, nor a juried one, is still a central source for information about animation. Again, see my comments above re the amount of literature available on this subject. Four different articles are cited from that. Okay, so these are not deep, intellectual stuff. But again, the material is well represented in the wiki article. The newspaper articles look fine. I've never been overly impressed with the Bergen Record, but they are reliable if not particularly inspired, and it was an interesting article. I have not got a clue what Badmouth is about, but the information in the wikiarticle does describe what is on the badmouth site (and cite). The last one is the Daily Trojan "Where are they now" list. I read what was on there, and it looks like a class notes type of thing, ex officio. The material Flash has cited is predominantly the personal information stuff--his house has a view of Mt Wilson (or ?), he married Vanessa,and his last DVD was released online. Most of this is "flavor" for the article, gives a sense of the character of the LP, but of little substance, just rounds him out. There is also a cartoon character on the site that is in the style Povenmire draws, so its quite possible that he sent the info in himself. AND wrote "over the hill" on his character's drum. Someone has a twisted sense of humor, and i like it.:) Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments, Auntieruth. I believe that is what Sandy was looking for. :) The Flash {talk} 01:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Specific examples that have raised issues: The website Al.com. This website appears to contain news articles from the Mobile Press Register. It is their online presence, instead of using the newspaper name itself, which is where one goes to advertise, apply for a job, or subscribe. So this is a choice that the newspaper made on how to present its material. It is also an interactive website (hence the word "blog" I suppose). The latest trend! That is some 12-13 citations from an article on the subject. I've read the article from the paper and it is accurately presented in the wiki article. Animation World magazine, while not a scholarly journal, nor a juried one, is still a central source for information about animation. Again, see my comments above re the amount of literature available on this subject. Four different articles are cited from that. Okay, so these are not deep, intellectual stuff. But again, the material is well represented in the wiki article. The newspaper articles look fine. I've never been overly impressed with the Bergen Record, but they are reliable if not particularly inspired, and it was an interesting article. I have not got a clue what Badmouth is about, but the information in the wikiarticle does describe what is on the badmouth site (and cite). The last one is the Daily Trojan "Where are they now" list. I read what was on there, and it looks like a class notes type of thing, ex officio. The material Flash has cited is predominantly the personal information stuff--his house has a view of Mt Wilson (or ?), he married Vanessa,and his last DVD was released online. Most of this is "flavor" for the article, gives a sense of the character of the LP, but of little substance, just rounds him out. There is also a cartoon character on the site that is in the style Povenmire draws, so its quite possible that he sent the info in himself. AND wrote "over the hill" on his character's drum. Someone has a twisted sense of humor, and i like it.:) Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I supported last time, I don't have the time right now but was asked to comment. As I'm writing an essay at the moment, I'll have to get back to this some other time. ceranthor 02:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable:
** http://blog.al.com/entertainment-press-register/2008/05/disney_animator_sees_summers_i.html the fact that it's a news site for alabama related news is not enough to show reliablitiy
- Once again, same as last time, look here [42] where news sources cite it for information. The Flash {talk} 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Was this article run in the Mobile The Mobile Press-Register? Perhaps you might check there. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this they're owned by the same people and are sister sites. The Press Register site has an awkward navigational system, I couldn't search for it, but as the website is near the same as Press-Register, I think it makes it a reliable source (related to/heavily affiliated with and owned alongside a published work?) The Flash {talk} 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This can then be left for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this they're owned by the same people and are sister sites. The Press Register site has an awkward navigational system, I couldn't search for it, but as the website is near the same as Press-Register, I think it makes it a reliable source (related to/heavily affiliated with and owned alongside a published work?) The Flash {talk} 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Was this article run in the Mobile The Mobile Press-Register? Perhaps you might check there. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, same as last time, look here [42] where news sources cite it for information. The Flash {talk} 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm okay with al.com and mobile press-register sites for an article like this and for the kind of material Flash cites from it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can the comment be struck then? The Flash {talk} 23:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know Flash, but I just struck it. It uses the same material that goes on the Mobile Press Reg website, just reformatted for "only" Alabama news. So it seems to me that it is a legitimate source, as good as the newspaper. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks then. :) The Flash {talk} 03:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.classmates.com/directory/public/memberprofile/list.htm?regId=8691491442 You need to show that Classmates.com does fact checking on the entries.- It's Classmates.com, look at this source for all the news sources that cite it for information. I don't see how you expect me — or anyone — to know how anything does it research. Does anybody but The New York Times know how they get info? They did researched, they sourced, etc., but there's no source for almost anything to explain how anything finds it's info. The Flash {talk} 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the first result there is talking about Classmates.com, same with the second. Third, fifth, sixth also. Seventh has a news results that says "In addition to his criminal record in Utica, Facebook and Classmates.com pages indicate that...." not exactly a uniequivical endorsement. Eighth, ninth and tenth results again are about classmates.com, not citing it. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of the sources refer to its high profit margin, among several other websites. This stands for something itself right? The Flash {talk} 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not really. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Removed the source; it was only used to support a very brief, non-important thing, didn't really defend it that strongly. The Flash {talk} 00:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not really. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of the sources refer to its high profit margin, among several other websites. This stands for something itself right? The Flash {talk} 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the first result there is talking about Classmates.com, same with the second. Third, fifth, sixth also. Seventh has a news results that says "In addition to his criminal record in Utica, Facebook and Classmates.com pages indicate that...." not exactly a uniequivical endorsement. Eighth, ninth and tenth results again are about classmates.com, not citing it. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's Classmates.com, look at this source for all the news sources that cite it for information. I don't see how you expect me — or anyone — to know how anything does it research. Does anybody but The New York Times know how they get info? They did researched, they sourced, etc., but there's no source for almost anything to explain how anything finds it's info. The Flash {talk} 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.hopstudios.com/dtlink/listP.html Again, you need to show that it's not just affiliated with, but that it actually fact checks.
- It is created by a former Daily Trojan editor and alumni of USC himself, who is also a web designer and teacher. see here. I'm apretty sure he gathered this info through personal interviews/e-mails. I hope that covers it because, this is the only source for several bits of key personal info in his life that would probably make people oppose this article for lack of info on key topics like his personal life. :) The Flash {talk} 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So essentially it's self-published? Look, I'm not trying to be mean to you, but it's a requirement here that sources for BLPs satisfy WP:RS, and this one is definitely iffy. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you're not trying to be mean, lol. I'm pretty positive it is self-published, yes. The Flash {talk} 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further research, I can safely say this constitutes as an RS. It is written, maintained, and edited by a longtime editor and writer for both Variety magazine's website and the Los Angeles Times. Ealdgyth, if you can get back to me on this, it'd be appreciated. The Flash {talk} 18:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He also actually teaches online courses at USC itself. You can read it all on the website. The Flash {talk} 18:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further research, I can safely say this constitutes as an RS. It is written, maintained, and edited by a longtime editor and writer for both Variety magazine's website and the Los Angeles Times. Ealdgyth, if you can get back to me on this, it'd be appreciated. The Flash {talk} 18:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you're not trying to be mean, lol. I'm pretty positive it is self-published, yes. The Flash {talk} 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So essentially it's self-published? Look, I'm not trying to be mean to you, but it's a requirement here that sources for BLPs satisfy WP:RS, and this one is definitely iffy. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is created by a former Daily Trojan editor and alumni of USC himself, who is also a web designer and teacher. see here. I'm apretty sure he gathered this info through personal interviews/e-mails. I hope that covers it because, this is the only source for several bits of key personal info in his life that would probably make people oppose this article for lack of info on key topics like his personal life. :) The Flash {talk} 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.
Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personal life section is two lines. Could it be expanded, or merged elsewhere? It seems a bit short on its own. Majorly talk 18:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The other info that was there can be seen here, but it was removed after a suggestion from the copyeditor showed how they really didn't meet WP:NOTABLE. I could add them back if you like. The only other thing I can do is merge it with early life, renaming the section "Personal life." Which one works for you? The Flash {talk} 21:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge it in with early life and rename is the best idea. It's just two short to stand on its own. Majorly talk 13:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No more issues from me. Majorly talk 23:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not add them back. They do not meet notability requirements in and of themselves, and the bio project's policy on this is very clear. See WP:BLPNAME. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Last time i edited this artical i said something and iam saying it again Supporrt --Pedro J. the rookie 18:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, involved reviewers should indicate so in their declarations; Pedro J. passed the GA on this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a note for the reviewer to go back and add it into their support or just for future reference? The Flash {talk} 20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Supporters need to specifically and explicitly discuss the text cited to the questioned sources above, and explain why they think the sources are reliable for that text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can see, supporters who mention the sources and source it give their reasons specifically why they think it works. See Auntieruth's comments/supports above. The Flash {talk} 16:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No more issues from me. Majorly talk 23:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This a BLP and reliability of sources and how they are used to support statements in the text is paramount. I think this candidature was premature, and were it not for the efforts of Ealdgyth and Fifelfoo, it would have been quickly archived. That the nominator needed to defend the sources used in the nomination from the outset, immediately raised my doubts. One of Ealdgyth's concerns remains, and I agree with her on this. I have spent an hour looking at the sources and I am left with impression that the FA standards have not been met. Graham Colm Talk 18:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Flash, while I don't think the Hop studio cite is problematic -- the data appears to be entered by alumni about themselves -- generally, these sources are problematic. I suggest you take out the bits from Hop. They are about the man's personal life, which is not related to his notability, and I've always been uncomfortable including data on his private life. You can still include the info on his daughter sharing her name to a Phineas and Ferb character without having to cite Hop, because it's from somewhere else. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked Sandy to archive this nom, as several comments have been brought up and lead me to believe that this truly was premature. Thanks for the comments everyone. The Flash {talk} 23:00, 13 December 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:22, 22 November 2009 [43].
Ton That Dinh
- Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A general of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. Mainly known for being an "adopted son" on president Ngo Dinh Diem. Diem promoted officers on loyalty not competence, and Dinh later turned against him. Diem was deposed and killed. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support 1c & 2c checked. double checked (06:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Decline 1c. Location of publisher use inconsistent in bibliography style., eg. Rowman & Littlefield, a publisher without place identification lacks place identification; E.P. Dutton has it. Penguin Books a publisher notorious for having different publication locations. You probably want to keep New York: OUP. Suggest: Location data provided for non-obvious locations (non-University presses), or where University presses are notorious for having multiple publication locations (Oxford etc). This would impact on your citation-in-notes style. Otherwise citation style is mostly consistent (see below on Tucker).[reply]Completeness, obviously there are limited journal articles dealing with Ton That Dinh, Why was George McT. Kahin "Political Polarization in South Vietnam: U.S. Policy in the Post-Diem Period" Pacific Affairs, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Winter, 1979-1980), pp. 647-673 not used?03:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)- Comments: Tucker (fn4) not in bibliography, and full cite follows first citation. Either move bib data to fn4 from fn7 or add Tucker (2000) Encyclopedia for bib and short cite both. Tucker's cited 3 times. Consider adding to bibliography.
- Consider style wrt Halberstam; Singal (2008) in short cite format. Its only co-authored, not an "and others" situation, consider changing citation to Halberstam; Singal, p. n. in short cite format. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done refs. Hadn't known about Kahin. Will have a look. I don't think I need to put Singal in the shorthand. All he did was prune the book, removing whole chapters, whole passages. He didn't tweak in the middle to change the meaning or anything. He didn't even bother to check some rather obvious typos etc by DH YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorporated Kahin YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its beautiful! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorporated Kahin YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done refs. Hadn't known about Kahin. Will have a look. I don't think I need to put Singal in the shorthand. All he did was prune the book, removing whole chapters, whole passages. He didn't tweak in the middle to change the meaning or anything. He didn't even bother to check some rather obvious typos etc by DH YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3 - File:Diem dead.jpg - We need more specific information on the source for this image. What does "National Archives" refer to? Also, what does the book say that leads us to believe this is a work of the Federal Government? Awadewit (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed it. It was made by a unnamed govt official YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking oppose. Since the image is from the US National Archives, you can probably find a link to the image record online. It will have detailed information about the image and perhaps a digitized copy, which would be of higher quality. I suggest looking for it. Awadewit (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed it. It was made by a unnamed govt official YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "as forces personnel were redeployed" Forces? Personnel? Both?
- No reference for Hung, but two cites. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Born into a nominally Buddhist family, Dinh converted to Catholicism in the hope of advancing his career." When? Seems to have been prior to 1954, according to "Cold war mandarin: Ngo Dinh Diem and the origins of America's war in Vietnam" p. 160. Another sources places the conversion in the 1960s, but that would seem to be erroneous.... That whole paragraph... could be reorganized a bit IMHO.
- that book didn't say when, it isn't clear. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 04:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can't find the year of the conversion, then that's OK, but the sequence of events should still be clarified. The way the paragraph reads now, it seems as though he converted after 1958. I don't think that's the case. His conversion should be mentioned at roughly the spot where it happened in the context of the article... probably in the first paragraph of the "Early years" section. Do you agree? Ling.Nut (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In "that all the generals except Cao were in the plot" and "and would prevent Cao from storming the capital" I'm a little unclear who Cao is.
- "falsely accused of promoting a neutralist plot". How sure are we that the accusations are false? Ling.Nut (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the end of the section, it says that Khanh later admitted it was trumped up. Doing the rest YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 04:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the charges, "falsely accused" (as the article says) and "trumped up" (your words above) both suggest that Khan knew the charges were false at the time when he made them. However, the article merely says he later produced documents which proved the charges were false. That sentence is more noncommittal... Did he know they were false when he made them, or not? If not, or even if it is unclear, the the phrase "false charges" in the lede should be changed to "charges that were later shown to be false." Ling.Nut (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed strucutre and made explicit YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 08:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comment - Engaging prose with few significant issues, but could a couple of the larger sections be split up into a few sub-sections?–Juliancolton | Talk 05:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will be done in 10 minutes YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 05:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
The article reports highly critical observations about its subject who is a living person. Given the high standard expected in BLPs, and WP:LEADCITE, I am concerned about there being no cites in the lead for the following: - "A favourite of the ruling Ngo family, Dinh received rapid promotions ahead of officers who were regarded as being more capable."
- "He converted to Roman Catholicism to curry favour with Diem, and headed the military wing of the Can Lao Party, a secret Catholic organisation that maintained the Ngos' grip on power."
"he was regarded as a dangerous, egotistical and impetuous figure with a weakness for alcohol and partying"
- Reiterated in lead for convenience YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I think that's prudent. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reiterated in lead for convenience YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bibliography supporting this article appears to contain no works at all by Vietnamese authors. Almost every single item was published in the United States. In these circumstances, I would welcome nominator's (and others) comments in relation to FA criteria 1c and 1d "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic" and "it presents views fairly and without bias". hamiltonstone (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well none are published in VN, but Nguyen Tien Hung was from SV and became a professor in the US after the fall of Saigon. As for Jackie Bong Wright, she is a Viet who married a westerner. As for publishing in Vietnam, wrt communist historians, their official history of the VN War is only one volume, short and simply refers to the war as VN vs US and habitually just refers to SV as US "lackeys" and "puppets" without going into any detail, just attack style. So there is no info at all, let alone informative info. As for South Vietnamese contemporary books that may present RoV people in a more sympathetic or normal way, they would all have been locked away in an archive far from public access after 1975, and aren't in the Western World except for a few government reports and PR that would have been exported to the US before 1975, but I checked a US uni library, and these seem to be restricted to collections of speeches by Presidents Diem and Thieu and other trumpeting of high-level stuff. I doubt Dinh and his colleague's secretary would have had time to write much in three months in power. As for memoirs by these officers/politicians after fleeing in 1975, they are printed in ramshackle Vietnamese American printing houses, and none are close to RS, and are more like printed webforums. The diaspora Vietnamese printing industry is very homemade and more of a billboard; in the newspaper where I live they usually print random things about some local cleric or community politician being a communist employee or a monk with multiple wives without any source. Sometimes they even photoshop pictures of their opponents with some woman and the glueing is all messed up. Another favourite is to write a story about communists and add a photo of one of them with a scar or a cross on their forehead. Straight copying from the BBC is the norm and goodness knows why they haven't all gone broke for being sued yet. Another officer also wrote his memoirs printed in a diaspora press and contradicted himself about his age three times and claimed to be a battalion commander at the age of 18, and gave out the names and addresses of some minors who were allegedly raped by a political opponent (BLP with a wiki bio so I won't name the accusee) in his book. So Dinh and his colleague's autobios aren't RS at all. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. While I do not feel confident enough in this field to explicitly vote 'support', I found that response thorough. For the record, the depth of research appears excellent, the prose likewise and the referencing sound. If other editors find Yellowmonkey's response to my concern to be adequate, then I would certainly be happy to see the article promoted. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have problems with the article per se; I wanna go find out what the best sources are. But again I whine: it's Midterms, I'm spending tons of time grading papers, and my family is busily engaged in other family stuff. I hope I can contribute something soonish. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well none are published in VN, but Nguyen Tien Hung was from SV and became a professor in the US after the fall of Saigon. As for Jackie Bong Wright, she is a Viet who married a westerner. As for publishing in Vietnam, wrt communist historians, their official history of the VN War is only one volume, short and simply refers to the war as VN vs US and habitually just refers to SV as US "lackeys" and "puppets" without going into any detail, just attack style. So there is no info at all, let alone informative info. As for South Vietnamese contemporary books that may present RoV people in a more sympathetic or normal way, they would all have been locked away in an archive far from public access after 1975, and aren't in the Western World except for a few government reports and PR that would have been exported to the US before 1975, but I checked a US uni library, and these seem to be restricted to collections of speeches by Presidents Diem and Thieu and other trumpeting of high-level stuff. I doubt Dinh and his colleague's secretary would have had time to write much in three months in power. As for memoirs by these officers/politicians after fleeing in 1975, they are printed in ramshackle Vietnamese American printing houses, and none are close to RS, and are more like printed webforums. The diaspora Vietnamese printing industry is very homemade and more of a billboard; in the newspaper where I live they usually print random things about some local cleric or community politician being a communist employee or a monk with multiple wives without any source. Sometimes they even photoshop pictures of their opponents with some woman and the glueing is all messed up. Another favourite is to write a story about communists and add a photo of one of them with a scar or a cross on their forehead. Straight copying from the BBC is the norm and goodness knows why they haven't all gone broke for being sued yet. Another officer also wrote his memoirs printed in a diaspora press and contradicted himself about his age three times and claimed to be a battalion commander at the age of 18, and gave out the names and addresses of some minors who were allegedly raped by a political opponent (BLP with a wiki bio so I won't name the accusee) in his book. So Dinh and his colleague's autobios aren't RS at all. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support by karanacs. I found the article well-written and very informative. I am confident in YM's description of the available sources, and the article does not appear to portray any particular POV. I also checked the images. All appear to be appropriately public domain (and note that 2 of the 4 were used in a previous FAC and were screened then). Karanacs (talk) 20:27, 20 November 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:22, 22 November 2009 [44].
Arbiter (Halo)
- Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a relatively short article, but I feel it meets comprehensiveness criteria (and doesn't go into trivial details about plot). All references are reliable, and where possible the best sources have been used; some sources are used solely for author opinions, and are framed as such. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, one of my old projects. Its nice to see it come this far. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - The sole image has an appropriate FUR, and the alt text is fine. NW (Talk) 20:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This sentence:
- "this hesitance allows the humans to land on the ring, coordinate a resistance, and ultimately destroy the ring to stop the spread of the parasitic Flood, in conjunction with losing a Covenant ship Ascendant Justice to the Master Chief a short period of time later, resulting in the annihilation of a Covenant attack force" needs to be broken up more effectively. It reads poorly at the moment. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone added back in the content in a very poor manner... it's been removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Full Support - I see no issues with the article whatsoever. An image of the Halo Wars Arbiter would be nice, but isn't necessary for FA. --Teancum (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Halo Wars Arbiter is the one in the infobox :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For armchairempire, they're an established collectible/etc. site that has a team of editors and staff; I'm only using the reference to site their opinion in the article regarding an action figure. As for the Kotaku ref, I found a Todd McFarlane one that works just as well and replaced it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The armchairempire source is currently referencing the following:
- "Following the release of Halo 2, Joyride Studios released an Arbiter action figure. This particular model was reviewed as a "great translation of the source material into plastic"." (lacks attribution to the site and appears to reference the first sentence also).
- "The figure's dimensions were in proportion with other figures released by the studio, and the level of detail in the armor and weapons were described positively, but reviewers found fault with the neck articulation and design" (shouldn't it be "one reviewer found..."? and it's lacking attribution to the specific person/site)
- "Other aspects mentioned were its compatibility with the Master Chief's action figure and its durability." (again, lacks attribution to the specific site) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully I've clarified the source of those statements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's more someone's bad judgment than an issue with this article: Luke Smith should have the disambig "(writer)" in all lowercase...instead someone moved it to uppercase and pointed the lower case title at a disambig that wasn't needed. I fixed that best I could.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone moved Luke Smith (writer) to Luke Smith and then back to Luke Smith (Writer), but it should be back at its original (writer) disambig now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leansupport I am not a very knowledgeable about references, but I guess since the user above said they were fine they are. I am not really one to judge prose, however I did get cunfused in a couple parts, mostly "Gravemind convinces the Arbiter that the Great Journey spells doom for his race". It is not spelled out why this is bad. Can you explain? Also, there is an extra space in "Flood.[9]." Also Frank Oc'onner is repeated twice. Martin Raybourne (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for the review. I've taken care of the above issues, hopefully... can you check it again and see if I've satisfied your concerns? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I think the other user and you had sorted it out. I am striking my oppose. Martin Raybourne (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I've taken care of the above issues, hopefully... can you check it again and see if I've satisfied your concerns? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - great job. Connormah (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I also find no significant gaps in the article's coverage, well done. —Ed!(talk) 22:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the article needs an WP:NBSP review (Halo 2, etc., should be joined to avoid hanging numbers). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't realize that they would need them; I've added nbsp in between the nonlinked ones. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:22, 22 November 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:41, 8 November 2009 [45].
All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural)
- Nominator(s): Ophois (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is up to standards. Ophois (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The non-free image rationales, especially that of File:Acheridemon.jpg, are not yet sufficient. All of them should state who holds their copyright, be more specific about their purpose, and must explain "why no free equivalent could reasonably be obtained or created to replace this media" in their "Replaceability" field.
Try something like what I wrote at File:Interactions Spider-Man.jpg—it might seem like I put too many details, but one can never be sure with non-free stuff. Take the safe route. --an odd name 19:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I added more information to them. Hopefully that meets the FUR criteria. Ophois (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Much nicer. I thought the only image that would be an issue was the bluescreen one, since bluescreens can be easily mentioned or described in the text; but since Flash mentions the demon one instead...maybe both can be cut? If either is kept, their alt text can probably mention the long hair of the child and the blood on some of the bluescreen men's faces, but I like all of the alt text otherwise. --an odd name 20:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think I can increase the blue-screen use by mentioning Jared Padalecki's bloody appearance, as he had to refilm without blood later when the script changed. Ophois (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Query: have images been cleared here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think I can increase the blue-screen use by mentioning Jared Padalecki's bloody appearance, as he had to refilm without blood later when the script changed. Ophois (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: Nice work, over all, huge improvement then what I saw before. Here's some things that need improving:
- First off, there are four fairuse images. I think at least one can go and be replaced with a free use one. How about removing the image in writing, replacing it with File:EricKripkePaley2006.jpg ("Supernatural creator co-wrote both episodes" or something) and add the note about the diseased spirit into the text. Also on images, please downsize the main image - it's unnecessarily huge.
- Well, the reason I had the picture and caption is because I couldn't find a place in the writing section for it. It's two lines of text that don't really fit with any of the paragraphs, so it interrupts the flow. Ophois (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IDK, I've seen it work like that in some South Park FAs. Check out Damien (South Park) or Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo to see how a new concept can be introduced fluently in one paragraph. The Flash {talk} 21:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ophois (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IDK, I've seen it work like that in some South Park FAs. Check out Damien (South Park) or Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo to see how a new concept can be introduced fluently in one paragraph. The Flash {talk} 21:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the reason I had the picture and caption is because I couldn't find a place in the writing section for it. It's two lines of text that don't really fit with any of the paragraphs, so it interrupts the flow. Ophois (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead: "The once-epic script of "Part 2" had to[...]" - That just sounds biased, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "epic." Reword a bit.
- Well, epic means large or big. The original script was very complex and had them running to different churches and stuff. The final version skipped all of this, and was simple. Would "complex" work? Ophois (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Writing: "Thus, the writers were required to kill Sam in order to motivate Dean to sell his soul[...]" -> were they really required to do that? reword a bit
- Done. Ophois (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reception: None of the websites need to be italicized.
- Grammatically, websites are supposed to be italicized. Ophois (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Effects: (caption) "John Winchester's return had to be filmed in advance using blue screen due to the actor's busy schedule." -> "[...]due to Mogran's busy schedule."
- Done. Ophois (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured music:
- IMO, it'd be better placed above the Reception
- Done. Ophois (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't really need to use episode references.
- I cited the episodes when another citation was used in conjunction to avoid potential confusion, as certain quotes and information come from the episode itself. Ophois (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, it'd be better placed above the Reception
- Featured music:
- That's all I got got for now. Like I said, good work overall. I might add some more later. The Flash {talk} 20:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, 2: What makes http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_12596.html a reliable source? The Flash {talk} 20:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I second that source concern—the site doesn't assert any fact-checking practices anywhere I can easily find, and never says anything about "Jerrica"'s credentials. Do any other reliable sources use or praise moviesonline.ca? --an odd name 20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jerrica is listed as one of the site's main writers here. I don't know if that's enough. Ophois (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not convinced yet, sorry. The site itself claims to be online since 2003 (which really isn't much time btw), but otherwise there's nothing about their editing guidelines and all, which means being even a main editor there doesn't really mean much. I would send it packing for byebye. --an odd name 21:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jerrica is listed as one of the site's main writers here. I don't know if that's enough. Ophois (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. It doesn't even add that much to reception. The Flash {talk} 21:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ophois (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alt text is present (thanks)
, but the first alt text entry contains phrases ("demonically possessed", "with energy", "after being shot in the heart with a gun") that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image, and which therefore need to be removed or reworded (see Verifiability of alt text).Eubulides (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ophois (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ophois (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you all feel that the article is up to standards enough for Support, can you please list so? The last article I nominated didn't pass because not enough people said whether they Supported/Opposed. Thanks. Ophois (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: All my issues have been resolved and I believe this article now fits the criteria for FA status. The Flash {talk} 02:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- an odd name, any other issues? Ophois (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I got your talkpage ping. Let's see... Prose
lead—"wrap up many ... open up many" feels like repetitive prose, but I'm not quite sure how to fix.
- Changed to "The episodes close various storylines running throughout the first two seasons, but also open up many new ones." Ophois (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Filming—"With only four nights to film the sequence, it was decided to have a "supernatural solar eclipse" so the scenes could be shot day for night." Do you know who decided this?
- Production. The director just keeps saying "we", rather than referring to any specific person. Ophois (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed "we" to "production". Ophois (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checking again, this article uses "it was decided" five times—mix the wording up more. I wasn't thinking of supporting this article (see below), but less so now. 17:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Ophois (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A less major problem (to me) is the use of "noun + -ing" throughout. There may be better ways of writing those sentences (see linked page). 17:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Can you give some examples from within the article? Ophois (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, it's minor to me, and a bit controversial (see the "More discussion" link on that page), and not all changes to this will actually improve the prose (it may become clumsier!), so don't take these as must-fix examples. The second sentence and last sentence of the lead, and the first sentence of para 2 of "Part 1", all use "noun+ing": "It is a two-part season finale, with "Part One" being first broadcast...", "...with Jessica Harmon gaining...", "...with the sole survivor becoming the leader...". --17:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I feel that it flows better that way. Ophois (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, it's minor to me, and a bit controversial (see the "More discussion" link on that page), and not all changes to this will actually improve the prose (it may become clumsier!), so don't take these as must-fix examples. The second sentence and last sentence of the lead, and the first sentence of para 2 of "Part 1", all use "noun+ing": "It is a two-part season finale, with "Part One" being first broadcast...", "...with Jessica Harmon gaining...", "...with the sole survivor becoming the leader...". --17:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- There may be more to add; I haven't really checked the article very closely (up to now at least) because I prefer to check shorter ones like Flash's "Interactions". --an odd name 17:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the above suggests, I'll stay neutral here. I prefer to save support for articles I can look over and quickly see that there's very little else to add, like Interactions and Battle for Naboo below. It does look very good, and is as long an article as a season finale with lots of coverage should get, all images have some sort of alt text, there's no dab links, and links all check out with the link checker tool, so I won't oppose or interfere. --an odd name 18:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I got your talkpage ping. Let's see... Prose
- Comment - the "Featured music" section goes against WP:MOSTV, which basically says not to list "featured music".
Specifically it says, "Do not just list music: Wikipedia is not a directory. In other words, provide context as to why these songs were used for the show." - Unless the companion books discuss why "Wrapped Around Your Finger" is used for the scene where Dean finds his brother, then it's just a list of songs. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I not list any songs? Or can I mention the songs for the "Road So Far" sequences and give an example or two of the rock songs used? Ophois (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the MOS, what you need it context for why the songs were chosen, not identifying where they are used. For example, Smallville#Music talks about the use of pop songs, but in context with how the producers wanted the song used (e.g., or "Memoria", Gough came up with the idea of using Evanescence's "My Immortal" for the final scene of the episode. Gough informed Wade-Reed as soon as he began working on the script what song he wanted to use for the closing scene, as he saw the song as being symbolically about mothers, and in that scene Clark is telling Martha that his first memory as a child was of his biological mother, Lara.). Without it, it's just a list, and IMDb keeps a list of all the songs on each individual episode page. Speaking of, it might be good to link directly to those two pages on IMDb. Also, there is no alt text for the Eric Kripke image. Gotta have it for free images as well. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it go against policy to list a couple of the artists, such as the new version does? Ophois (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Without context as to why the songs were chosen, or even the artists, it's still just a list. If the book itself doesn't go into detail as to why those songs were chosen, then I have to assume that they weren't that important to the episode to begin with. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I removed them, but added some score-related stuff. I also fixed the alt-text on the Kripke image. Ophois (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Because he had worked on the pilot episode of the series, Lennertz was happy to be the one to score the episode featuring the villain Azazel's death." - Why? Do we know what was special about the villain Azazel and the pilot? The sentence suggests there is a connection - I haven't read the whole page, so maybe I'm just missing something that was stated above. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I removed them, but added some score-related stuff. I also fixed the alt-text on the Kripke image. Ophois (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Without context as to why the songs were chosen, or even the artists, it's still just a list. If the book itself doesn't go into detail as to why those songs were chosen, then I have to assume that they weren't that important to the episode to begin with. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it go against policy to list a couple of the artists, such as the new version does? Ophois (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the MOS, what you need it context for why the songs were chosen, not identifying where they are used. For example, Smallville#Music talks about the use of pop songs, but in context with how the producers wanted the song used (e.g., or "Memoria", Gough came up with the idea of using Evanescence's "My Immortal" for the final scene of the episode. Gough informed Wade-Reed as soon as he began working on the script what song he wanted to use for the closing scene, as he saw the song as being symbolically about mothers, and in that scene Clark is telling Martha that his first memory as a child was of his biological mother, Lara.). Without it, it's just a list, and IMDb keeps a list of all the songs on each individual episode page. Speaking of, it might be good to link directly to those two pages on IMDb. Also, there is no alt text for the Eric Kripke image. Gotta have it for free images as well. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the new version make more sense? Ophois (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. When you say "theme", do you mean a "musical theme"? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Ophois (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it's probably obvious, but it should probably clarify "musical theme". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Already done. Ophois (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it's probably obvious, but it should probably clarify "musical theme". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Ophois (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. When you say "theme", do you mean a "musical theme"? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I not list any songs? Or can I mention the songs for the "Road So Far" sequences and give an example or two of the rock songs used? Ophois (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no real interest in this topic, but I saw your comment on Sandy's page, so I thought I'd take a look. Generally well written, but some nitpicks. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made these edits, please check
Significant overlinking, for example Fredric Lehne is linked three times in the first four paras, plus the infobox
- I think I've improved it. Ophois (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andy uses his mind-control abilities to telepathically send Dean their location. Better perhaps as Andy uses his mind-control abilities to send Dean his location telepathically
- Done. Ophois (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jake comes to and fatally stabs him perhaps better Jake regains consciousness...
- Done. Ophois (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
having given into his demonic side I think it should be "given in to.." since "in" is part of the verb
- Done. Ophois (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Devil's Gate is inconsistently capitalised throughout
- I only found one instance of this. I think you're confusing "Devil's Gate" with "devil's trap". The former is capitalized in the companion book, while the latter is not. Ophois (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, the bark mulch used for the set had to contain manure. Why??
- The source for the reason is from associatedcontent, which is blacklisted. The source I'm using for the article just says that it had to be used. Ophois (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
using tennis balls and a stand-in in place of the actors. How can you use tennis balls in place of an actor? If that's not what it means, what are the balls for?
- As references for where the actors are supposed to be. Ophois (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref Eric Kripke, Sera Gamble, and Bob Singer. Supernatural season 2 DVD commentary - Year of DVD publication and publisher please try thisRef Knight, Nicholas, (Season 2 Companion), p.115 - Missing year of publication, publisher and isbn. try this Season 1 also needs fixingSuggestion, Why not retitle "References" as "Notes", create a new "References" with just the Knight books in it so that you can refer to the pages in notes as eg "Knight (2007) p21" so that you don't have to repeat the whole ref. See Ruff for an example of what I mean Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would probably be easier to just fill out Template:Cite book for the first instance of the season 2 companion book and the season 1 companion book. That way, you see the full citation in the references section, with the rest of them, but can leave the abbreviated form throughout without making any significant changes. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Swings and roundabouts really, I don't mind as long as the full refs appear somewhere Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a matter of preference. I've personally always preferred keeping it all together, but whatever Ophois wants to do. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the new version suffice? Ophois (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current refs 5,11 and 19. These magazine articles were presumably written by someone? Please add authors
- Done. Ophois (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support my issues have been satisfactorily addressed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm wondering what the point of "Cast and characters" section is? You list these people in the infobox, and then have a prose section that basically is personal observations about when they were last on the show. The only relevant info I see in the section is the bit about the producers liking Azazel enough to bring the character back, and Morgan's return. Given that everything about Morgan's return is covered again, couldn't we include the Azazel information somewhere else and drop the redundant re-listing of guest characters? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any suggestions on where the Azazel part could be moved to? Ophois (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I'm doing some c/eing I'll see if I can find a location that might help it. It's good info, I just feel like everything else around it is fluff material used to provide the real info a place to reside. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any suggestions on where the Azazel part could be moved to? Ophois (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "...with the character's motivation being that she was Ally Sheedy from The Breakfast Club." - Why? Is there more to elaborate on about this? An explanation as to why that would be motivation for evil. BIGNOLE (Contact me)
- The character isn't evil. I'm assuming that it's supposed to be an outcast-ish sort of motivation, but it's from an audio commentary, so it doesn't go into detail. Ophois (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It just sounds weird. Without understanding what that means, the comment just seems odd. I love TBC, and without context it makes it difficult to keep. You said it was stated in the commentary...what if we try to reword it to be, "So-n-So characterizes her as...." - this way it alleviates interpretation on our part. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is that I don't know who said it, and I don't have access to the DVD. Ophois (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It just sounds weird. Without understanding what that means, the comment just seems odd. I love TBC, and without context it makes it difficult to keep. You said it was stated in the commentary...what if we try to reword it to be, "So-n-So characterizes her as...." - this way it alleviates interpretation on our part. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The character isn't evil. I'm assuming that it's supposed to be an outcast-ish sort of motivation, but it's from an audio commentary, so it doesn't go into detail. Ophois (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "...The Acheri demon responsible for two of their deaths..." - Whose death? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ophois (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "...and it finally started with the release of demons through the Devil's Gate at the end of this episode." - Which episode? Part 1 or Part 2? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ophois (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "While the final version of the episode is quite enclosed..." - again, which are we talking about? If it's one or the other, or both, it should be more clear since we have an article about 2 episodes. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ophois (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Production wanted to keep the number of shots to a minimum for the opening of the Devil's Gate at the episode's climax, so they chose to include elements other than escaping demons."- Two things. Which episode? And how does including more elements keep the shots to a minimum? If there is a way to clarify this statement it needs to be done, because it reads like they actually introduced more things when it says they wanted to keep it low.
- Oops. It was supposed to say "visual effects shots". I'll change it. Ophois (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No no...I understood that part. What got me was that they said they wanted to limit those, and then the following statement sounds like they added. When I read it, I'm left with the impression that the demons and other elements they want to add are digital elements, and not physical ones that would allow them to save money on digital stuff. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Demon smoke is the hardest visual effect for them to do, and it's easier to just blue screen someone in than create complex visual effects. Ophois (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, but the sentence is still confusing. I don't know what "elements" they chose to include, and in what way that was different than the norm. The sentence really needs to explain that better. Otherwise, it just contradicts itself based on the words being used. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The new elements were the glimpses of previous villains. Ophois (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a way to work that in so that it makes better sense? I mean, the way you are explaining it, it sounds like the reused old stuff to save money. If that's not it, then it's still not clear, and I might need to see the whole excerpt from the source so I can understand better. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "'For the gates of Hell, we worked in prep to keep the shot count down,' recalls visual effects supervisor Ivan Hayden. 'But to dumb down the gates of Hell would not fly by any means. So instead of just having demon smoke shots, we shot elements of characters on blue screens dressed in wardrobes from past episodes - we had the Woman in White, Hook Man, the reaper - and we showed them in lightning flashes.'" Ophois (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so then we could say, "Production wanted to keep the number of shots to a minimum for the opening of the Devil's Gate at the episode's climax, so instead of digitally creating demon smoke shots, visual effects supervisor visual effects supervisor Ivan Hayden filmed stand-ins dressed as characters from past episodes—Woman in White, Hook Man, the Reaper—on a blue screen and inserted them into the scene in post-production." - Or something along those lines. Based on what he says, it appears that they chose to film live-action people as opposed to digitially creating those shots. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ophois (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so then we could say, "Production wanted to keep the number of shots to a minimum for the opening of the Devil's Gate at the episode's climax, so instead of digitally creating demon smoke shots, visual effects supervisor visual effects supervisor Ivan Hayden filmed stand-ins dressed as characters from past episodes—Woman in White, Hook Man, the Reaper—on a blue screen and inserted them into the scene in post-production." - Or something along those lines. Based on what he says, it appears that they chose to film live-action people as opposed to digitially creating those shots. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "'For the gates of Hell, we worked in prep to keep the shot count down,' recalls visual effects supervisor Ivan Hayden. 'But to dumb down the gates of Hell would not fly by any means. So instead of just having demon smoke shots, we shot elements of characters on blue screens dressed in wardrobes from past episodes - we had the Woman in White, Hook Man, the reaper - and we showed them in lightning flashes.'" Ophois (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a way to work that in so that it makes better sense? I mean, the way you are explaining it, it sounds like the reused old stuff to save money. If that's not it, then it's still not clear, and I might need to see the whole excerpt from the source so I can understand better. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The new elements were the glimpses of previous villains. Ophois (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, but the sentence is still confusing. I don't know what "elements" they chose to include, and in what way that was different than the norm. The sentence really needs to explain that better. Otherwise, it just contradicts itself based on the words being used. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Demon smoke is the hardest visual effect for them to do, and it's easier to just blue screen someone in than create complex visual effects. Ophois (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No no...I understood that part. What got me was that they said they wanted to limit those, and then the following statement sounds like they added. When I read it, I'm left with the impression that the demons and other elements they want to add are digital elements, and not physical ones that would allow them to save money on digital stuff. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops. It was supposed to say "visual effects shots". I'll change it. Ophois (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the reception section, some of the reviews come across as promotional pieces you'd see when you're trying to sell something. For instance, the TV Guide review just pulls exerts from an excited comment, but doesn't really provide context as to why they found the episode so enjoyable. It's not enough to say "TV Guide liked the episode", because we're using them as a professional opinion and a professional opinion should be able to explain what was so good about it. (e.g., discussing an actor's performance, how the writers ended the season, etc.) - per the MOS on reception. Another example is, "The finale has also been described as "terrific" by Sci-fi.com,[28] "juicy" by Entertainment Weekly,[18] and just plain "wow" by TV Guide." - Ok, but why? I mean, as it stands right now, I'm referring to those statements, it looks more like we're trying to sell a DVD, because it looks like the stuff you'd find on a DVD boxset. Now, the Burns stuff is good because it provides us with reasons for why he liked and disliked things (quick point, it says "this episode" and we need to know which he is talking about). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- New version suffice? Ophois (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall..much better. The only other thing I can think of is the statement: "Frederic Lehne received praise for his portrayal of the demon Azazel, described as "riveting",[31] "great", and "appropriately creepy"." - I understand that how we're using the terms, but I was wonder if the sources went into more detail about what made him so riveting, great, and creepy. It would just really benefit the article to have that context - though, if it's not really there I can live with how it is. The other thing is the award for Jessica Harmon, it seems odd to place it in the middle of critic reception, when it's not critical. It should probably go either at the top, or this could be one of those times when a single sentence paragraph will have to suffice at the very end. After all that, I'll look over everything again and so long as there are no more issues I'll give this article my full support. Great work so far. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't go into detail. They just briefly mention and praise the actors. I've moved the Jessica Harmon bit as a third paragraph. Ophois (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall..much better. The only other thing I can think of is the statement: "Frederic Lehne received praise for his portrayal of the demon Azazel, described as "riveting",[31] "great", and "appropriately creepy"." - I understand that how we're using the terms, but I was wonder if the sources went into more detail about what made him so riveting, great, and creepy. It would just really benefit the article to have that context - though, if it's not really there I can live with how it is. The other thing is the award for Jessica Harmon, it seems odd to place it in the middle of critic reception, when it's not critical. It should probably go either at the top, or this could be one of those times when a single sentence paragraph will have to suffice at the very end. After all that, I'll look over everything again and so long as there are no more issues I'll give this article my full support. Great work so far. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- New version suffice? Ophois (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments What makes this reliable?
Dabs and links otherwise fine. RB88 (T) 18:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed it. Ophois (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - All my comments have been addressed, so I have no problem fully supporting this article for FA status. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else have any issues? Ophois (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:39, 14 November 2009 [46].
Andrew Johnston (singer)
- Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it is a well referenced, comprehensive article. It's fairly short, but there isn't much to say about him- further, I'm not expecting any updates in the near future, as he is taking a year out of music. Suggestions and comments are more than welcome. J Milburn (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright review: Both images look good. NW (Talk) 15:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments There are still some differing date formats in the references that need to be formatted. Hekerui (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Made some fixes. Any I missed? J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alt text done; thanks.
Please add alt text to images; see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images.Eubulides (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done my best- never done that before. J Milburn (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks very nice; thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done my best- never done that before. J Milburn (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments thus far- I will address them later today or tomorrow at the latest. J Milburn (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ot
- OK! magazine is not a very good source.
- It's being used only for the DOB- that's often not even referenced. It's hardly controversial information, and it is from an interview with Johnston- hardly a gossip piece.
- What makes acharts.us reliable?
- Wikipedia:Record charts seems to be ok with its use- I remember choosing it based on the guidance offered there.
- Please update and add archive links where applicable that the dead link check shows.
- I sorted the MSN link, but it would seem the Daily Record links rot, and the stories are not archived anywhere. What's the procedure, here? They were published online, and they were published in the hard copy papers- it's still citable, right?
- Lead doesn't follow MOS:DOB
- Sorry, in what way? Should I not state where he was born?
- It is already stated in the "personal life" Spiderone 08:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but everything in the lead should be redundant- the guidelines must have changed at some point, because we certainly used to state locations. Changing now. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is already stated in the "personal life" Spiderone 08:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, in what way? Should I not state where he was born?
- I don't think the Albums section is needed unless he releases another album, instead use Template:main on the albums section.
- It's fairly standard, and does provide key information at a glance- note also that there probably will be more albums. I'm not convinced- does anyone else have an opinion on this? I have added {{main}} though. J Milburn (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Sasata (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I thought it would be good to balance the FAC review karma somewhat, as J Milburn has been kind enough to give detailed reviews of some of my FAC submissions. Ok, here goes:[reply]
- Thanks, and I realise that this subject may well be of no interest to you at all!
- "...he was signed to judge Simon Cowell's label SyCo Music." needs rewording, when I first read it I wondered what the lad would be judging
- Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "and he is currently taking a year out to allow his voice to develop." Does one take a year out or a year off?
- Switched. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "He had moved to Carlisle, where he lived in "poverty",[3] as an infant after his parents separated." It reads to me like the second comma is there to make a convenient pause so that the citation can be neatly tucked in , but the sentence doesn't read right to me with it
- I've been picked up on this before, and so I'm guessing it's a chiefly British technique, but we call it parenthesis (and we call your parenthesis "brackets"). We have a very short article on it here- basically, the commas separate out a clarifying clause- clarifying the fact he lived in "poverty" in Carlisle. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "While some journalists have said Johnston's background was taken advantage of by the..." reads awkwardly to me
- Changed. No idea why I wrote it like that... J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "On top of his musical career, Johnston continues to live in Carlisle with his mother, and is now home tutored." To me, the sentence reads like "In addition to his musical career, Johnston lives with his mommy and doesn't get out much." ... is that the effect you were going for? :)
- Not really :) I was aware of the fact that I have a section on his personal life, and the fact that he's not a singer 24/7. I was just trying to give a spark of what his real life is like. Do you think it should be changed? J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How long had Johnston been with the Carlisle choir, i.e. how old was he when he joined? How old when named head chorister?
- He was five when he joined, but I'm not certain when he became head... I'm having trouble accessing the Cumberland News site to clarify that. I've made some adjustments. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The idea of the tour was conceived because the diocese of Stavanger is a partner to the diocese of Carlisle.[9]" Doesn't quite connect yet ... how are they partners? How did the partnership lead to the conception of the tour idea?
- Added some information about the partnership sourced to the Carlisle Diocese website. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The day after the final, for Simon Cowell's publicist" extra word in there?
- Fixed. Too involved in the text... J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "...Johnston was presented a gold disc by Penny Smith" how about a couple of words to tell us who Penny Smith is
- Done. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Johnston announced that he would be taking a year out from singing due to the breaking of his voice," passive voice?
- "Johnston said that his father is "not really a part of my life. It was my decision"." It's not clear what this decision was, as it was his mother who left the husband
- It was his decision that the father is not part of his life? I've added some more of the quote, hopefully that clarifies the meaning. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments Everything seems to be fine in general. Good quality for a pop cult article.
ACharts needs to be replaced as it is not FA reliable. Use this: http://www.cumberlandnews.co.uk/andrew_johnston_cd_one_voice_is_number_four_in_uk_top_40_album_chart_1_250756?referrerPath=home and this: http://www.irma.ie/charts_archive/week41_08.asp- Thanks, made the swaps. J Milburn (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is dead: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/entertainment-news/2008/09/11/britain-s-got-talent-schoolboy-andrew-johnston-beats-bullies-to-complete-first-album-86908-20731673/
- Yeah, see above. The Daily Record links rot. Should I just remove the link and use them as an offline reference? J Milburn (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because the material needs to be in existence to warrant inclusion as a reference. The link has to be removed regardless as it is dead. If you can't source the material from the print version or from elsewhere, then the whole reference and its material must be removed. RB88 (T) 19:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything that was published on the website was also published in the print version. I do not have access to the print version, but I do know it says the same thing. J Milburn (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you source and cite the print version then all well and good. As it stands, the source is not viable. Anyway, a simple Google archive search should help you source the info from other places. I checked. RB88 (T) 14:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything that was published on the website was also published in the print version. I do not have access to the print version, but I do know it says the same thing. J Milburn (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because the material needs to be in existence to warrant inclusion as a reference. The link has to be removed regardless as it is dead. If you can't source the material from the print version or from elsewhere, then the whole reference and its material must be removed. RB88 (T) 19:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, see above. The Daily Record links rot. Should I just remove the link and use them as an offline reference? J Milburn (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RB88 (T) 18:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I will adress this when I find a spare quarter of an hour. Been finding myself busy... J Milburn (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay, I will be doing this later today. J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/comment/columnists/showbiz-tv-columnists/brian-mciver/2008/12/18/it-s-been-an-amazing-year-all-of-my-dreams-came-true-86908-20979091/ has not yet rotted- is there a way I can get this archived somewhere for when it does? J Milburn (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done what I can. No dead links left in the article. I decided not to cite the paper story. J Milburn (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/comment/columnists/showbiz-tv-columnists/brian-mciver/2008/12/18/it-s-been-an-amazing-year-all-of-my-dreams-came-true-86908-20979091/ has not yet rotted- is there a way I can get this archived somewhere for when it does? J Milburn (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay, I will be doing this later today. J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I will adress this when I find a spare quarter of an hour. Been finding myself busy... J Milburn (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's plenty of information here, but it isn't tied together well enough. The article simply isn't well written enough for an FA. I am going to have a go at improving it. I am strongly opposed to the article ending with a negative comment by Andrew's mother about her reasons for leaving her husband. Presumably Andrew's father is alive somewhere, and regardless of the fact that his mother made an ungarded comment to the media, it adds little quality to an article about Andrew. Amandajm (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could look into balancing it with a quote from his father? J Milburn (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's plenty of information here, but it isn't tied together well enough. The article simply isn't well written enough for an FA. I am going to have a go at improving it. I am strongly opposed to the article ending with a negative comment by Andrew's mother about her reasons for leaving her husband. Presumably Andrew's father is alive somewhere, and regardless of the fact that his mother made an ungarded comment to the media, it adds little quality to an article about Andrew. Amandajm (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:39, 14 November 2009 [47].
Lomana LuaLua
- Nominator(s): Spiderone 16:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all the criteria. It is well-balanced and contains anything you would want to know about LuaLua. I believe it mirrors the current featured footballer articles such as Thierry Henry and Bert Trautmann. This is my first nomination so I apologise if I make any amateur mistakes. Spiderone 16:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Was Malcolmxl5 (talk · contribs) consulted about this nomination? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He has been consulted now Spiderone 17:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- I don't know German but this might be useful Spiderone 09:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It has a lot of dedicated contributors and moderators [48] and is one of few websites covering Middle Eastern football Spiderone 09:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the "about us" section it claims to be the only English language website covering Greek sport Spiderone 09:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a campaign supported by the Professional Footballers Association (PFA), the Premier League and The Football Association and recognised by FIFA (the world governing body for football) and UEFA (the European version) Spiderone 09:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please spell out abbreviations in the notes
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 25 October 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 12:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are any of the four sites still not reliable? Spiderone 18:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The closest to reliable is the kickitout one, assuming it's only used to reference information about the campaign. Otherwise, I'm inclined to say not reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is used to show he took part in the Show Racism The Red Card campaign in addition to the mention of it on his official site Spiderone 08:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also think that Sport In Greece is completely reliable. As this link and this link proves, it uses journalists who have written for The Times, Reuters and Guardian. Both of the owners have worked with the BBC so I don't think it can be considered reliable unless we're showing bias. I think it would be fair to say, as far as Greek websites go, it is reliable. I will try to replace Transfermarkt and Goalzz if possible. Spiderone 08:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The closest to reliable is the kickitout one, assuming it's only used to reference information about the campaign. Otherwise, I'm inclined to say not reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are any of the four sites still not reliable? Spiderone 18:48, 27 October 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 12:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alt text done; thanks.
Please add alt text to images; see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images.Eubulides (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text added Spiderone 21:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for doing that; I tweaked it a bit. It looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text added Spiderone 21:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Only a few quick ones instead of a full review, which I would like to do if I find time.
"He remained there for three months but his spell there was marred by disciplinary problems and malaria." One thing to watch for is repetitive repeating of words, like the multiple "there"s in this sentence. The second one can be removed without changing the meaning, making the sentence tighter as a whole."He has a brother called Kazenga LuaLua who plays for Newcastle United". I didn't think the "called" was needed when I read it. A simpler "He has a brother, Kazenga LuaLua, who plays for Newcastle United" may be an improvement.Club career: Feels like some punctuation is missing from this: "Initially, he struggled to adapt and he preferred going to nightclubs over playing for Colchester, Harrop says 'It took a lot of hard work...".Giants2008 (17–14) 00:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addressed these 3 points Spiderone 22:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newcastle United: "LuaLua made his first-team debut in a 1–0 home defeat to Charlton Athletic in September 2000 and went on to make a total of 23 league and cup appearances...". Lot of unneeded words here. This can easily be reduced to "and made 23 league and cup appearances", which will also make the voice of the sentence more active."having started 21 games and made 67 appearances as substitute." Add "a" before last word?Portsmouth: "During this loan he famously scored in the 89th minute in a 1–1 draw for Portsmouth against parent club Newcastle." Would a game in February 2003 that ultimately had no real impact on the season really qualify as famous?Change comma after "His disciplinary problems continued when he was warned by the Football Association over his future conduct" to a semi-colon?Olympiakos: "He fell out of favour shortly before the Greek cup final in May and was placed on the transfer list." According to our article on the subject, "cup" should be capitalized (proper noun). Also, consider linking to the Greek Cup article.International career: "He was however included...". Commas should bracket "however" here.Spell out FECOFA."as the DR Congo football authorities felt it better not to tell him so to avoid distracting him." Add "as" before second "to".Change comma after "LuaLua scored the second goal in a 2–0 victory" to a semi-colon.Do the same with the comma before "this time it was on suspicion of assault occasioning actual bodily harm" in Personal life.- If I may make one general comment to conclude my review, I feel that the article needs work regarding its punctuation. There are numerous times throughout where commas are missing from where they should be or present where they shouldn't, and several commas that should be semi-colons the way a given sentence is structured, a few of which I pointed out above. Although it seems like a minor point, solid punctuation is vital for FA-level prose, and having someone go over this would go a long way toward the article meeting the criterion for professional prose. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addressed these points now Spiderone 09:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3 - File:LuaLua 2007.jpg - It is unclear from the image description page who the copyright holder is, that is, is the uploader also the photographer? Please contact the uploader and ask him/her to clarify this.Awadewit (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The uploader is inactive so I'm not sure what I can do about this. On the image's page it says "Photo taken By Dave Adcock in Cosham, Portsmouth July 2007" and the user that uploaded it is called Dave so surely we know that he uploaded it and owns the rights to it. Spiderone 11:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, I didn't see that in the history - I have restored that information to the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:39, 14 November 2009 [49].
Well Dunn
- Nominator(s): GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets all of the criteria. It was nominated once before, but the FAC was closed due to lack of responses (no supports or opposes). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless the sourcing issues raised on the first FAC have been cleared up, bringing this back in 7 days is premature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There were no objections to the sourcing in the first FAC. Ealdgyth asked for explanations of why some sources were reliable, and I provided responses. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But she did not strike them, meaning they still needed review for reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that to be done? The sources she asked about are published by experts in the field and meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. I explained this, and my explanations were ignored. Ealdgyth said that she would let other editors decide for themselves about the reliability; I am confident that, if any reviewers come around this time, they will agree that the sourcing is up to FA standards. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I generally leave self-published sources for other reviewers to decide for themselves, especially in non-academic or obvious cases. If I'd been utterly convinced, I'd have struck them, but they were close enough that I didn't think they were out of bounds. They should be considered by each reviewer. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that to be done? The sources she asked about are published by experts in the field and meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. I explained this, and my explanations were ignored. Ealdgyth said that she would let other editors decide for themselves about the reliability; I am confident that, if any reviewers come around this time, they will agree that the sourcing is up to FA standards. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But she did not strike them, meaning they still needed review for reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There were no objections to the sourcing in the first FAC. Ealdgyth asked for explanations of why some sources were reliable, and I provided responses. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text and images cleared in previous FAC; please advise if they have changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Review of uncleared sources carried forward from previous FAC:
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- http://www.solie.org/titlehistories/pnwttnwa.html
- The information is primarily gathered from the Wrestling Title Histories book. This one title change is not included in the book, which seems to be an omission. Since this title change is backed up by several other websites, I felt that it was important to include in the interests of accuracy and comprehensiveness. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com (Yes, I saw the above. I'm not convinced. At the very least, I'd rather see reviews of the site that aren't hosted on the site itself.)
- Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper): "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Graham Cawthon's work is considered so accurate that it is included as a feature in both WrestleView ([50]) and [51]), both of which are accepted as reliable sources for wrestling articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrestling Title Histories is the only work released by its publisher see here. What makes this reliable?
- I'd question that site as the "definitive word" on books as the Wrestling Title histories has been published in four editions yet not reflected there. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 17:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, industry expert John Molinaro (a regular columnist for the wrestling section of the Canadian Online Explorer, which is considered one of the best reliable sources for wrestling articles) calls it an "essential resource" and the "authoritative book on the history of wrestling titles" ([52]).
- I'd question that site as the "definitive word" on books as the Wrestling Title histories has been published in four editions yet not reflected there. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 17:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.wrestlecrap.com/oldinductions.html
- The site is run by RD Reynolds, who is accepted as an industry expert and has published several wrestling-related books (Wrestlecrap:The Very Worst of Pro Wrestling, The Death of WCW, and The Wrestlecrap Book of Lists, all published by ECW Press). GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.nwawrestling.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=16&Itemid=33&0da7ea0fa00243950053999b1ce8c78c=720f73dea89a407a4b08b22f7785320c&limitstart=14&0da7ea0fa00243950053999b1ce8c78c=720f73dea89a407a4b08b22f7785320c
- The site is operated by the National Wrestling Alliance, one of the top two wrestling organizations in the US since 1948. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.solie.org/titlehistories/pnwttnwa.html
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll leave these others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the information at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches to establish reliability of these sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Putting aside the sources above for a second, most of the remaining references are either to WWF television programs or are otherwise related to the then-WWF. Is there any possibility for replacement of some of these with non-primary sources? A lot of reviewers here become concerned when they sense that too many primary sources have been used, although I grant that sources for a team from this era are probably difficult to find. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have used non-primary sources wherever possible. Unfortunately, non-primary information about the early/mid 1990s is hard to find for some wrestlers. Because Well Dunn was never really among the top tag teams in the WWF, there was limited information written about them in the magazines. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, between the two FACs, it's been 37 days without a single Support or Oppose. The process appears to be broken, so I think it's time for me to come to the realization that FAC is, for all intents and purposes, dead. GAN has worked out a lot better, as it leads to actual feedback rather than stagnant review page after stagnant review page. Feel free to close this whenever you feel like it, as it's clearly a pointless endeavour. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Gary, lets wait on closing. I'm up to it, so I'll give a review and I'll be sure to leave a support or oppose after I'm done.--WillC 20:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Review by WillC
- Lead
- Infobox
- I know it is not a must, but the infomation mentioned in the box I wouldn't mind sourced, because some of it may not be mentioned later and it would be best to have it covered now.--WillC 06:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose
- "Well Dunn, also known as the Southern Rockers, was a professional wrestling tag team that competed in several promotions in the United States." Wouldn't mind Rockers linked to The Rockers, since I believe that may be a reference in the sentence, and it written as "The Southern Rockers" since that should be the official name. I haven't read it in a while, but WP:THE may have something to do with that.--WillC 06:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "They held championships in Pacific Northwest Wrestling (PNW), the United States Wrestling Association (USWA), the World Wrestling Council (WWC), and Music City Wrestling (MCW)." → "They held championships in the Pacific Northwest Wrestling (PNW), the United States Wrestling Association (USWA), the World Wrestling Council (WWC), and the Music City Wrestling (MCW) promotions." I like to make sure everything is clarified.--WillC 06:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "They are best known, however, for competing in the World Wrestling Federation from 1993 to 1995." → "They are best known for competing in the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) from 1993 to 1995." However seems unneeded here.
- "In the WWF, Well Dunn faced the promotion's top tag teams and were contenders for the WWF Tag Team Championship." → "In the WWF, Well Dunn faced several of the promotion's tag teams and were contenders for the WWF Tag Team Championship." Can change around if you want, but top seems like an opinion.
- "They had a feud with The Bushwhackers that lasted for most of Well Dunn's tenure with the company." Seems sloppy, rewrite is needed imo. Something like "Most of their tenure with the company was spent being engaged in a feud with Luke Williams and Butch Miller of The Bushwhackers tandem."
- "During this reunion, Doll attacked King and the team disbanded permanently." → "During this reunion, Doll attacked Smith and the team disbanded permanently." Best to keep consistent.--WillC 06:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- History
- Early years
- Reunion
- WWF (1993)
- WWF (1994)
- WWF (1995)
- Split
- In wrestling
- Championships and accomplishments
- References
- External links
- Comment: In the first sentence, give your reader and approximate date and link the country. Amandajm (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:39, 14 November 2009 [53].
No Line on the Horizon
- Nominator(s): MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm nominating No Line on the Horizon for a couple of reasons. I think it is a very thorough and comprehensive look at the creation, development, and release of the album, with information regarding the original concept behind it, the groups of recording sessions, the creation and inspiration of the songs, as well as the release, promotion, and reception towards it. The article was successfully promoted to GA some time ago and underwent a Peer Review before its first FAC, which it failed. The issues brought up in the failed FAC have, I think, since been addressed, and it recently underwent a second Peer Review with all of the points brought up there being addressed as well. I believe this article is the most comprehensive overview of the subject on the internet, and that it is now ready to join the elite clientele that comprises Wikipedia's Featured Articles. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical comments after a quick peek.
For the release formats section, consider using the template {{N}} instead of {{X mark}} so that people who can't see the images "see" the alt text "No" instead of "X mark". (The check marks have the alt text "Yes", so they have no such issue.)
- Fixed; thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know that could cause some problems. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would've done it myself, but they looked different and I figured you'd have a color preference. :) --an odd name 04:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I have always liked green, but I don't think it would have worked too well alongside the checkmarks :P MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would've done it myself, but they looked different and I figured you'd have a color preference. :) --an odd name 04:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed; thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know that could cause some problems. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few citation dates use Day Month Year format. I'll make them ISO style like the others for consistency if you don't mind.
- Not at all, thanks; that's really helpful! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--an odd name 03:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The toolbox reveals a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed with Google cache. --an odd name 23:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers for that; it went dead only earlier today, before I had a chance to archive it. I'm hoping that it's just a database error/update, and that it will be up again shortly (the other certification years all seem to work fine). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I contacted the IFPI and they fixed the broken link; the source is no longer dead and it has been archived in case it goes down again in the future. I believe that the reason it went down was because they were updating the page with information on Q3 certifications. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers for that; it went dead only earlier today, before I had a chance to archive it. I'm hoping that it's just a database error/update, and that it will be up again shortly (the other certification years all seem to work fine). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The lead should not have citations. The material does not seem that contestable to me to warrant them.
- Done; the material is all sourced in the rest of the article anyways. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CHARTS, limit the amounts of charts in each table to 10 plus up to 8 derivative charts.
RB88 (T) 22:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm slightly confused by this; do you mean 18 charts combined for the album and singles? Or 10 charts for the album, 10 for each single, etc? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:CHARTS is for the singles, so I think he means cut down the singles charting to 10 different charts. Makes sense to me, because every chart appearance can be noted in the article for the single. Suede67 (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CHARTS is for both: "The number of charts should include no more than ten official national charts, and up to ten additional or secondary charts, but no more than eighteen charts total." This applies separately to BOTH the album chart table and the singles chart table. To stop repeating the same chart, I suggest merging all the singles into a single table, see A Weekend in the City. Also keep the single markets to the English-speaking world only. The article is about the album after all. The rest of the singles detail must be put in the respective pages. RB88 (T) 00:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, okay; eh, one last question though. I'm not too familiar with charts myself, so what exactly constitutes a secondary chart? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- i.e. you can have US, UK, EIRE etc ... up to national chart number 10, and then you're allowed up to 8 derivatives like Billboard Independent, Ultratop Alternative etc. should you so choose to include them, too. RB88 (T) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers; I've done that now. Does it look acceptable? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- i.e. you can have US, UK, EIRE etc ... up to national chart number 10, and then you're allowed up to 8 derivatives like Billboard Independent, Ultratop Alternative etc. should you so choose to include them, too. RB88 (T) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, okay; eh, one last question though. I'm not too familiar with charts myself, so what exactly constitutes a secondary chart? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CHARTS is for both: "The number of charts should include no more than ten official national charts, and up to ten additional or secondary charts, but no more than eighteen charts total." This applies separately to BOTH the album chart table and the singles chart table. To stop repeating the same chart, I suggest merging all the singles into a single table, see A Weekend in the City. Also keep the single markets to the English-speaking world only. The article is about the album after all. The rest of the singles detail must be put in the respective pages. RB88 (T) 00:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment References 103 - 106 are broken. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 00:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those references don't have anything to do with the article; that's just me copy-pasting the charts from A Weekend in the City to try and work the suggested format for the charts. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, once I fixed the format those broken links went away. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those references don't have anything to do with the article; that's just me copy-pasting the charts from A Weekend in the City to try and work the suggested format for the charts. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments What makes this reliable?
- Well, atu2.com is in regular contact with Principal Management and has had several exclusive interviews with people very close to the band before, including Neil McCormick, Joe O'Herlihy (think I spelt that right), and Willie Williams. They were also the media sponsor for an Academic Conference on the band recently. However as the same claim is backed up by another source (Rolling Stone), I'll remove it to save some hassle. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.u2wanderer.org/disco/sing061.html ; http://www.u2wanderer.org/disco/sing062.htmlRB88 (T) 01:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the link from the Q and Mojo reviews and cite the print publications themselves (check Metacritic for page and issue numbers). We don't know (and I doubt) the atu2.com has permission to republish them.
Replace Acharts.us with everyhit.com.
- WP:GOODCHARTS states that Acharts is a reliable archive for each one of the countries used in the chart box with the exception of the United States (which isn't listed at all); why is a switch to everyhit necessary? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This takes precedence always: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. It came up in one of my own FACs and we scoured far and wide and no third-party sources were found for ACharts. EveryHit was used by the BBC and in Parliament believe it or not. RB88 (T) 01:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can tell, EveryHit is only for the British charts; what should I do for the other five? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The other ones, expect for Canada, can be accessed through the Ultratop derivative websites or Billboard. RB88 (T) 02:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, all replaced with Ultratop, Billboard, or Irish-charts. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The other ones, expect for Canada, can be accessed through the Ultratop derivative websites or Billboard. RB88 (T) 02:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can tell, EveryHit is only for the British charts; what should I do for the other five? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This takes precedence always: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. It came up in one of my own FACs and we scoured far and wide and no third-party sources were found for ACharts. EveryHit was used by the BBC and in Parliament believe it or not. RB88 (T) 01:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go through the publishers' names in the refs and sort out differences. A quick glance shows both Pitchfork and Pitchfork Media, Independent and Irish Independent etc.
- Pitchfork is done. The Independent and the Irish Independent are two different newspapers (one is British, the other is Irish). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, web content does not merit italics unless the publication is in print also (not applicable if you're citing Billboard.com though)
RB88 (T) 17:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit confused by this; so something like Rolling Stone would remain in italics while content that is only available online would not? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<- Current refs:
- 13 and 65 need to be RTÉ. Abbreviate it in ref 37.
- 14 should be The New York Times.
- 17 should be The Irish Independent.
- 21 should be CNN for consistency.
- 52 and 73 should be Pitchfork Media.
- 69, 74, and 93 do not need italics.
99 needs unabbreviation.
RB88 (T) 01:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current refs 15, 19, 29, 30, 35, 47, 49, 81 are sourced from reprints at atu2.com. I doubt the website has a license for all of them, if any. So, the links should definitely be removed. And then you have to source the material from the print publications themselves (or the websites if published there). RB88 (T) 01:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed, though the Hot Press articles are now part of the archives (meaning that a subscription is needed to view them). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine. Just add "Subscription required". RB88 (T) 02:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3 - File:U2nloth.ogg - The purpose of use only really discusses the lyrics, which could be included as a quotation in the article. Why does the listener need to hear the song? Awadewit (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I felt that including an audio accompaniment which can be compared to the cover art and the lyrics would better show the correlation of how the image inspired Bono to write the song. Additionally, the sound sample is indicative of the direction the band took in recording the album, showing how it fits about halfway between Achtung Baby and All That You Can't Leave Behind sonically (though I note that the rationale did not include that); I have now altered the rationale so that it reflects this point. Do you feel that it now meets Criterion 3? If not then I will be happy to remove it if it is the only obstacle towards your support, though I feel that for this latter purpose especially it's use is essential. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit: Awadewit has been notified of a response but has not yet returned to the nomination page. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is stronger, yes. Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:28, 7 November 2009 [54].
Denton, Texas
- Nominator(s): MahangaTalk 21:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After a month of thoroughly researching, writing and referencing, I'm convinced it meets the FA criteria. It follows the guide set forth by WP:USCITY. MahangaTalk 21:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, mainly 1a Not liking the prose I've seen so far.
- I've had to link cable companies and such for context and trim some redundancies. Speaking of those, surely there's a better way to say "The city council consists of seven members: mayor, four council members, and two at-large council members." I have a feeling there's more and I won't fix 'em all.
- Most paragraphs start with Denton. Mix 'em up somehow.
- Remove that "Handbook of Texas" template from the citations (it's ok for external links) and just use "cite web" or "citation" so that the publisher can be specified without looking like an awful car crash between two sentences with a comma between them.
This article failed a GAN as well. Withdraw, work on it further (maybe another peer review or an independent copyedit), then go for GA before moving further here. --an odd name 07:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. I made a couple fixes already. I'll start on the rest a later today. Regarding the failed GAN: I prematurely nominated the article because there was a backlog and I figured it wouldn't be reviewed for at least a few weeks. Unexpectedly, a user reviewed the article just a day later. Since then, I have made substantial changes to the article and contacted the original reviewer for additional feedback. He didn't reply. I made another GA nomination and it's been unreviewed for two weeks so I decided to take a chance on FAC. MahangaTalk 17:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well. Given that and Juliancolton's comments, I'll stay neutral here. Still recommend someone else look over the prose and such. --an odd name 20:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was the GA reviewer, and I think the article's come a long way, but a few sections still need some more citations. For examples, the statistics in the Geography section remain sources. Good work so far! –Juliancolton | Talk 19:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- Uncited statements of opinion:
- " Lake Lewisville, a popular fishing and boating destination, is 15 miles south of the city." (the "popular" needs the cite)
- First paragraph of Climate needs citation/sourcing
- "Big-name performers and bands such as Arturo Sandoval, Tower of Power, and Brave Combo have performed at the festival."
- "A number of music venus and commercial recording studios exist for Denton's music base."
- "Several area school districts have large athletics programs which draw significant attendance from the general public, especially for high school football games."
- "Most Texas state agencies also have facilities in the city, the larger of which include a Texas Workforce Center, a driver license/highway patrol office, and a state school."
- "North Central Texas College, a community college in nearby Corinth, is also attended by many Denton students."
- There are other statements that could use citations throughout the article.
- Current ref 7 (Sims...) lacks a publisher and last access date.
- Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
- Current ref 33 (Official Capital...) lacks a last access date
- Current ref 60 has no publisher listed (Belo...)
- Current ref 74 lacks a publisher (Sister Cities...)
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I added some citations, formatted others, and removed some peacock terms such as "big-name bands". Regarding the question about reliable sources: Paste is a fairly prominent music magazine (circulation of over 200,000) and the article merely uses their opinion of Denton's music scene. I think it's ok per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion. Pegasus News is a small online news source for DFW. It's as reliable as the local Denton newspaper. It may not be as high-end as The New York Times, but the news articles I cited were void of any opinion. I will try to see if I can replace it with Denton Record-Chronicle news articles. Thanks, and please let me know if there's something I missed. MahangaTalk 21:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is "300,000 thousand people" a typo? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed it is. Fixed. MahangaTalk 19:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3
File:Denton historic courthouse.jpg - Please add a description and a date to the image description page for this image. Also, I'm unconvinced that this a work by the US Federal Government. It seems to be a work by a state historical commission.- I was under the impression it was given to Preserve America (a federal organization) from the Texas commission. In any case, I've replaced it with an alternative image.
- File:Denton County Flag.jpg - Ideally, this image would be in SVG format. You can request help here.
- Sent in a request. See Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Flag of Denton County
File:Dentontexasseal.png - This image needs a fair use rationale.- Added rationale.
File:Fry Street 1920s.PNG - Please add a source, date, and author to the image description page.- I've asked the uploader for a source. If none is provided, it'll probably get deleted within 7 days. I've temporarily hidden it pending the uploader's response.
- Striking since the image is hidden. If image is added back to the article, please let me know. Awadewit (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. The uploader seems active, but hasn't responded. The image only has until Sunday before it's deleted.
- Striking since the image is hidden. If image is added back to the article, please let me know. Awadewit (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Denton Arts and Jazz - Celtic Dancers II.jpg - This image needs a better description.
- Added a bit more, not sure what you're looking for.
- Still reads "Another dance they did" - please add a fuller description to the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I was looking at the caption, instead of the image description. Replaced description.
- Still reads "Another dance they did" - please add a fuller description to the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ann Sheridan Cowboy from Brooklyn trailer.jpg - The image description page needs to include a link to the trailer (for example, on YouTube) that shows the entire trailer sans copyright notice.- The trailer does show a copyright notice though the upload claims it wasn't renewed. Relevant discussion is here. I've chosen to use a different image.
I look forward to striking this oppose once these issues are resolved. Awadewit (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the extensive review of the images in the article and for editing the article to match MOS#Images. MahangaTalk 19:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 01:56, 5 November 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:12, 15 November 2009 [55].
Richard Gavin Reid
- Nominator(s): Steve Smith (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of the six articles about Premiers of Alberta I've brought here, this is the shortest, which is kind of strange since he's the longest-lived. But he was also the shortest-serving, so it all balanced out. Or something. Anyway, it's been through a good article review and a couple of peer reviews from User:Nikkimaria and User:Resolute. I look forward to reviewers' explanations of why it's still not good enough and I am human garbage. Steve Smith (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image copyright review (
OpposeSupport on criterion 3):- File:Richard Reid.jpg needs something to indicate that it meets US and Canadian copyright. Specifically, it needs either an author or a date of publication, or more preferably both. It also needs a more appropriate source, such as a deeplink.
- File:UFA caucus.jpg needs a more appropriate source, as per above.
- File:Richard Reid jubilee.jpg - same as the one above.
- File:Richard Gavin Reid and cabinet.jpg's source does not lead anywhere.
- File:C H Douglas.jpg's source does not lead anywhere.
- NW (Talk) 02:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are incorrect on the first point: photographs taken in Canada prior to January 1, 1949 are in the public domain irrespective of their author or publication status. Those taken before January 1, 1946 are also public domain in the United States, by virtue of being in the public domain in the country of origin as of January 1, 1996. I'll sort the sources, though the first three are scanned from offline sources (I'll identify that source on the description page, I just want to warn you that there won't be a link). Steve Smith (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Scanned from offline sources is fine, but if it is from a book, page numbers do have to be given and it has to be formatted appropriately. In addition, File:Richard Reid.jpg has no date, so there is no way for someone to know that it indeed fits PD-Canada. NW (Talk) 02:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just addressed those issues on the Commons now. I couldn't figure out how to get deep links to the Glenbow images, because I'm a Luddite, so I linked to the search page and included the archival number on the page. If you can figure out how to link straight to the images, I'd be much obliged. File:Richard Reid.jpg does have a date in the book, which I've put on the description page; I was being sloppy while uploading it. Steve Smith (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images look good now. NW (Talk) 00:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just addressed those issues on the Commons now. I couldn't figure out how to get deep links to the Glenbow images, because I'm a Luddite, so I linked to the search page and included the archival number on the page. If you can figure out how to link straight to the images, I'd be much obliged. File:Richard Reid.jpg does have a date in the book, which I've put on the description page; I was being sloppy while uploading it. Steve Smith (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Scanned from offline sources is fine, but if it is from a book, page numbers do have to be given and it has to be formatted appropriately. In addition, File:Richard Reid.jpg has no date, so there is no way for someone to know that it indeed fits PD-Canada. NW (Talk) 02:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are incorrect on the first point: photographs taken in Canada prior to January 1, 1949 are in the public domain irrespective of their author or publication status. Those taken before January 1, 1946 are also public domain in the United States, by virtue of being in the public domain in the country of origin as of January 1, 1996. I'll sort the sources, though the first three are scanned from offline sources (I'll identify that source on the description page, I just want to warn you that there won't be a link). Steve Smith (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per my comments at Peer Review
- although the first line of the second paragraph under "Premier" might be reworded slightly.Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I've taken a stab at such a reword; see what you think. Steve Smith (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, but is there another phrasing to substitute for "messy divorce"? Complicated, public, disputed, etc?
- That's fine (assuming the source supports it). Full support. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wonderful. Thank you again for all of your help on this. Steve Smith (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine (assuming the source supports it). Full support. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, but is there another phrasing to substitute for "messy divorce"? Complicated, public, disputed, etc?
- I've taken a stab at such a reword; see what you think. Steve Smith (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - One of the best written pieces i have reviewed. Very high standard of prose, and good research.
My only query is: the article twice refers to the "Great Depression", then three times refers to "the depression" (lower case). Is there a case for revision here for consistency? The one place where the lower case language jars is in the final para: "like many governments across Canada, his was defeated by the depression". This appears to be a very clear reference to the Great Depression rather than to depressed economic conditions in general. I will leave it to the article's main editor to judge. Good work. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)OK, I worked through them myself. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support. I'm terrible at this sort of stylistic nitpick, so I'll just leave it as is with an invitation to any editor confident in his/her mastery of the MOS to adjust it (or tell me how to do so). Steve Smith (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I couldn't find anything to change. This is a very well-written article that flows well. Karanacs (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your kind words. Steve Smith (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as the other person to offer a peer review. Another fine article on someone that everyone outside of Alberta, and most people inside would just go "who?" Resolute Lest We Forget 01:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:28, 7 November 2009 [56].
Boys in Red accident
- Nominator(s): Kuzwa (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright time for round two! After nearly a year or work and one failed FAC last month I now feel this article is ready! Main thing stopping this article last time was prose and punctuation mostly; so I have copyedited the article extensively with some input and assistance from User:DQweny (Thank you very much!). This is one of the best articles on Wikipedia and I think it's ready to join the other FA's. =) Kuzwa (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Problems with picturesChanged to full oppose below.
- The picture in the lead is important, but its being used under fair use and the rationale doesn't make sense to me, "There is no free equivalent of the van, so the image cannot be replaced." Isn't this from a government report? It should be easy to ask for permission, so that doesn't seem like a valid reason to me.
- Temporarily removed it from the article. I am going to make a request to Government of Canada. If it's refused for whatever reason then I guess that's fine. If people want to see images of the accident they can click on the report at the bottom of the article. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* The picture in the 'Aftermath' section says 'Ford E350 van similar to the one involved in the accident', except that its a cargo van instead of a 15 passenger van, so its not actually similar. There's probably a picture on Flickr you could upload, or you could take a picture.
- Got a passenger version of the van. (I think) Though it is of a different color. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC) A[reply]
- Comment: I would have liked to see the picture of the semi that hit the van, I'm surprised this didn't come up in your GA review.
- Sorry for being picky, thanks for your hard work. Kirk (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is one but I am currently making a request to GovCan over it. Watch this space. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reference 22 is dead. It just leads to an "under construction" website with no information.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 15:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dealt with thanks. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. To my mind this article meets all the FA criteria. DQweny (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on criteria 3
- Note: I'm not sure I really support striking through my objections above - deleting the picture really makes this a worse FAC.
- One issue you face is the lack of any other FA-class articles about any auto accidents. Based on some of the aviation accident FA-class articles:
- There aren't enough pictures, graphics, etc. to support the prose. A good rule of thumb is one graphic per 250 words, so you are short about 5. For example, how about a map? Also, each image needs to be discussed in the text. See American Airlines Flight 11
- The infobox could have a lot more information, but there's no real template for you to use. See Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907
- If this was my article, I'd contact the WP:AIRCRASH task force for a peer review, as well as leting them know I wanted to create a new task force for auto accidents (maybe they can help set it up), add a map, getting permission to those images in the report, and working them into the prose. I'm sure more experienced editors can give more tips as well. Good luck and thanks for your contributions! Kirk (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response:
- I didn't strike through anything I didn't feel was properly dealt with.
- I haven't used aviation accident articles as the template for this article. In fact, I actually think that in some ways the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings article is of a closer model to a car accident because it revolves around an event that occurred on the ground, and wasn't investigated by a specialized air task force.
- That's the recommended format, I would love to have enough images to do that, but I don't. Other FA's are like this as well... see Saint-Sylvestre coup d'état.
- I agree. I think I have seen a template dedicated to bus accidents that I possibly could manipulate in some way.
- An auto accident task force would be a good idea. Also, I don't think there is any map that can be added to this article unless I just want to show the position of Bathurst within New Brunswick, even the accident report does not have a map. As for the images in the report, if I can't get permission to use them then whatever, that shouldn't derail this nomination. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Oppose I guess as a transplanted New Brunswicker, I should take a look at this one. It's not in bad shape, but I think it's still some distance from being a featured article. Some specific comments:
- I've done a copyedit, but I don't think the prose is there even after that. I think I've reduced the bloat enough, but it's still stilted at some points. I'd encourage the solicitation of another copyedit, and I'll try to get back to this myself once I have some more distance from it.
In "Accident" we're told that the vehicles came to rest on the shoulder of the southbound lane, but we're not told which way each vehicle was driving, which would be relevant information for understanding the relevant kinetics.
- Guess that was removed during the copy editing. I have now clarified the van was travelling northward. --Kuzwa (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of "Reaction" just reads as a list of quotes, with no apparent attempt to build thematic unity.
- Tried to tie together the section with an opening topic sentence. Might change the formatting of this section a bit. Watch this space.
- I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the extensive use of primary sources in the "Investigation" section. Have these details not been covered by secondary sources?
On what basis do rural schools claim to have been impacted more than urban ones by the new rules?
- Removed, this claim was based on a source that has since become a deadlink, this now reads as POV.
- Who would the families of the deceased be bringing charges against?
- None of the references I've looked at mention anyone specific. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for now. As I said, I'll try to be back later to give it another going over. Steve Smith (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to add to the primary source issue, the second paragraph of "Recommendations" is supported in its entirety by a single primary source. The paragraph draws conclusions that are not supported by that source (i.e. "One major effect..."). Steve Smith (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The ref was wrong instead of reffing policy 512 it should have reffed 513 which it is now doing. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble is that the primary source doesn't support that it was a major change, doesn't support that it resulted from the accident, doesn't support that it was a completely new policy (rather than a replacement for an old policy that may have included some of the same elements), etc. This is the danger of primary sources, and why Wikipedia articles are supposed to rely on secondary sources. Steve Smith (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I guess I should clarify here. Until the accident policy 512 and policy 513 we're not enforced and schools were only requested to follow them. After the accident the policies became fully enforceable and all school must adhere to them. So actually the insurance requirements are quite old but you didn't need to have them until after the crash. I'll get looking for a ref! --Kuzwa (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble is that the primary source doesn't support that it was a major change, doesn't support that it resulted from the accident, doesn't support that it was a completely new policy (rather than a replacement for an old policy that may have included some of the same elements), etc. This is the danger of primary sources, and why Wikipedia articles are supposed to rely on secondary sources. Steve Smith (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - Both images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per 1a. A few examples listed below, but please don't fix these few and come back and ask me to reconsider. The article needs two or three major revisions from experienced editors before it could pass 1a:
- The provincial government agreed with the majority of the suggestions and has since enacted many of them.. Weasel words.
- suspected that only the semi had gone off the road. So the van was on the road? Or the shoulder? Oh, it wasn't visible. Ambiguous.
- one cannot drive if they have been working. garbled grammar. Rewrite.
- Many at Bathurst High School speculated. Weasel words, unverified.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Maralia 20:09, 13 November 2009 [57].
Midshipman
- Nominator(s): Kirk (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the comments from the first FAC review, the article was copy-edited and re-peer reviewed, the Adelborst references were replaced using a Dutch government publication, the content was re-sectioned, the non-compliant US naval ranks navigation was removed and replaced with a more compliant officer candidate navigation, along with various other minor changes. I welcome your comments and suggestions. Kirk (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alt text done; thanks.
Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done - Kirk (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for doing all that. It's looking pretty good.
Some suggestions for further improvement:Some of the alt text repeats what's in the caption, which it shouldn't do (see WP:ALT#Repetition). Instead, the alt text should describe visual details that the caption does not describe. Phrases that have the problem include "a midshipman in the Royal Navy", "the insignia of a midshipman in the Royal Navy", "in 1810". Generally speaking, alt text shouldn't have proper names (see WP:ALT#Proper names) and shouldn't contain info unless it is obvious to a non-expert who is looking only at the image (see WP:ALT#Verifiability).The alt text for File:USN Midshipman Insignia.png is too long; see WP:ALT#Brevity. It's very good, though, so I suggest moving it to the file page (in its Description section), and replacing it with a summary that's at most 100 words, preferably 50.The phrase "A close up picture" can be removed; see WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid.One alt text says "alt=", which is a typo.
- Thanks for doing all that. It's looking pretty good.
- Done - Kirk (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - I fixed all of the issues I found and move the text to the image description. Let me know if you have other comments. Kirk (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.
All but one of the previous items are now struck; there's still an "in 1810" that needs to be removed. One more thing, which resulted from the above changes: the lead image's alt text "A full size portrait of a boy wearing the uniform of a midshipman." conveys almost zero useful info about what a midshipman looked like, so a visually impaired reader will be nearly clueless about looks. Could you please rephrase this to discuss the blue coat with tails, the marvellous brown bicorne, the sash, the longish golden hair, the white waistcoat and breeches and hose, the sword, and the portfolio under his arm? Thanks.Eubulides (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done - thanks for your suggestions! Kirk (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome, and thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport - Very good informative article. Just a few problems spotted with some of the text:A midshipman is an officer cadet, or alternatively a commissioned officer of the lowest rank, in the Royal Navy, United States Navy, and many Commonwealth navies. .... Do we need the word "alternatively", it adds nothing?a British Royal Navy midshipman served seven years on the lower deck and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and position. After serving at least four years as a midshipman or master's mate, they were eligible to take the examination for lieutenant.
A few problems with this passage. 1) "Rank and position." Aren't these the same? The words "and position" seem to add nothing but a slight confusion in the reader's mind. Or do you mean "Rank and duties" or "rank and responsibilities", which would be clearer? 2) The sentence makes it seem that midshipman and master's mate are the same thing, which the article shows they are not. This needs some clarification. 3) Tenses. We switch from singular tense to plural without reason, which is jarring. Perhaps "he was" should replace "they were".:::* 1) They aren't the same;I like rank and responsibilities. 2) That's the text of the regulation... 3) I'll fix that.
During the 19th century, changes in the training of naval officers in both the Royal Navy and the U.S. replaced apprenticeship aboard ships with formal schooling in a naval college,
Grammatically "led to the replacement of" would be better than "replaced". And U.S. Navy would be better than just U.S.
The local term for "Navy Guard" is regarded as equivalent to "midshipman" in many languages
- "
Navy Guard" means nothing in English, and is likely to puzzle readers, since it does not bring to mind anything resembling a midshipman. From the article text, it appears that the origin of the foreign rank translated into English here as "Navy Guard" was a type of cadet. It might be clearer, therefore to replace the term with "Navy Cadet" or "Naval Cadet".- I'm still puzzled! It literally means Navy Guard; in the many nations there are Guards units in the Army with a strong royal connection that Midshipman lacks; the translation into English by the dictionaries I consulted is Midshipman, not Naval Cadet. Off the top of my head: In many romanc languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including... Thoughts?
- The Canadian Navy uses the term "Naval Cadet" in English, so that is the closest English term in actual use. Your suggestion is an improvement however. The problem could also be solved by a rearrangement of the sentence, for example: "Terms regarded as the equivalent of "midshipman" in other languages include the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. These can be roughly translated as Navy Guard or Naval Cadet." Xandar 02:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Navy Guard came from the name of the companies they served in, which is discussed in the next two sentences - again, if you look in the dictionary for those words, all of them are translated as midshipman. The translation of Naval Cadet into French is Aspirant de marine.Kirk (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However as the sentence currently appears in the article it is still wrong, since Naval Guard is not an English term. If you don't like my version, then your alternative In many romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including... would be a lot better. Xandar 01:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - thanks! Kirk (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However as the sentence currently appears in the article it is still wrong, since Naval Guard is not an English term. If you don't like my version, then your alternative In many romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including... would be a lot better. Xandar 01:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Canadian Navy uses the term "Naval Cadet" in English, so that is the closest English term in actual use. Your suggestion is an improvement however. The problem could also be solved by a rearrangement of the sentence, for example: "Terms regarded as the equivalent of "midshipman" in other languages include the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. These can be roughly translated as Navy Guard or Naval Cadet." Xandar 02:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "
Beginning in the 17th century, volunteer boys were sent to serve on ships in place of a midshipman, with a "letter of service," from the crown, which instructed the admirals and captains that the bearer was to be shown "such kindness as you shall judge fit for a gentleman, both in accommodating him in your ship and in furthering his improvement.
Very long sentence. Could it not be split after "from the crown"? Then continue "This instructed..." Also "Beginning in the 17th century" feels clumsy. It would be better to start with something like "From the 17th century onward..."
There are two different explanations for the origin of the term midshipman. The lead states that it comes from "amidships". This does not appear in the main text, however, instead there is an explanation about working between the main and mizzen masts. Perhaps the amidships explanation needs adding to the main text to avoid confusion.
Xandar 23:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything else not specifically addressed I changed; Thanks for your comments!! Kirk (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did find one other puzzling passage:
- At the height of the Age of Sail, during the Napoleonic era (1793–1815), most midshipmen started their sailing career around the age of 12. Royal Navy regulations required that no one "be rated as master's mate or midshipman who shall not have been three years at sea". Most boys served this period at sea; another three years might be served in any lower rating,either as a seaman or as a servant of one of the ship's officers.
- The last sentence. Does it mean that some candidates served six years at sea before becoming a midshipman? That's how it seems to read. Xandar 02:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point - here's a longer version: You can join the navy at 11 if your father is a naval officer, or 13 otherwise, and no one was verifying birth records if you 'looked' 11/13. Prior to promotion to midshipman, the regulations said you had to serve 3 years at sea in any lower rating. Most boys with connections served as volunteers or servants(pre-1794) or volunteer 1st class (post 1794), but 30 or so boys a year attended the royal naval college which counted as sea time, and another minority served as seamen boys or able seamen - it didn't really matter what rating you had, just as long as you had the sea time(Unless you cheated and used your connections to skip this whole process). I'll just delete ';another three years might be'. Thoughts?Kirk (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes it clearer, which is what we want. Xandar 01:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - thanks! Kirk (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes it clearer, which is what we want. Xandar 01:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did find one other puzzling passage:
Oppose on criterion 3
File:Thomas Rowlandson-midship.jpg - Please list the complete publication information for the source for this image on the image description page.
- Done
File:NormalEntryCommissionRoute.png - Please add a source for the information in this diagram to the image description page.
- Done
File:Midshipman Noa.jpg - Please provide a date and an author for this image. Also, please provide a link to the source and more detailed information on how to find this image at the source so that we can verify the license.
- Done - I'll notify the author, but for the time being I'm going to remove the image.
- I've stricken this since the image has been removed. Awadewit (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:UK-Navy-OFD.svg - Please add a {{summary}} template to the image description page and fill it out. Please be sure to include a source for the design.
- Done
File:USN Midshipman Insignia.png - Please add a source for the information in this diagram to the image description page.
- Done
File:Royal New Zealand Navy Midshipman Badge.PNG - Please add a source for the information in this diagram to the image description page.
- Done
File:Navy sleeve NCdt.png - Please add a fair use rationale for the "Midshipman" article and be sure to include a source for the information in the diagram.
- Done - sorry I thought I did that when I added the rationale. Kirk (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still has no source. Awadewit (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - really added it this time. Kirk (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Midshipman-SA.png - Please add a source for the information in this diagram to the image description page.
- Done
- Still has no source. Awadewit (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - really added it this time. Kirk (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:UK-Navy-OFD.svg - Please add a {{summary}} template to the image description page and fill it out. Please be sure to include a source for the design.
- Done
File:Midshipman Pak Navy.png - Please add a fair use rationale for the "Midshipman" article.
- Done
- Still has no fair use rationale for the "Midshipman" article. Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - I added a rationale. Kirk (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It has no purpose of use. Awadewit (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - must have missed it when I changed the article. Thanks!Kirk (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "To be used in [article X]" is not an adequate purpose of use. The purpose of use must explain why the image itself it required, why, for example, it cannot be described in words. Awadewit (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed it to - "Display the insignia for the rank of Midshipman in the Pakistan Navy."? Kirk (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Guarda marinha.gif - Can you link to the source more specifically?
- Done - I also fixed the image to remove the insignia of the medical corps.
- The link does not work. Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Link fixed. Kirk (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Grade-aspirant.svg - Please add a {{summary}} template to the image description page and fill it out. Please be sure to include a source for the design.
- Done
File:7 - skad.GIF - Please translate the description into English at the image description page and add a source for the diagram.
- Done
File:9 - fhr zs.GIF - Please translate the description into English at the image description page and add a source for the diagram.
- Done
File:11 - ofhr zs.GIF - Please translate the description into English at the image description page and add a source for the diagram.
- Done
File:IT-Navy-OFD-s.png - Please fix the source link so that the license can be verified.
- Done
File:Nl-marine-vloot-matroos.svg - Please translate the description into English at the image description page and add a source for the diagram.
- Done
File:Nl-marine-vloot-korporaal.svg - Please translate the description into English at the image description page and add a source for the diagram.
- Done
File:Nl-marine-vloot-sergeant.svg - Please translate the description into English at the image description page and add a source for the diagram.
- Done
File:PegawaiKadetKanan.PNG - Please add a source for the information in this diagram to the image description page.
- Done
File:POR-Navy-Aspirante-EN.png - Please add a source for the information in this diagram to the image description page.
- Done
File:POR-Navy-Aspirante-outros.png - Please add a source for the information in this diagram to the image description page.
- Done
File:Rus Navy WRNT shoulder.png - Please add a {{summary}} template to the image description page and fill it out. Please be sure to include a source for the design.
- Done - this rank is in the process of being abolished, and despite the name its actually a type of warrant officer so I removed it from the article.
- Do you mean that the image has been removed from the article? Awadewit (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, removed from article. Kirk (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:SP Alumnos.gif - Please add a {{summary}} template to the image description page and fill it out. Please be sure to include a source for the design.
- Done
I look forward to striking my oppose when these issues are fixed. Awadewit (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First round of changes. Kirk (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Second round of changes.Kirk (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Third round of changes. Kirk (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fourth round of changes. Kirk (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fifth round of changes - all images fixed. Kirk (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sixth round of changes - hopefully fixed everything! Kirk (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seventh time's the charm?Kirk (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All images have been cleared - striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose by Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs,crit. 1c and 3. Awadewit has pretty much covered my issues with unverified image, but I'm also concerned about referencing. A small sampling of unreferenced content that I don't think meet the "common knowledge" threshold include:- "There is no evidence to support either story, but the nickname persists today."
- Done - missed a penn reference. Kirk (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The last two paragraphs of "Royal Navy", " During the second seven weeks, officer cadets learn essential sea officer skills, including navigation and the marine environment, strategic studies, and basic sea survival [...] which completes part of a Foundation Degree(FdSc) in Naval Studies (equating to two thirds of an Honours degree), on completion of initial Professional Training."
- Some of this content might be referenced, but it's unclear as to what it is cited to.
- Done - I fixed the wording and references in this section, thanks for bringing that to my attention.Kirk (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article essentially just focuses on the UK/former commonwealth territories and the United States. Is this term used by non-European countries and the aforementioned exceptions? If so, it needs to be covered, if not, it needs to be said.
- Its an English word, is only used by Navies that were based on the British Royal Navy and speak English. I covered the differences in the comparative rank section. Would you suggest adding a statement to the lead? Kirk (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several one to two-line nonparagraphs that need to be either expanded, merged, or cut; a paragraph needs at least three sentences to stand on its own.--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, removed Canada, fixed SA and New Zealand (the culprits I could find) Kirk (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Somebody chopped a sig here; could someone please review the page history and restore the chopped sig, so I can figure out whose oppose this is? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed Kirk (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seems pretty much there. Do we have no more pictures? Should there be a section on midshipmen in fiction etc? Mr Midshipman Easy and Mr. Midshipman Hornblower are worth see alsos at least, but a short section could be got up, I'm sure. Was the boy who stood on the burning deck one, albeit French? Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I hope its almost there too. I've found many more pictures that show midshipman modeling their uniforms over time but I'm not sure it really helps the article (e.g. By 1830, Midshipmen wore top-hats, by the late 1850's they wore floppy hats ...); I would like pictures of midshipmen actually doing something.
- Along with those examples you cited (not clear if Casabianca was a Garde or not), there's the midshipmen in every nautical Bildungsroman along with the countless ones in Patrick O'Brian's works; certainly enough for a Midshipmen in fiction article. The movie Master and Commander: Far Side of the World has a good composite midshipman character William Blakeney; his oversized role aboard ship actually interested me in this subject in the first place. Kirk (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In regards to an in fiction/pop culture section, there is a relevant Military history guideline that should be followed if such a section is indeed implemented: WP:MILPOP which is in the MILMOS which was integrated into the MOS a while back. -MBK004 23:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LeaningStrong Oppose per Copyvio
- We say "At any given time there may be around 60 midshipmen in the Royal New Zealand Navy ." Following the link to the source, they say "At any given time there may be around 60 midshipmen in the Royal New Zealand Navy." I hope this parroting is not gonna be a trend.
- Oh dear. We say "The concept of the Gardes was borrowed from the army, and the curriculum was intended to provide the basic education for an officer rather than practical seamanship." Harding 199, p. 145 says "The concept of the Gardes was borrowed from the army, and the teaching was to provide the basic education for an officer rather than practical seamanship." Note the difference is a single word. And the latter is copyrighted as well. This is a little uncomfortable.
- Done - I fixed both those passages by paraphrasing them differently and added some more references for NZ; thanks for bringing those to my attention. Kirk (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I scanned it for copyvio (after finding the first instance) and found another instance in about 3 minutes. You're the nominator, and you didn't check for this? How many more instances are there? You should read WP:COPYVIO very, very slowly and carefully. I actually only said "Leaning Oppose" in order to give you a fig leaf to let you withdraw the nom. Changing to Strong Oppose per WP:COPYVIO. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How are you 'scanning for copyvio'? I wasn't aware of any tools for this purpose; certainly the article has gone through a GA review, two A reviews, two FA reviews and at least two peer reviews, but a tool would be helpful. I've already addressed quite a few potential violations in this article; I'm not sure why the 1c problems in the prose you've indicated would require withdrawing the nomination. I think I found the instance you found from the OED, I'll review the article for problems today & if you have other specific problems, I'd be happy to address them. Thanks! Kirk (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The tools are my eyes, my brain and my willingness to do something called "work" —that is, to actually go and search for copyvio. It's forgivable (sorta) if the GA reviewers don't catch such copyvio, but the A-class reviewers should be ashamed. Moreover, yes, you should withdraw the nom. You are putting your name on an article which has already been proven to have copyvio problems. You should act as a responsible Wikipedian and manually verify every cite. Moreover, if you haven't read WP:COPYVIO yet, now would be a good time.Ling.Nut (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll estimate I manually reviewed 80% of the citations yesterday & I found no other issues, but my eyes and brain have their limits. I have read WP:COPYVIO but I feel like we're not on the same page here; I'm going to ping SandyGeorgia to chime in. Cheers. Kirk (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Rather as in Britain". Is that a British expression? Strange to my ears.
- "After passing out they". Eh, "passing out" is unintentionally humorous in AmerEng. Can rephrase? After graduating, perhaps?
- Done - I rewrote the first one, but alas passing out has a different meaning than graduating so I've been intentionally leaving those ones in. Cheers. Kirk (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What does note 30, "37 Stat. 73" mean?
- Its a citation for United States Statutes at Large; I'll re-verify that's the correct way. Kirk (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hamersly 1881 in notes but not refs... no wait, here it is, below Morris & kearns, but looks strangely cited and located...
- Done - I redid those; the peer review fixed the reference item but not all the footnotes.
- Enough for now. I have papers to grade. Ling.Nut (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your suggestions. Kirk (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn - I don't currently have access to a couple of the print sources for a 100% review, so SandyGeorgia, Maralia & I agreed the best course of action was withdrawing the nomination until that's completed. Thanks everyone for their help on this review. Kirk (talk) 19:59, 13 November 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:50, 26 November 2009 [58].
The Final Cut (album)
- Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 10:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Final Cut is possibly the most disliked Floyd album of all, however its an important part of the history of Pink Floyd, and a good look into the mind of Roger Waters. I've pulled together all the sources I have and attempted to write a neutral and engaging article. There isn't much kicking around regarding the technical aspects, but hopefully people will still find it interesting enough. Parrot of Doom 10:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Comments
[reply]
- Link Roger Waters in the first sentence and not the second paragraph. Also, in the second paragraph, he can simple by "Waters", his last name.
- Remove the comma in the second sentence (I think).
- Link soundtrack album in the "Background" section.
- The Wall is already linked in the lead.
- "however ultimately…" sounds odd. I would take out "however".
- "Storyline" in the section header should be lowercase.
- Waters' father is talked about in "Background". Why is he first linked in "Concept and Storyline"?
- Concept album is already linked in the lead.
- "…disconnected from his wife, and is haunted" no comma is needed. Also, I think the dash later in the sentence should be a comma. Up to you though.
- The Wall is linked again.
- Remove the comma in "…further in "The Hero's Return", as a simple sense of alienation that the veteran feels towards…" Also, take out "simple" and "that".
- Should "Compact Disc" be capitalized?
After these issue are fixed, I'll have nothing against supporting (assuming no one else finds major issues). Great work! Mm40 (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - all done apart from Compact Disc - see that article's naming convention. Parrot of Doom 08:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm supporting, thanks for the quick reply. Mm40 (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - all done apart from Compact Disc - see that article's naming convention. Parrot of Doom 08:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Yes, the least liked Floyd album indeed. And this is reflected in the paucity of verifiable information. The world seems to prefer to ignore this album, which is a pity. I think an excellent job has been done here in collecting what has been published and producing an engaging article. BTW, the readers might wish to know that the holophonics only work when using headphones, and I was under the impression that Gilmour asked for his production credit to be withdrawn. Thanks for putting this together, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 17:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3
File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg - We need a source, author, and date for this image.
- How does it look now? I don't think it will be possible to get the name of the sailor. I can replace the image with another Falklands photograph if required. Parrot of Doom 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This image needs a fair use rationale since it is not PD in the US. I was hoping that the additional information would indicate how this is PD in the US, but it doesn't. All images hosted on the English Wikipedia have to be PD in the US. Awadewit (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the image. Parrot of Doom 21:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you link the new image here so that I can check it out? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the image. Parrot of Doom 21:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This image needs a fair use rationale since it is not PD in the US. I was hoping that the additional information would indicate how this is PD in the US, but it doesn't. All images hosted on the English Wikipedia have to be PD in the US. Awadewit (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Checks out. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Pink floyd the final cut the post war dream.ogg - The purpose of use in this fair use rationale is weak ("To illustrate the article" does not give a specific reason why the listener must hear this particular clip). See File:CharlesKnow1.ogg for a good example of a fair use rationale for a clip. Also, please list the copyright holders.
- I've explained further. What do you think? Parrot of Doom 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "As the introductory song, it sets the tone for the rest of the album, and is probably the best illustration of the type of music used throughout the album." - Can you explain what type of music this is? What is it that the listener is listening for? Also, the copyright holders still need to be added. Awadewit (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The type of music is explained in the concept and storyline section - angst-ridden, dominated by Waters lyrics, and very different to anything that Pink Floyd had released previously. Would you prefer such text added to the file description? I've added the copyright owner. Parrot of Doom 21:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that should be added to the file description. 03:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- The type of music is explained in the concept and storyline section - angst-ridden, dominated by Waters lyrics, and very different to anything that Pink Floyd had released previously. Would you prefer such text added to the file description? I've added the copyright owner. Parrot of Doom 21:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "As the introductory song, it sets the tone for the rest of the album, and is probably the best illustration of the type of music used throughout the album." - Can you explain what type of music this is? What is it that the listener is listening for? Also, the copyright holders still need to be added. Awadewit (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to striking this oppose once these issues are resolved. Awadewit (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've stricken my oppose. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments What makes this reliable?
http://www.chartstats.com/about.php- I've deleted that reference, and replaced it with Povey Parrot of Doom 21:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs ans links fine.
Other comments
The article is incomplete as it lacks a Critical reception section.- I renamed the 'release' section, but it does contain several reviews. I've added part of Robert Christgau's review in there as well. Parrot of Doom 09:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It still needs more depth I feel. Separate it into Critical and Commercial paragraphs and cite a wide range of critical POVs on top of what you have already put there. RB88 (T) 18:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't really much more to write. I've offered reviews that are supportive, negative, and one that could reasonably be said to be 'medium'. Unlike some other Floyd albums, not much has been written about this album, and I don't think the reader would gain any extra insight with more reviewers basically saying the same things. I'd like to find something that says "x voted TFC to be the worst Floyd album ever" but haven't yet succeeded. Parrot of Doom 16:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a read of the Drowned in Sound review. It mentions that Q included it in its list of the most depressing albums ever. RB88 (T) 22:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. Q once responded to my request for information, I'll consider sending them an email about that tomorrow. Their website isn't that great. Parrot of Doom 22:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a read of the Drowned in Sound review. It mentions that Q included it in its list of the most depressing albums ever. RB88 (T) 22:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't really much more to write. I've offered reviews that are supportive, negative, and one that could reasonably be said to be 'medium'. Unlike some other Floyd albums, not much has been written about this album, and I don't think the reader would gain any extra insight with more reviewers basically saying the same things. I'd like to find something that says "x voted TFC to be the worst Floyd album ever" but haven't yet succeeded. Parrot of Doom 16:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It still needs more depth I feel. Separate it into Critical and Commercial paragraphs and cite a wide range of critical POVs on top of what you have already put there. RB88 (T) 18:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I renamed the 'release' section, but it does contain several reviews. I've added part of Robert Christgau's review in there as well. Parrot of Doom 09:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead does not summarise the contents of the whole article. Go through every section and make sure it's being summarised in the lead. A quick glance tells me that it needs more on Concept and Release, as well as Critical reception when that section has been written.- I've expanded the lead. Have a read now, see what you think. Parrot of Doom 10:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From sorting out the lead, I believe the article may need an independent copyedit if the style of writing is the same throughout. Unfortunately these days my time is limited or I would have done it myself.
RB88 (T) 02:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't - the lead is mostly what's left from the article as it appeared from before I began updating it. Parrot of Doom 10:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—
Gold and platinum status implies copies shipped, not copies sold, as implied in the Reception section.- Is this better? Parrot of Doom 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A "Thorgerson" appears out of nowhere. The Packaging section can be split into two paragraphs.More context is need regarding Richard Wright too. Why did he leave the band? If this is the only Floyd album without him, isn't that an essential part of The Final Cut' story?- I don't think this is necessary, especially since I've now removed his solo details from the article. Anyone wishing to know more can simply read The Wall or Pink Floyd, or, when I've re-written it, Richard Wright (musician). Parrot of Doom 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The concept was partly inspired by the rise of Margaret Thatcher, and also by Britain's involvement in the Falklands Conflict." - you've already stated this in the previous paragraph. Also: overlinking.- Oops, you're quite correct. See these changes Parrot of Doom 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"began writing new material for what was to be the final Pink Floyd album which featured both Waters and Gilmour" - reads as though it was intended for it to be the final album to feature the two. I don't see that needs mentioning at all actually. In any case, why both W and G; isn't this just the last W was in?- Good point, fixed Parrot of Doom 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 2002 re-release's tracklisting is almost identical to original. I recommend replacing it with "The 2002 re-release of the album featured the extra track "When the Tigers Broke Free" between "____" and "_______", and has slightly different track lengths.- That's why its hidden by default. I don't want people continually changing timings, as they do on other Floyd albums. Its a pain in the arse, and since the album was released first on vinyl, some people might be interested to know how the timings vary between that and CD. Parrot of Doom 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Legacy' section devotes far too much text to the members' solo careers. I think everything in that first paragraph—bar the first sentence—is irrelevant to The Final Cut; I suggest removing it wholesale. The same applies to the sentence about When the Wind Blows and Radio K.A.O.S. I also suggest renaming the section more accurately to "Aftermath and legacy".- Respectfully, I disagree. About Face contains songs which are relevant to Gilmour's relationship with Waters, which were no doubt influenced by events during the production of The Final Cut. Pros and Cons was something that Waters had held onto since before The Wall - the album is quite similar in style to The Final Cut (although I think its a hateful album, TFC is much better). I agree about the Richard Wright stuff though, so that can go as he played no part in The Final Cut. Mason's stuff is only ten words long, and not worth deleting IMO. Parrot of Doom 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really relevant to this FAC but a large number of those song articles should be redirected to this article per WP:NSONGS.
- No. 1, No. 11 should be "number one" and "number 11".
- What rationale do you use for this? Some FA music articles (Frank Zappa for instance) use #1. Others, like the two Floyd albums already at FA, use No.1. I'm reasonably sure that someone told me to do it this way in a previous FAC. Parrot of Doom 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they're wrong and indopug is right. See WP:MOSNUM. Also other articles using something does not make that thing right. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for arguments to avoid. RB88 (T) 18:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see anything in that guideline, or indeed anywhere, that suggests not using No.1 etc. I'd have to ask - what is lost by using such a system of numbering? I'll also add that this usage reflects that used in the source. Parrot of Doom 18:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MOSNUM has "single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals". I'm sure another MOS guideline discourages the use of abbreviations like "No." for "number". That's my rationale.—indopug (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I see your point, but I don't think that anything is lost by numbering in this fashion, especially where chart positions are concerned. I'll leave them be, but it isn't really a big deal for me. Parrot of Doom 19:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MOSNUM has "single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals". I'm sure another MOS guideline discourages the use of abbreviations like "No." for "number". That's my rationale.—indopug (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see anything in that guideline, or indeed anywhere, that suggests not using No.1 etc. I'd have to ask - what is lost by using such a system of numbering? I'll also add that this usage reflects that used in the source. Parrot of Doom 18:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they're wrong and indopug is right. See WP:MOSNUM. Also other articles using something does not make that thing right. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for arguments to avoid. RB88 (T) 18:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What rationale do you use for this? Some FA music articles (Frank Zappa for instance) use #1. Others, like the two Floyd albums already at FA, use No.1. I'm reasonably sure that someone told me to do it this way in a previous FAC. Parrot of Doom 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you use "Falklands Conflict" when the article is named"Falklands War"?
- Because its known as either, and because neither country declared war on the other. Personally I think the article may be incorrectly named. I know WP tends to go for the name that is most commonly used, but I do wonder how such figures were derived, since the British government calls it a conflict. Parrot of Doom 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "invasion of the islands" - I doubt Argentinians would call it an invasion. Is there a more neutral way to put it?—indopug (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the Argentinians invaded sovereign British territory. Nobody doubts that. I think rewording would be POV-pushing (I'm not suggesting this is your POV btw) Parrot of Doom 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Karanacs. I've never listened to this album, and I know almost zilch about Pink Floyd. Because of that, I felt like a few places in the article didn't have quite enough context for me to fully understand what was going on.
Michael Kamen ..." and also performed the role traditionally occupied by the now absent Richard Wright. " - I don't know what role that is."Mason was helped by Ray Cooper, and replaced by Andy Newmark on "Two Suns in the Sunset" when the former was unable to perform the complex timing changes required of him" - I'm not sure whether Newmark replaced Cooper or Mason"Baker Street's Raphael Ravenscroft was hired to play the saxophone (most previous Floyd albums tend to make repeated use of particular musicians)." - is this trying to say that Ravenscroft had previously worked on a Floyd album? I'm confused. I also don't know what Baker Street has to do with this (the link points to the actual London street)- Fixed. Dick Parry had played sax on their previous work but this sentence was designed to show that his services had been dispensed with. I can't really reword it without going into great detail. Parrot of Doom 11:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any background to the "I Must Not Fuck Sheep" writing? That is weird.- Presumably it was related to Animals, but the sources don't elaborate. Parrot of Doom 11:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was Final Cut the second of Floyd's albums to use the Holophonic stuff or the second album overall? I wasn't sure in readingI don't feel like I have enough background to understand this but as with The Wall Storm Thorgerson was passed over for the cover design' -- Why would Thorgerson have been considered and why was he passed over?- I added a line that attempts to explain this. Basically Waters became pissed off at Thorgerson when the latter published a book hinting that the cover of Animals was his design (it was Waters' idea). This happened between Animals and The Wall however, and doesn't deserve mention here. Thorgerson was reemployed on A Momentary Lapse of Reason and The Division Bell, so its there for continuity for the reader who is working his way through the albums. Parrot of Doom 11:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article tells us that the second photo was identical to the Not Now John single, but we aren't told what that is- We may need more information on who Alan Parker is and why Waters had a tumultuous relationship with him
Karanacs (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a link to explain this, but the linked article doesn't say much. Basically Waters went away and came back to find that Parker had shot the film in his own way. The photograph with the canister and the knife is probably Waters saying "fuck you, Parker". He's done similar things a few times (see Amused to Death). I can't add more here as it isn't really that relevant to the album, just the photograph. Parrot of Doom 11:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for being so late to return. I've stricken most of my comments. Please check the article as I made some small copyedits to the additions. I also added information to the Storm Thorgerson sentence to help that fit better into the flow. I'd still prefer to see another sentence briefly detailing why he was passed over, but it's okay without. As for Alan Parker, I think a little more background could be useful. It would also be nice to see the connection between this and the other times that Waters did something similar (you mentioned Amused to Death)....this helps to put this album in context with the other albums. Karanacs (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a minor grammatical change to your revisions but otherwise they're fine. I think its better to keep focus and keep mention of why he wasn't there on The Wall, although I can put a NB in the footnotes if you like? The Parker relationship has been expanded upon slightly, but again that's best left explained on another article (unfortunately The Wall (film) is pretty poor. Parrot of Doom 21:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is a case of me being so totally unfamiliar with Pink Floyd that I'm having to click lots of links just to bring myself up to speed. That makes me prefer to have a lot more background in this article; you (and I suspect many of the readers) will likely have a level of familiarity with some of the facts that I just don't. It's definitely a judgement call. I think the article is pretty good overall but I probably won't make a definitive declaration. Thank you for your hard work! Karanacs (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which bits don't you understand? I'm happy to clarify things, but stuff like Waters' relationship with Parker isn't that relevant to the article, its probably just a minor dig. Waters has done things like this on other albums, for instance on Amused to Death one line says "every man has his price Bob, and yours was pretty low" - a reference to Ezrin working for Pink Floyd, rather than on Waters' new solo album. Parrot of Doom 23:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is a case of me being so totally unfamiliar with Pink Floyd that I'm having to click lots of links just to bring myself up to speed. That makes me prefer to have a lot more background in this article; you (and I suspect many of the readers) will likely have a level of familiarity with some of the facts that I just don't. It's definitely a judgement call. I think the article is pretty good overall but I probably won't make a definitive declaration. Thank you for your hard work! Karanacs (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a minor grammatical change to your revisions but otherwise they're fine. I think its better to keep focus and keep mention of why he wasn't there on The Wall, although I can put a NB in the footnotes if you like? The Parker relationship has been expanded upon slightly, but again that's best left explained on another article (unfortunately The Wall (film) is pretty poor. Parrot of Doom 21:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for being so late to return. I've stricken most of my comments. Please check the article as I made some small copyedits to the additions. I also added information to the Storm Thorgerson sentence to help that fit better into the flow. I'd still prefer to see another sentence briefly detailing why he was passed over, but it's okay without. As for Alan Parker, I think a little more background could be useful. It would also be nice to see the connection between this and the other times that Waters did something similar (you mentioned Amused to Death)....this helps to put this album in context with the other albums. Karanacs (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a link to explain this, but the linked article doesn't say much. Basically Waters went away and came back to find that Parker had shot the film in his own way. The photograph with the canister and the knife is probably Waters saying "fuck you, Parker". He's done similar things a few times (see Amused to Death). I can't add more here as it isn't really that relevant to the album, just the photograph. Parrot of Doom 11:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments General stuff and a few things keeping me from a support.
- I don't see the point in hiding the 2004 reissue tracklist. I've seen FA album articles with longer tracklist sections that don't use the "hide" function. Let it alllllll hang out; it's also less confusing because at first glance I though there was only the header and the section was missing.
- I'm not a big fan of tables - its so similar, my view is that its better hidden. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, that's a moot point – hiding the tracklist causes accessibility problems, so I have uncollpased it. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove the second tracklist completely, I tells ye . . . A note should suffice. —indopug (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, that's a moot point – hiding the tracklist causes accessibility problems, so I have uncollpased it. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a big fan of tables - its so similar, my view is that its better hidden. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "last to feature bassist, main vocalist, and primary composer Roger Waters". As this is the lead section, you don't have to be so specific (it's kind of cumbersome). Can you trim it a bit?
- Its quite important to include this text. The album is dominated by Waters, the other members had little input. DSotM and WYWH have fairly positive leads, but the leads for Animals and The Wall highlight the increasingly bad relationships within the band. I think its important to highlight in the lead just how dominant Waters had become by this point, especially as (when I get around to it) on a Momentary Lapse the band had undergone massive changes. I think for most people, this album is of interest because of what was happening within the band - and not necessarily the music, which is a bit Marmite for most. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is you have too many descriptors, particularly for a lead section. It's awkward. Wait to pile on the slew of descriptors until the article body.WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah I see, Done Parrot of Doom 10:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is you have too many descriptors, particularly for a lead section. It's awkward. Wait to pile on the slew of descriptors until the article body.WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its quite important to include this text. The album is dominated by Waters, the other members had little input. DSotM and WYWH have fairly positive leads, but the leads for Animals and The Wall highlight the increasingly bad relationships within the band. I think its important to highlight in the lead just how dominant Waters had become by this point, especially as (when I get around to it) on a Momentary Lapse the band had undergone massive changes. I think for most people, this album is of interest because of what was happening within the band - and not necessarily the music, which is a bit Marmite for most. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "is the only Pink Floyd record on which he is credited for the writing and composition of every song". Is this a particularly notable fact worth indicating in the lead (ie. do a bunch of secondary sources make a big deal about it)?
- See above - yes. On previous albums writing and composition was a group effort. No longer. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But do secondary sources make a big deal about it? Because otherwise it's trivia. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, its mentioned often, and not trivial. Take a look at the credits for DSotM, and compare to this. Its a good indicator of Waters' then dominance of the band's output. Parrot of Doom 10:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But do secondary sources make a big deal about it? Because otherwise it's trivia. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See above - yes. On previous albums writing and composition was a group effort. No longer. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When referring to other albums, always indicate the year of release upon first mention, ie. "The Wall (1980)".
- Argh, I'm being negative again - none of the other album articles follow this line of thought. The article does however make it very clear that The Wall was their previous album. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are required to include the date for context per album article guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Guidelines certainly are not a requirement, but I take the point and have changed the text accordingly. Parrot of Doom 10:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are required to include the date for context per album article guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Argh, I'm being negative again - none of the other album articles follow this line of thought. The article does however make it very clear that The Wall was their previous album. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't use "easter egg" links. They are unhelpful to general readers. In the Background section you mention "his father". Mention Eric Fletcher Waters by name in the prose, with a full wikilink. Same with Falklands Conflict. The page is Falklands War, so that's what you should be referring to it as, unless a secondary source names it otherwise.
- Done. I've named the Falklands Conflict as such because that's the title that is used officially in the UK. I believe the Falklands War article is probably incorrectly named. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The clip of "The Post War Dream" needs a stronger description in the soundclip box in order to justify fair use. Right now it's not really making the case for including that particular clip. See In Utero for an example on how to do this.
- I'm not sure I follow. The file fair use rationale offers a fairly significant reason for its use. If you're talking about the text in the actual file as it appears within the article, I'm not aware of any requirement to describe a reason for fair use? Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the box says is that the lyrics are depressing. When including a music clip, you need to describe the music. Focus on instrumentation and composition. Otherwise you could just as well quote the lyrics to get the exact same point across, and that means that you don't need a fair use audio clip. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gotcha, I had to think about what to put but its done Parrot of Doom 10:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the box says is that the lyrics are depressing. When including a music clip, you need to describe the music. Focus on instrumentation and composition. Otherwise you could just as well quote the lyrics to get the exact same point across, and that means that you don't need a fair use audio clip. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I follow. The file fair use rationale offers a fairly significant reason for its use. If you're talking about the text in the actual file as it appears within the article, I'm not aware of any requirement to describe a reason for fair use? Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This has nothing really to do with this article, but does every song need its own page? Make sure each page fulfills the notability guidelines. You might want to perform some redirecting and mergers in the future.
- Given the film section is so small, maybe you can merge it with the legacy section.
- It wouldn't really fit - the legacy section is more concerned with interpersonal relationships. I looked at making it a smaller heading in the release section, but it'd probably stick out a little in the contents box. Its a short article anyway, so I'm not sure anything is gained by losing a heading. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Legacy" is an intentionally broad title (I should know, I'm the one who came up with the idea for such sections in music pages). You can cover both the film and the inter-band fallout under that scope. The thing is you should avoid short, one paragraph sections. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I think we'll have to disagree on this one, I don't think that anything from the 'film' (really its more of a long music video) fits in a legacy section. The album's legacy is that it was pretty much the end of the classic Floyd lineup (even though Wright had left a few years back). I know what you mean about short sections, I've had long battles on other articles to try and stop people from removing things from prose and creating sections, like a dictionary, but in this instance I'm happy that it works. Parrot of Doom 10:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It occured to me that it would be most logical in the "release" section, since it's pretty much part of the album promotion. How about that? WesleyDodds (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with that, done Parrot of Doom 14:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It occured to me that it would be most logical in the "release" section, since it's pretty much part of the album promotion. How about that? WesleyDodds (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I think we'll have to disagree on this one, I don't think that anything from the 'film' (really its more of a long music video) fits in a legacy section. The album's legacy is that it was pretty much the end of the classic Floyd lineup (even though Wright had left a few years back). I know what you mean about short sections, I've had long battles on other articles to try and stop people from removing things from prose and creating sections, like a dictionary, but in this instance I'm happy that it works. Parrot of Doom 10:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Legacy" is an intentionally broad title (I should know, I'm the one who came up with the idea for such sections in music pages). You can cover both the film and the inter-band fallout under that scope. The thing is you should avoid short, one paragraph sections. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It wouldn't really fit - the legacy section is more concerned with interpersonal relationships. I looked at making it a smaller heading in the release section, but it'd probably stick out a little in the contents box. Its a short article anyway, so I'm not sure anything is gained by losing a heading. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chart numbering should be "number one", not "No.1". All numbers less than 10 must be written out.
- There are conflicting views on this (see Frank Zappa). The other Pink Floyd album articles use the same numbering system as seen here. I don't believe anything is lost, or anyone is confused, by using this numbering system. Sometimes, when looking at the MOS, I also remember WP:IGNORE. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to explain what Gold and Platinum status equal, because not everyone knows what those words mean, and each nation has its own thresholds for certification.
- I clarified the link. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you clarify in the prose? What I meant was say something like "certified Platinum (one million copies shipped)". Most people don't understand certification jargon, and as I said before, each country has its own levels for each term (ie. in the US Platinum means 1 million copies shipped, but in the UK one million copies equals several times Platinum). WesleyDodds (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I clarified the link. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The quote box quote of Gilmour seems more appropriate for the Legacy section.
- The box is alongside Gilmour's comments on the album being 'weak' Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- His comments in the section are so brief you're probably better off working it into prose than having it as a quote box. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. I've given this some thought. Most people tend to think that Gilmour and Mason hate The Final Cut, and indeed some of their later comments would seem to back this up. However I think that a short quote from Gilmour, of all people, in this place, is a good way of catching the eye. The casual reader might not see such a comment in the prose. I think it works quite well out there, and I'm happy for it to remain. Parrot of Doom 10:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- His comments in the section are so brief you're probably better off working it into prose than having it as a quote box. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The box is alongside Gilmour's comments on the album being 'weak' Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A little more context could be used in places; don't forget you're writing for a general audience. Example: instead of "used it to express his feelings on a range of topics, from the murder of John Lennon," say "used it to express his feelings on a range of topics, from the murder of musician John Lennon". You and I know who Lennon is, but not everyone reading this page will, despite him being bigger than Jesus (yes, that's a joke). same this with Margaret Thatcher (British prime minister), Shakespeare (playwright), etc.
- Lennon and Thatcher are both linked, as is Shakespeare. I'm not sure anything is gained by prefixing the names - anyone who doesn't know who Shakespeare or Thatcher were, may also not know what an 16th-century author or a Prime Minister is. They can click the link and find out in seconds. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Linking is not enough. You need to give sufficient context so people don't have to keep reading other pages. This is essential to crafting clear, effective prose for general audiences. Again, not everyone knows who Margaret Thatcher is, particularly if they are not British, and you can't expect them to when reading about a Pink Floyd album. It would be like me writing "Nirvana wrote a song about Zachary Taylor" in an article. Insufficient context throws the reader out of the article. Saying "then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher" is enough. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point. How does this look? Parrot of Doom 10:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Linking is not enough. You need to give sufficient context so people don't have to keep reading other pages. This is essential to crafting clear, effective prose for general audiences. Again, not everyone knows who Margaret Thatcher is, particularly if they are not British, and you can't expect them to when reading about a Pink Floyd album. It would be like me writing "Nirvana wrote a song about Zachary Taylor" in an article. Insufficient context throws the reader out of the article. Saying "then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher" is enough. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lennon and Thatcher are both linked, as is Shakespeare. I'm not sure anything is gained by prefixing the names - anyone who doesn't know who Shakespeare or Thatcher were, may also not know what an 16th-century author or a Prime Minister is. They can click the link and find out in seconds. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The year Waters announced his departure would be useful.
- The second and third paragraphs in the legacy section should be merged.
- The Notes section with record catalogue numbers is unnecessary. You don't need it to verify anything, and I see it only of interest to hardcore Pink Floyd fans.
- "The label on both sides of the single listed the tracks as taken from the forthcoming Final Cut album; however, neither song was included." This could use some secondary source context, if any is available.
- Its pretty self-evident really, and not a particularly contentious thing to mention. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's self-evident, but without secondary sources stating that it's important, it's essentially trivia. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but I'm inclined to suspect that their exclusion related to the fighting between Waters and Gilmour over the re-using of 'old stuff' - Gilmour felt very strongly that the tracks rejected from The Wall weren't good enough for a new album. While I don't recall any of the sources used making an explicit point about this, I don't think its trivial, and people can presume of it what they like. Parrot of Doom 10:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Without secondary source documentation, I don't think it's worth noting in the prose that the songs didn't appear on the album. However, an explanatory footnote might be suitable. It still would be preferable if you could find out why exactly they didn't appear on the album. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but I'm inclined to suspect that their exclusion related to the fighting between Waters and Gilmour over the re-using of 'old stuff' - Gilmour felt very strongly that the tracks rejected from The Wall weren't good enough for a new album. While I don't recall any of the sources used making an explicit point about this, I don't think its trivial, and people can presume of it what they like. Parrot of Doom 10:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's self-evident, but without secondary sources stating that it's important, it's essentially trivia. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its pretty self-evident really, and not a particularly contentious thing to mention. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm disappointed there's not more on the music itself (for an expansive Music section in an album article, see Loveless (album)). However, I understand if secondary sources on the topic are scarce, and that won't be held against you (can't source it if it doesn't exist). Still, the more you can add about that, the better. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything that can be included, has been. Not many people like this album, and therefore not many write about it. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- Would someone please step back through the diffs and tell me to whom this oppose and the next two sections belong? There are no sigs attached. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's Martin Raybourne. His sig is three comments down. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would someone please step back through the diffs and tell me to whom this oppose and the next two sections belong? There are no sigs attached. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section does not mention anything about critical reception or sales.- Speaking of which, it seems shory on the reception--just three critics are mentioned,
and no source that says it received mixed reviews.This appears to be a major hole in coverage. Martin Raybourne (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- "Despite its success, the album received mixed reviews. Melody Maker declared it to be "… a milestone in the history of awfulness …", but Rolling Stone's Kurt Loder viewed it as "… essentially a Roger Waters solo album … a superlative achievement on several levels."[7][17] Robert Christgau wrote "… it's a comfort to encounter antiwar rock that has the weight of years of self-pity behind it …" and awarded the album a C+ rating.[10]" - I'm not certain how those three reviews could be described as anything other than mixed? Parrot of Doom 00:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think critical reception is dealt with sufficiently in the lead. As for the article body, if a secondary source summarizes critical consensus, then you don't need to quote from more than a few reviews. So if one of the books or articles you're citing says "The Final Cut was praised/despised/divided critics" that will do just fine. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think its at all contentious to state that this album received mixed reviews; I've provided three, from "hate it", to "love it", to "yeah its ok". There are further examples in the infobox. Parrot of Doom 21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C." (WP:SYNTH) I believe that is what you are doing—you have provided three sources, but you are then suggesting that they are indicative of a overall consensus. I do not think that would work even if you had more reviews. Martin Raybourne (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a range of reviews, which each contain different opinions about the album. It isn't synthesis to say that this means that that range of reviews is mixed, its simple fact. Anyway, I've backed up with an easy reference from Blake here. Parrot of Doom 23:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I simply do not think that this article passes comprehensiveness critera; we should have a greater variety of contemporary critical opinion. Secondly, what is the point of mentioning a bunch of reviews in passing in the infobox if they are never used? Considering the gap in time since its release I think you could craft a paragraph on its current status beyond what is the legacy. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Acutally, if one of the sources cited surveyed all the critical reviews in the process of conducting research (as books typically do), then it does meet the comprehensiveness criteria. It just means a secondary source, not the wiki editor, did the research, which is always preferrable. the reason many album articles have to quote several reviews is because there are no overarching books or articles that cover the subject as a whole. The great thing about secondary sources like book is they can do in-depth research on a subject and as a result make declarative statements. That's the best way to avoid synthesis. I am personally satisfied that critical consensus is covered in a satisfactory manner. Do I wish there was more material? Yeah, but that really relies on the sources available, and as Parrot fo Doom has said, this isn't the most-documented Pink Floyd album. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See below. Parrot of Doom 10:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Acutally, if one of the sources cited surveyed all the critical reviews in the process of conducting research (as books typically do), then it does meet the comprehensiveness criteria. It just means a secondary source, not the wiki editor, did the research, which is always preferrable. the reason many album articles have to quote several reviews is because there are no overarching books or articles that cover the subject as a whole. The great thing about secondary sources like book is they can do in-depth research on a subject and as a result make declarative statements. That's the best way to avoid synthesis. I am personally satisfied that critical consensus is covered in a satisfactory manner. Do I wish there was more material? Yeah, but that really relies on the sources available, and as Parrot fo Doom has said, this isn't the most-documented Pink Floyd album. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I simply do not think that this article passes comprehensiveness critera; we should have a greater variety of contemporary critical opinion. Secondly, what is the point of mentioning a bunch of reviews in passing in the infobox if they are never used? Considering the gap in time since its release I think you could craft a paragraph on its current status beyond what is the legacy. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a range of reviews, which each contain different opinions about the album. It isn't synthesis to say that this means that that range of reviews is mixed, its simple fact. Anyway, I've backed up with an easy reference from Blake here. Parrot of Doom 23:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C." (WP:SYNTH) I believe that is what you are doing—you have provided three sources, but you are then suggesting that they are indicative of a overall consensus. I do not think that would work even if you had more reviews. Martin Raybourne (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think its at all contentious to state that this album received mixed reviews; I've provided three, from "hate it", to "love it", to "yeah its ok". There are further examples in the infobox. Parrot of Doom 21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think critical reception is dealt with sufficiently in the lead. As for the article body, if a secondary source summarizes critical consensus, then you don't need to quote from more than a few reviews. So if one of the books or articles you're citing says "The Final Cut was praised/despised/divided critics" that will do just fine. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Despite its success, the album received mixed reviews. Melody Maker declared it to be "… a milestone in the history of awfulness …", but Rolling Stone's Kurt Loder viewed it as "… essentially a Roger Waters solo album … a superlative achievement on several levels."[7][17] Robert Christgau wrote "… it's a comfort to encounter antiwar rock that has the weight of years of self-pity behind it …" and awarded the album a C+ rating.[10]" - I'm not certain how those three reviews could be described as anything other than mixed? Parrot of Doom 00:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments
- NME review. Needs a subscription to Rock's Back Pages though.
- Also, I think you can be far more generous in quoting the reviews; right now only two sentences are devoted to three reviews. I noticed that the Legacy should include information from more recent reviews—Allmusic, Blender, Pitchfork—that will give an impression of how the album is thought of today. In particular, they all seem to agree that a) it is a Waters solo record (already in the article) and b) it is difficult listening for casual fans.
- I've added three reviews to the legacy section, so that readers can gain an appreciation of how the album is seen today. The original reviews were all from the day, which I believe is the correct way of doing things. I'm not a fan of quoting large sections of reviews, it somehow seems like plagiarism to me, but hopefully these additions should go some way to addressing your point. Parrot of Doom 10:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the reviews in the infobox, why do their references list the website url as the source? allmusic.com should be Allmusic, and so on.
- Every single article I've ever worked on uses urls as the source. The url is the source. If its a magazine or a book, then the magazine or book name would be the source. I didn't find the reviews in magazines or books, I found them online, this is the best way I find to state such things. Parrot of Doom 09:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Split Packaging into two paragraphs.
- "The Final Cut used sound effects combined with advances and innovations in audio recording technology"—a little grammatically illogical. You can use a sound effect on an album, but would you use an advance in technology in the same way?
- You can use an advance in technology to present that sound effect, as they did with Holophonics. Parrot of Doom 09:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "designers of most of Pink Floyd's previous artwork...designer of most of the band's previous album covers" - repetitive wording. (I think you'd do good by rewriting that entire first sentence of Packaging)
- "in 1983 a short film based on a selection of the album's songs named The Final Cut was produced"—ambiguous. The selection of songs was not named The Final Cut. I think "based on a selection of the album's songs" can be removed entirely as the next sentences says it again.
- "With sales in the US of over 1,000,000 units"—not sales, shipments.
- Delink the songs in the second tracklist.—indopug (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments A few more comments that should be address, and then I'll be glad to give my support.
- The line "Kamen, a classically trained pianist who played the harmonium, also conducted the National Philharmonic Orchestra." seems irrelevant to this article. If you want to keep it for context in the article, move it arouns a bit so we know Kamen is a conductor first.
- This line has been changed a few times and has become a little messy. I've changed it to this, as there isn't really such a thing as a "keyboard for the album". Parrot of Doom 13:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, I missed the bit you were highlighting. Done Parrot of Doom 13:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This line has been changed a few times and has become a little messy. I've changed it to this, as there isn't really such a thing as a "keyboard for the album". Parrot of Doom 13:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Alex McAvoy stars in the film, reprising his role as the abusive schoolteacher from The Wall. However, unlike in both The Wall and the Final Cut, the schoolteacher is shown in a contemporary 1983 setting, as his son is shown to be fighting in the Falklands Conflict." Could use some reference, more for the second sentence than the first.
- The only reference for that is the video itself. I could insert a citation to that effect, if you like (most likely from here but with text explaining how to find the link - but the real citation is almost implicit in the text. The closest published citation I could use is from Schaffner 1991, p244, but that only confirms that McAvoy performed the role in the video. Parrot of Doom 13:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trim it do to what Schaffner can verify and that should be fine. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reference for that is the video itself. I could insert a citation to that effect, if you like (most likely from here but with text explaining how to find the link - but the real citation is almost implicit in the text. The closest published citation I could use is from Schaffner 1991, p244, but that only confirms that McAvoy performed the role in the video. Parrot of Doom 13:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "A remastered version was made available in 2007 as part of the Oh, by the Way boxed set. It was packaged in a mini-replica of the original gatefold LP sleeve. "When the Tigers Broke Free" was also included in this version." Could use a cite, just to indicate third party documentation. Shouldn't be too hard to find one.
- As above - I could find a link or similar if preferred? Parrot of Doom 13:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Find a news source, like the NME or Billboard websites. They typically feature short news blurbs on releases like this. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm struggling to do this. Plenty of sources mention the release of the box set and The Final Cut 's inclusion, none mention (not even on Newsbank, which covers newspapers around the world) "When the Tigers Broke Free", so I'll have to remove that part of the sentence. Would that be ok with you? Parrot of Doom 11:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine. you can always keep an eye out for any more indepth third party sources that mention it. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm struggling to do this. Plenty of sources mention the release of the box set and The Final Cut 's inclusion, none mention (not even on Newsbank, which covers newspapers around the world) "When the Tigers Broke Free", so I'll have to remove that part of the sentence. Would that be ok with you? Parrot of Doom 11:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Find a news source, like the NME or Billboard websites. They typically feature short news blurbs on releases like this. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As above - I could find a link or similar if preferred? Parrot of Doom 13:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The catalogue number are unnecessary and I really feel the standard "number ___" formatting of chart positions in prose would be much clearer ("No. __" isn't intuitive). While I'm more accomodating on that issue, you really need to format all numbers under ten 10 as words. You invoked WP:IGNORE above, but you didn't indicate a rational as to why it's necessary not to follow the Manual of Style in that instance. Usually a solid rationale for ignoring that is that you are dealing with a series of numbers above and below ten in a sentence, so you format them all in one style for consistency. But I don't see that here.
- I don't feel that the catalogue numbers are either necessary or unnecessary, but they don't cause any interruption in the text, and could be useful to collectors and aficionados - and besides that, all the other Floyd albums use these numbers (well at least the album articles I've worked on). I suppose there may be a case one day for moving them all over to the Pink Floyd discography article, but that isn't even on the horizon for me at the moment, I have too many other things to work on. As several people have now commented on the chart positions thing, I'll bow to consensus and change all the articles to reflect that style. Parrot of Doom 13:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "could be useful to collectors and aficionados". Sure, it's interesting to hardcore Pink Floyd fans, but we cater to a general audience. Unless there is something worth commenting about regarding these numbers, they are unnecessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we'll have to disagree on this one then, but would you be prepared to accept that at some point, these numbers may well make their way into the PF Discography article, and hence are worth keeping for now? Not only that, but DSotM and WYWH include such details (both FA), and for the sake of consistency across articles... I haven't yet finished work on all the Pink Floyd articles, but hopefully you can see that I've been pretty committed to improving all of the most notable articles, across the board. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that other Pink Floyd album FAs feature the numbers isn't indicitive of much; if I had been present for those FACs I would've said they should have been removed as well. Consistency between articles is trumped by the question of are they actually useful, and they really aren't to most people. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we'll have to disagree on this one then, but would you be prepared to accept that at some point, these numbers may well make their way into the PF Discography article, and hence are worth keeping for now? Not only that, but DSotM and WYWH include such details (both FA), and for the sake of consistency across articles... I haven't yet finished work on all the Pink Floyd articles, but hopefully you can see that I've been pretty committed to improving all of the most notable articles, across the board. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "could be useful to collectors and aficionados". Sure, it's interesting to hardcore Pink Floyd fans, but we cater to a general audience. Unless there is something worth commenting about regarding these numbers, they are unnecessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't feel that the catalogue numbers are either necessary or unnecessary, but they don't cause any interruption in the text, and could be useful to collectors and aficionados - and besides that, all the other Floyd albums use these numbers (well at least the album articles I've worked on). I suppose there may be a case one day for moving them all over to the Pink Floyd discography article, but that isn't even on the horizon for me at the moment, I have too many other things to work on. As several people have now commented on the chart positions thing, I'll bow to consensus and change all the articles to reflect that style. Parrot of Doom 13:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's all. Address those items and I'll fully support the article for FA status. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I can't honestly think of how else to improve the article. Yes I am happy with how Waters is discussed in the lead (given his role in the band). Anyways, happy to see the numbers discussed left in - they don't bother me either way. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It is clear some great work went into this article. :) In particular, I like the subsections Release and reception and Legacy, nice job. I note two redlinks, Mayfair Studios and Audio International - totally does not change my support, but it would be nice to see new articles on these topics at some point. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My only outstanding concern is the catalogue numbers, but aside from that I'm happy to support this well-crafted article. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose is OK. I've fixed some overlinking; why are the pics tiny and the captions as tall as skyscrapers? Fixing now. PS the pic of poppies is pretty, but is it not a stretch? "Poppies are a recurring theme on the album's artwork" ... err. Tony (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 26 November 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:41, 8 November 2009 [59].
Not One Less
- Nominator(s): rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article—about a fascinating, strange, and controversial film—has been carefully researched and been through a couple copyedits. I feel it meets all the FA criteria. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image copyright review: All OK. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The toolbox reveals a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that too, but when you actually try the link it's fine. This is not the first time I've noticed the toolbox incorrectly marking links as dead; I don't know how exactly that tool works, so I'm not sure would could be causing it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that when I clicked on it the first time it was dead. However, it seems to have fixed itself. Sorry for the false alarm. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Very interesting article. The quotations in this sentence are not directly referenced: Zhang accused the festival of not being motivated by artistic concerns, and criticized the Western perception that all Chinese films must be either "pro-government" or "anti-government", referring to it as a "discrimination against Chinese films". —mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for catching that. I've moved the ref to the end of the sentence to make it clearer that all the quotes are from there. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any way you can integrate the "See also"s into the article? —mattisse (Talk) 00:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This looks generally very good.
- In one passage we refer to "another student (Zhang Mingshan)"; I couldn't find that name listed in the cast. Is it because it is a minor character? Also, it is not immediately apparent which Zhang left for the city. --JN466 01:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The writing in general is excellent; this sentence was the first to strike me as not flowing properly: "The film ends with a series of title cards that recount what the characters went on to do after the film, and describe the problem of poverty in rural education in China." --JN466 02:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was also confused by Zhang Mingshan--she's not really a minor character (not critical to the plot, but she does spend much more time on-screen than most of the other people in the cast list). But the cast list in the article is copied directly off of the credits that roll at the end of the film, and this list (which is basically the same thing, just in Chinese), so I didn't add any characters who weren't listed there. Anyway, to kill two birds with one stone, I just removed Zhang Mingshan's name from the plot summary, as it's not super-important and just introduces unnecessary confusion. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "At the end of the film, a series of title cards are superimposed on the screen. The first several describe what the major characters went on to do after the events of the film, and the last describes the problem of poverty in rural education in China." Would that be an improvement? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good article but I'd hate to see it made into a featured article while it has the cast list formatted as a Table. A cast list should be a list, preferably with additional descriptions or casting information. Tables are best reserved for multi column data that benefits from being sortable. So many editors take the Featured Articles as examples of best practice. I'd change it myself only not understanding any Chinese I'm worried I might inadvertently mess something up. -- Horkana (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The table is formatted as it is for good reason. This is an unusual film and its cast is not like that of most films on Wikipedia; for most characters here, there would be little prose-style information or casting information to write anyway. I see absolutely no harm in displaying the information as it is displayed currently, and this is precisely the reason we have WP:IAR. If you read the article it is very clear why the cast list here deserves different treatment than what is normal. Furthermore, I see absolutely nothing in Wikipedia:When to use tables saying that tables should only be used for "sortable" data, and that page even gives as an example of appropriate tables one containing "Person, birthdate, occupation". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point, presenting the information as a table is easier but the same information could be expressed as prose, the downside being it makes comparison at a glance between real job and fictional role a little harder. There are exceptions and I suppose this might be one of them but using tables for Cast lists is discouraged and some editors have an annoying a habit of pointing to Featured Articles as best practice so I felt I had to at least mention it. There are general rules about preferring prose over tables. It's not a Wikipedia rule and I'll have to finish reading Tufte but tables are best used for multi-column data. In HTML tables were intended for data but got used for layout instead for years and years until Stylesheets caught on properly. Made my preference known, I'll leave it at that, it's only a minor point.
- +Support Ling.Nut (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have run through it and done some copy editing. I have a slight hesitation about the table format for the cast, as I think a cast list of descriptive prose might be more effective but don't feel strongly about the issue. This is a fascinating and comprehensive article; the plot section is especially well done and clearly presents the themes. The article is integrated and hangs together well. —mattisse (Talk) 14:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I - please consider it's been a while since I commented at FAC, apart from one outing this afternoon.... so I may be "out of touch". But, here you go...
- "Wei is told not to lose any students" - this could be expanded on, i.e. lose them on a trip? lose them mentally?
- This is discussed in more detail at the beginning of the plot section, and I can't think of any way to expand it in the lede without getting awkwardly wordy for a summary... rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be worth stating in the lead when the film is set, as for me, at least, a 13 year old sub teacher is quite a different concept!
- Added "set in contemporary PRC". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure about how the modern world feels about the use of "thus", but that's just me...
- Personally it doesn't bother me, so I'll wait and see if more editors find it awkward. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could link to the actual 2000 Cannes Film Festival in the lead rather than the generic one.
- Linked, thanks! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "dropping out to pursue work" - perhaps it's obvious, but why was this happening?
- Generally because of poverty in rural areas and a perception that formal schooling isn't necessary or useful. I don't have the source for that bit handy, but I can check it tonight. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Not One Less was only Zhang Yimou's second film..." why only? Perhaps for the non-expert you could provide a context? And is it still the case or was it a fact at the time of filming only?
- He and Gong Li were well-known for their close collaboration, before this and Keep Cool Gong Li had starred in all of his films. I could add a little blurb on their collaboration, but personally I think it's already apparent from the sentence (since it says that she starred in almost all his films before this). Anyway, this is not still the case (until Curse of the Golden Flower a couple years ago, all of Zhang's films since this one didn't have Gong Li), but at the time it was apparently a big deal. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Film or movie? Not sure if you mean to use these words interchangeably, not a big deal but I would be consistent.
- I've been using them interchangeably just to mix things up a little...I don't really know the difference between the two. If one is more accurate here than the other, let me know and I'll see if I can replace them. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia for whatever reason decided articles would use the suffix (film) so I'd favour the word "film" in most cases but using "movie" occasionally does help reduce some of the repetition (or suggests a rephrase is needed). I can only guess that since "movie" is short for the more formal "motion picture" it is preferable to use the more succint more formal (encylopedic) wording. Also movie seems more like American than British English to me, film at least feels a bit more neutral (very subjective opinion I know). -- Horkana (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been using them interchangeably just to mix things up a little...I don't really know the difference between the two. If one is more accurate here than the other, let me know and I'll see if I can replace them. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Not One Less cast[11][14]" - not sure this mini-heading is needed. For nice placement of the refs, you could always introduce the table with a sentence along the lines of "The main cast of Not One Less included:[11][14]", perhaps?
- accidentally missed this one the first time around, replied below. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Location of Zhangjiakou, relative to Beijing." does that need a full stop?
- Oops, fixed. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "ad on TV." - a little colloquial - "an advertisement on television"?
- I was just noticing that this morning and feeling awkward about it. Changed now. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "[19][12][20]" - not keen on out of order references. There may not be a MOS for it, but it's something that bugs me!
- Good catch! Fixed now. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's halfway roughly. If these comments are still welcome then feel free to ping me back to review the second half, sorry but I have RL things pressing urgently! Best. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support I greatly enjoyed reading this article. I think that it is well-written and contains all of the sections one would expect in a film article. The only reason I am not supporting at this time is because I have a question about Chinese sources below.
- Not One Less was only Zhang Yimou's second film not to star Gong Li (the first was his 1997 Keep Cool). - How many films had he made overall?
- According to our article, this was his 9th film; the first 7 all starred Gong Li. The reason I included this sentence is that his collaboration with her was so well-known and this was a major break from it; the source cited also seems to imply that the lack of Gong Li is relevant to the casting (more specifically, that not having her to work with anymore pushed him to try something new here). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could we also include the fact that this was his 9th film? Awadewit (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to our article, this was his 9th film; the first 7 all starred Gong Li. The reason I included this sentence is that his collaboration with her was so well-known and this was a major break from it; the source cited also seems to imply that the lack of Gong Li is relevant to the casting (more specifically, that not having her to work with anymore pushed him to try something new here). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rotten Tomatoes gave it a "fresh" 95% rating,[55] and Metacritic gave it a 73, signifying "generally favorable reviews". - Please integrate this sentence into one of the earlier paragraphs on reception. It looks lonely by itself!
- I guess I can stick it at the beginning of the first paragraph there, before the more detailed stuff starts. Personally I don't care much for these aggregators, but most of our film articles seem to have them so I figured I should follow the standard. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would work better there. Awadewit (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I can stick it at the beginning of the first paragraph there, before the more detailed stuff starts. Personally I don't care much for these aggregators, but most of our film articles seem to have them so I figured I should follow the standard. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious as to what has been published in Chinese sources? Might these provide different perspectives on the film?
- I haven't looked at many (I think I only have 3 in the article), but what I have seen seems to confirm the "main melody" side of the critical reception... one talks mostly about how the film has good lessons for educators, another pretty much runs down all the places where the film premiered and how great the turnout was. I just found another source and will add it shortly; for the most part, the views from mainland China seem more unified than the ones from abroad. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a couple more Chinese reviews. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to supporting this soon. Awadewit (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to support this article. Awadewit (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestions! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last comments
- "Questions of money limit characters' actions..." reads a little strangely to me.
- Reworded to "concerns about money dominate much of the film." rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "rural life,[28][25]" refs out of numerical order.
- Fixed, thanks! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "he'll never " - avoid contractions unless this is a direct quote in which case you need to quote mark it.
- Un-contracted. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "another one of Zhang's " "one" seems redundant to me here.
- I agree; removed. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "1999 Cannes Film Festival" per my comment above, link to the actual edition of the festival.
- Oops, that should be 2000! Since 2000 Cannes is already linked in the intro, I've just delinked it here. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "performances of the amateur actors,[18][21][28] and Jean-Michel Frodon of Le Monde call the actors' performances " performances..actors..actors..performances... in one sentence reads a little clumsily.
- Replaced the second "actors' performances" with just "that". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "years later.[60]) " not sure about the placement of that ref.
- Hm, it looks like Chicago also says they should go outside the parentheses. So I've moved the ref now. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "overall;[61] The" no capital T required.
- "Not One Less'" or "Not One Less's"
- The first is probably better; changed. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs 23, 29 and 51 share a lot of common information. Is 29 missing something?
- They're the same source, but two of those refs have a quote. In earlier versions, I just had the quote in the prose, but I recently moved it into the ref to avoid breaking up the prose, and that required breaking up the ref a few times. Having the quote there is necessary, I think, as this is a French source and non-French-speaking readers who want to check it would need some way of knowing which part is relevant.
- Ref 56 says in was retrieved in 200?
- Hehe, whoops! Fixed now. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And there was one comment remaining above about the non-necessity for the crew heading...
- Fixed now (and moved the refs to the parenthetical above the table). Sorry I missed that one the first time around. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:28, 7 November 2009 [60].
Obesity
I am nominating this for featured article because it exemplifies Wikipedia best work. Has many sub pages which fill in detail for many sections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Brief drive-by comment: The licensing rationale on File:Obesity Med2008.JPG reeks; there's no mention of any OTRS ticket, and – AGF notwithstanding – I don't believe for one minute that User:Jmh649 has authority from Roche Pharmaceuticals to release this image, let alone to claim it as "Own work". – iridescent 20:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Took packages of the two most commonly used obesity meds and took a picture of them with a digital camera. This is not much different than what has been done on the Sertraline article. I would ask the above user to assume good faith. If this is not allowed we have a great number of images on Wikipedia that must be deleted. Let me know what the community thinks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a copyright problem with that image.
However, it'd be much better to take a picture of the actual medication, rather than its packaging, so that the casual user can easily see whether it's a capsule, pill, liquid, etc.; this is useful at-a-glance information that the current photo doesn't convey.Eubulides (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Since I wrote the above comment, the image has been improved as suggested; thanks. I don't see a copyright issue with the improved image either. Eubulides (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with User:CactusWriter and User:Stifle below and would refer to Commons:Commons:Image casebook#Product packaging. Packaging labels can be copyrighted to the degree that they incorporate creative elements in design. The Meridia clears the creativity threshold easily. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a copyright problem with that image.
- Took packages of the two most commonly used obesity meds and took a picture of them with a digital camera. This is not much different than what has been done on the Sertraline article. I would ask the above user to assume good faith. If this is not allowed we have a great number of images on Wikipedia that must be deleted. Let me know what the community thinks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you consult the main contributors, per WP:FAC instructions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doc James = User:Jmh649; he is the main contributor. – iridescent 22:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ah, ha. Thanks :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doc James = User:Jmh649; he is the main contributor. – iridescent 22:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Packaging and product labels are protected by both copyright and trademark law. (Labels are considered to be a 3D trademark). The problem with the File:Obesity Med2008.JPG is that it is an exact photographic replication of the label -- and thus should be disallowed here unless it can meet our fair use criteria. (Which I don't think it does). The difference with the the picture in the Sertraline article is that it is a creative photo of the entire bottle with pills which becomes a permissible derivative work. For the additional reasons that Eubulides mentions above, I would advise that the Obesity Med photo be reshot in the manner of similar photos at at commons. — CactusWriter | needles 09:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alt text done; thanks.
Please add alt text to images;see WP:ALT (particularly WP:ALT#Diagrams and WP:ALT#Maps). Eubulides (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Add some alt text. Not completely sure if this is what is desired?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a very good start; thanks.
Here are the remaining problems I see:- File:Obesity-waist circumference.PNG and File:Italienischer Maler des 17. Jahrhunderts 001.jpg are still missing alt text. For the former, please use the
|Alt=
parameter of {{Infobox Disease}}. The alt text for the maps don't convey to the visually impaired reader any useful info that's not already in the caption. Please reword them to say something useful, e.g., "Obese males have higher prevalence (above 30%) in the U.S. and some Middle Eastern countries, medium prevalence in the rest of North America and Europe, and lower prevalence (<5%) in most of Asia."
- Agree
Please move the phrase "two most commonly used medication to treat obesity" to the caption, as it does not describe visual appearance and cannot be verified by a non-expert simply by looking at the image; please see WP:ALT#Verifiability. For that image I expect the alt text will just say something like "Cardboard packaging of medications; see caption." as per WP:ALT#Placeholders. (Is there any way that relatively-weak image can be improved, as suggested above?)
- Will head down to a pharmacy and take some more pictures.
The alt text "A three dimensional model of the leptin molecule" is mostly just a copy of the caption; please rephrase it so that it says what the molecule looks like, rather than repeating the caption, as per WP:ALT#Repetition.I had trouble parsing "Well all the bony structures and organs appear similar the normal weight individual showing little subcutaneous fat and the obese person showing substantially more subcutaneous fat." Perhaps the "Well" should be removed, and a comma or two inserted?Please omit the phrase "The image of the side of" as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid.
- File:Obesity-waist circumference.PNG and File:Italienischer Maler des 17. Jahrhunderts 001.jpg are still missing alt text. For the former, please use the
- Eubulides (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All above items have been fixed; thanks for doing all that. Eubulides (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a very good start; thanks.
- Add some alt text. Not completely sure if this is what is desired?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I never normally argue with doctors, but my eyebrows shot up at "During the Baroque the wealthy often were obese" (picture caption). In fact the reference refers to "the Middle Ages and Renaissance", not the Baroque, and is anyway from Francine Kaufman, who appears to be a doctor not a historian. It is a vague & dubious proposition imo, & our age is in no position to point the finger. Riding & hunting tended to keep them relatively trim, with of course some exceptions. The picture is a great one, but the caption needs a different angle - how do we know he did not have a thyroid disorder etc anyway? Otherwise the article seems very good & nearly there. Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes thanks the ref does say middle ages and changed it to that. There are a number of other books which make this assertion aswell. They can easily be found through google scholar.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting I add a better reference? The changes you made have made the situation worse if anything. Where did "officials" come from? Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes thanks the ref does say middle ages and changed it to that. There are a number of other books which make this assertion aswell. They can easily be found through google scholar.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At 141KB, is this a bit long? Stifle (talk) 10:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease are of similar lengths.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose is only 48kb, and well under the guidelines at WP:SIZE Parrot of Doom 18:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review: Per Iridescent, File:Obesity Med2008.JPG can't be released under a free license as it depicts copyrighted product packaging. I might be convinced that the Xenical packet is ineligible as an ordinary utiliarian object with text on, but the Meridia packet definitely has copyrighted designs. Other images fine. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploaded new images which I hope are within copyright.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The new images are better from a copyright point of view. I can see where some might still object, but to my eye this particular use of the packaging is de minimus. If it's still a problem, the pictures can be retaken (again!) so as to emphasizes the capsules and deemphasize the boxes (perhaps even eliminated the boxes); this should satisfy even the more-conservative editors. Eubulides (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploaded new images which I hope are within copyright.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've read about a quarter of this tonight and have run out of time. Here are my comments so far.
- Lead: I found "medical reasons" to be a rather vague get-out-clause that overlaps genetics and psychiatric illness.
- Classification: This section contains a lot of detail the reader doesn't need at this point. It has equations. It doesn't just contain "classification" details -- particularly the childhood obesity section, which is a mini-article. I suggest this is either moved far down the article (which raises some problems with the definition of BMI used throughout the article) or greatly slimmed down to just discuss the methods of classifying obesity and move all the non-classification information elsewhere.
- Childhood obesity: The sentence "Activities from self propelled transport, to school physical education, and organized sports has been declining in many countries." seems broken.
- Childhood obesity: "it is important that" needs to be attributed in the body text or rephrased. We don't give medical advice so need to push that advice into someone else's mouth.
- Mortality: "well in the European Union" not sure what this is supposed to have said.
- Causes: The disproven "slow metabolism" excuse probably doesn't belong in Diet. Could this be moved up to the lead of this section.
- Genetics: You lost me, as a general reader, with "Adults who were homozygous for a particular FTO allele". Scanning at the rest of the page on my screen, I see strange "locus" numbers and tables with stuff like "near D6S1009, GATA184A08, D6S2436, and D6S305". What on earth is the general reader to make of that? Does any of this detail belong in an overview-article on a major health topic that needs to be accessible? Any reader that made it past the equations earlier will have given up now, I'm afraid.
- Ott
- "Excessive body weight is associated with various diseases" why not say that it increases the likelihood of various diseases? Like it says in the morbidity section.
- The mortality section talks about smokers, doesn't seem that relevant.
- Smoking vs non smoking is very relevant in the literature as those who smoke are lighter yet have increased mortality due to smoking. Therefore if you do not take smoking into account it appears that it is healthy to be overweight ( ie you must compare none smokers to none smokers and smokers to smokers ) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Caloric at the start of Causes section needs wikilinking?
- "Agricultural policy and techniques" mention and wikilink to gm crops as an example?
- Social determinants section again, is the smoking part really relevant? It even says "Changing rates of smoking however have had little effect on the overall rates of obesity".
- Yes changing rates of smoking have had little effect on the rate of obesity as 1) rate of smoking has changed little
- I think the dieting section goes in to too much detail, it should be merged in to one or two paragraphs like the exercise section.
- The pedometer line can be written to be more helpful and could probably be added in to the paragraph above it.
- City of Bogota is one example on it's own, provide some more?
- Clinical protocols section only gives North America's protocol, what about other countries?
- In other animals section needs expanding.
- Why is Canadian Obesity Network in the external links section?
- I think more images are needed. For example a graph to show a correlation between morality rate and obesity. And more examples of the effects of being obese, why not use Image:Gynecomastia_001.jpg or Image:Belly Strech Marks.jpg? I'm sure there's plenty more.
- Will put together a graph of obesity vs mortality. The two images you refer to gynecomastia and belly strech are already on the Obesity associated morbidity and I do not think add sufficiently to move to the main page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have found some data but having trouble getting it into a graph / chart. http://www.radtechstudy.nci.nih.gov/docs/Freedman_IntJObes_2006.pdf Can anyone help?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Figured it out and done.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You should merge the sister links together, see Template:Sisterlinks
- Chinese government dab link.
- Not sure exactly what you are refer to? Made a change.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to change the Chinese government link to one of the links listed on that dab page. Government of the People's Republic of China would probably be appropriate. Or find a health/china related article.--Otterathome (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay get it now. Done.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure exactly what you are refer to? Made a change.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the external link sources need updating, see EL checker tool.
- I don't like the caption of the wide-chair photo. How about something like 'Service must accommodate obese people with specialist equipment such as much wider chairs."--Otterathome (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have address all the above concerns?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There still seems to be many very short sections sentences such as in the Diet section.--Otterathome (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have address all the above concerns?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — I am sorry, but the prose is still not up to scratch. I am constantly finding errors that prevent me from continuing to read the article because because I feel a duty to correct them. [61] There is still much redundancy in the article and a lot of what seems to me as padding. When reading the article I find myself continually questioning its reliability. Take this section for example, "An association between viruses and obesity has been found in humans and several different animal species. The amount that these association may have contributed to the rising rate of obesity is yet to be determined", is too vague. And surely we are referring to viral infections and not "associations". Indeed, as a virologist, I would be very interested to know the names of these viruses. The medication section is sloppy and confusing—and I have just noticed another error in the prose, "There are a number of less commonly used medication." I feel very mean in saying this, but this article does not represent our best work as it stands. It requires a thorough copy-edit by an uninvolved editor who is familiar with the subject. We need to lose words that break the readers' confidence in the article like "certain" and "various" and odd metaphors such as "Comprehensive approaches are being looked at". It's a shame, there is a great deal of useful information here, but it's presentation is very poor. Graham Colm Talk 21:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes will agree I have never been noted for my grammatical or spelling abilities. Hopefully some one can help out with the remaining errors of prose. With respect however to "words that break the readers' confidence in that article" obesity is a difficulty subject to study with conflicting results and certain tentative conclusion. Greater certainly should not be claimed to exist were it in fact does not. I am glad you find a "great deal of useful information".Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going through the article revising certain sentences and wording and correcting errors. Please let me know whether you think my 'corrections' in wording are justified and actually produce better results, I know this can be a very subjective issue. Some of the issues I cannot attend to for fear of skewing the meaning, which would be especially disastorous in a medical article.MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
- Yes will agree I have never been noted for my grammatical or spelling abilities. Hopefully some one can help out with the remaining errors of prose. With respect however to "words that break the readers' confidence in that article" obesity is a difficulty subject to study with conflicting results and certain tentative conclusion. Greater certainly should not be claimed to exist were it in fact does not. I am glad you find a "great deal of useful information".Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What, in 'Effects on health' > 'Mortality', does this mean: Obesity increases the risk of death in current and former smokers as well as in those who have never smoked. Is it just "Smoking increases the risk of death in everyone". I don't understand. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Break
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Data originally from the "Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations" however they have removed it and earth trends has the same data.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 26 October 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. This holds true for any site, even one reproducing information from another site. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This info is provided on the site.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (Sorry, missed the reply while I was on the road) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This info is provided on the site.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 31 October 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. This holds true for any site, even one reproducing information from another site. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Data originally from the "Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations" however they have removed it and earth trends has the same data.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What source do we usually use for this info?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A plain dictionary is fine, it doesn't have to be online. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What source do we usually use for this info?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 80 (Metabolism alone..) needs to note that it requires registration or a fee.
- Anyone know how to do this?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done this for you, for future reference, you add a format=registration required field in the cite template. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone know how to do this?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 160 (Department of Health and Ageing...) has the publisher run into the link title, it should be separate, and lacks an access date.
Current ref 222 (Fennoy...) lacks a last access date.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comment: I'm not sure the image of Venus of Willendorf is appropriate for this article; According to Gardner's Art Through the Ages, my current Art History textbook, the statue is interpreted as an abstract representation of fertility- the woman is pregnant, not obese. Liquidluck (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a number of theories that are commented on in the reference and mention in the wiki text "Some attribute the Venus figurines to the tendency to emphasize fertility while others feel they representation "fatness" in the people of the time."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: I'm not sure what to make of this. I easily found grammatical problems where I looked (I moused over an image and found an error in the alt text, then I start reading from the beginning and found an error in the lead). I found the article confusing in many parts; it never really clarifies when "weight" and "fat" are considered together and apart. The article defines obesity as an over-accumulation of fat, then says it is measured using primarily weight and height. The Management section seems to gloss over the paradox that it is possible (and quite common) to lose weight without losing fat and gain weight without gaining fat. I couldn't reconcile that issue anywhere in the article. Overall, the prose appears unpolished and somewhat unaccessible. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 03:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- Per 1a definitely, and perhaps as per 1c. This article really isn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination. However, I have a feeling that enlisting some good copy editors to spruce it up would work wonders. Moreover, this is an important health topic, and new info comes in all the time (see my link below). I would not feel comfortable Supporting unless I had undertaken a line-by-line fact check... not looking for inaccuracies or mistakes (because I doubt that there are any), but rather looking for omissions... Even if I discount that aspect (as some might argue), it still needs prettying up. Oppose per 1a.
- I'm seeing a nontrivial sprinkling of punctuation errors. Don't have time to fix them; maybe another day.
- You have a problem with bunched edit links. I saw at least two instances in your "History and culture" section. You need to do something about this.
- What's this page number thingie doing in there: [103](pp95,101) [105][106]?
- See Obesity responsible for 100,000 cancer cases annually.
- This information is already at the subpage in percentage form Obesity_associated_morbidity#Oncology Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "During Christian times" What time is that?
- Is "all cause mortality" the appropriate phrase, or a typo? Sounds awkward to me...
- This sentence looks like a {{fact}} magnet: "Increasing the average body mass index from what is now considered underweight to what is now the normal range played a significant role in the development of industrialized societies." Ditto for nearby generalizations. Are these citable to Caballero?
- "Obesity is once again a reason for discrimination" Why "once again"? Reference to earlier paragraph? Clarify.
- More potential {{fact}} magnets just above that sentence.
- Here's a big problem in my eyes: I see some "paragraphs" that are two sentences long. I dunno where WP:MOS stands on those these days, but I would do something about them.
- I also see a small amount of... arguably... poor organization. I have encountered a few sentences that look somewhat misplaced. For example, some stuff in the "Historical trends" section seems to be about changing attitudes. When I see the header "Historical trends" I think of increases in prevalence etc. and I expect facts and figures. Perhaps this section should be renamed, or more likely, its contents reshuffled throughout the article? There are also isolated sentences here and there that struck me as being somewhat incongruous with respect to their position in context.
- Facts regarding the Obesity Policy Action (OPA) framework are kinda decontextualized. Proposed by one group of researchers? Widely accepted? Other important details? Eh, there's a larger problem here: you mention "comprehensive approaches", but list only this one. It's also a dreaded two-sentence pseudo-paragraph. It also includes the awkward "look" metaphor mentioned above by another reviewer.
- What's all this in "Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, Volume 1" (p. 467) about a "set point"? Did I overlook that bit of the article?
- "in 1997 the WHO formally recognized obesity as a global epidemic". That looks like something that should be mentioned in the lede.
- Speaking of epidemics, I don't remember being struck by info describing the nature and scope of the epidemic, such as "According to data from the 1976–80 and 1988–1994 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, the prevalence of overweight (defined as at or above the 85th percentile of body mass index [BMI] in 1976–1980) rose from 25.4% to 34.9% among American adults, from 24.1% to 33.3% among men and from 26.5% to 36.4% among women; nearly doubled among children ages 6–11 years from 7.6% to 13.7%; and rose from 5.7% to 11.5% among adolescents." [http://www.cspinet.org/reports/obesity.pdf Halting the Obesity Epidemic: A Public Health Policy Approach. Again, it is sincerely possible that I overlooked it. I am not being facetious when I say that.
- Eh, you're probably getting sick of me by now (join the club), but the above observation meshes well with this, again from Harrison's (p. 464): "The recent increase in the prevalence of obesity in the United States is far too rapid to be due to changes in the gene pool." That's a revealing insight/connection.
- I've been staring at these two sentences for a while, feeling they are awkward & wondering how they should be rewritten: "Public health efforts seek to understand and correct the environmental factors responsible for the increasing prevalence of obesity in the population. Solutions look at changing the factors that cause excess calorie consumption and inhibit physical activity." I give up. They are also uncited; are they common knowledge, or part of a nearby cite? Ling.Nut (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section "history" should contain more information about how people's attitude toward obesity change through time, such as in 1910s many people in the U.S.A. concern about obesity and overweight, the medical community do not worry much about them; they're highly concerned about thinness, claiming it easily effects physiological diseases. --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:01, 8 November 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:48, 29 December 2009 [62].
1997 Qayen earthquake
- Nominator(s): ceranthor 20:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is a fully comprehensive and equally engaging account of this earthquake. Since it passed GA in February, I've been steadily improving it. Malleus and Ottava both looked over the prose and made some comments, so I feel that the article is now ready to become an FA. ceranthor 20:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text, images, dabs clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- http://www.wfn.org/1997/05/msg00099.html
- Worldwide Faith News has been around since 1986. Professional journalists contribute to it. See this.
- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041219182609.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0705/S00192.htm- That's a copy of UN press release. I couldn't find it anywhere else reliable.
- http://www.wfn.org/1997/05/msg00099.html
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Responded to comments. ceranthor 21:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ideally you show reliablity by outside use of the site by reliable sources, so the links to information from the site itself is not as good as having a reliable news site/etc. use it. I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (Sorry for the delay, I"ve been sick) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ceranthor, when citing to a press release, it helps to discuss the text cited and explain why it's the best source for the text, or why another source can't be found, or how that source is used and whether it's biased. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I don't have time to do anything else today, but ScienceDaily is highly reliable. I think this provides enough support. I will try to finish these concerns tomorrow. ceranthor 02:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise, see the results just for the opening of WFN.
- The UN story is actually supported by a UN source - wow. I feel incredibly stupid. I think these have all been resolved. ceranthor 14:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left these two others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The UN story is actually supported by a UN source - wow. I feel incredibly stupid. I think these have all been resolved. ceranthor 14:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise, see the results just for the opening of WFN.
- Ideally you show reliablity by outside use of the site by reliable sources, so the links to information from the site itself is not as good as having a reliable news site/etc. use it. I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (Sorry for the delay, I"ve been sick) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Responded to comments. ceranthor 21:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firm Oppose (Flat out of time. Looks like Hamiltonstone and Karanacs are doing a good job. Will defer to their judgment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)) This article really has no business being here. This is my fourth review of the article. It seems that whatever specific examples I provide, are corrected, but the authors don't bother to even eyeball the rest of the article for similar errors! Here are just two (symptomatic) issues in paragraph 1, Section 1:[reply]
- (Grammar issue:) "The first major earthquake in that region since 1979, magnitudes of 7.3 Mw, 7.2 Ms, and 7.7 Me were recorded, and a Mercalli scale intensity of X, or disastrous, was assigned to the worst-hit area.[1]
- "(the epicenter is) close to the sparsely populated mountainous border with Afghanistan."
- (Clarity issue) Since you are talking about a sparsely populated border, you likely mean "border region." However, a border region is only vaguely defined, so what does "close to a border region" mean? How close? Why is it not in the border region? In such situations, it is better to simply say "close to the border" (i.e. without the "sparsely populated") or "in the sparsely populated border region." Or if the border region is a province, you could say "close to the XYZ border province."
- (Coherence issue) Besides, why do we need "sparsely populated?" In other words, don't introduce something ("sparsely populated") before it is really needed in the text; it throws the reader off.
As the examples suggest, the problem is not one of grammar alone; there are outstanding clarity and coherence issues. The reader is nonplussed at many turns. There are redlinks for technical jargon; how do those help if you don't also give us accompanying explanations, or at least some hints. Copyediting alone is not going to cut it. You need to have the article peer-reviewed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree; Fowler, I think you're nitpicking here. I am completely willing to resolve your concerns, but I don't think they're worth opposing over. Karanacs, the co-director of FAC, said "she believed the prose now met the criteria". I really think you're here to help, but are starting to just nitpick here. ceranthor 14:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't insult my reviewing by describing it as nitpicking. "Nitpick" (especially in its nominalized version, though you haven't employed it) is the latest weapon in the armament of the less than prepared nominators. When I have time later in the day, I will go through the article one more time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, I've been preparing the article steadily since it passed GA in February. I don't think it's ill prepared. It also had 7 supports the last time around, if you count hamiltonstone's. ceranthor 15:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't insult my reviewing by describing it as nitpicking. "Nitpick" (especially in its nominalized version, though you haven't employed it) is the latest weapon in the armament of the less than prepared nominators. When I have time later in the day, I will go through the article one more time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - reposting support. I don't see any changes that have done enough to merit not supporting. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Meets the criteria by and large. No major issues that I can see. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Criterion 1a. I found found the article engaging and well-written. I think the Science Daily source is reliable; they say the article was "adapted from materials provided by the University of Colorado" and I see no reason not to believe this. Thanks for an interesting contribution. Graham Colm Talk 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to all three of you. ceranthor 17:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Only reviewed criteria 1a. A comment such as "This article really has no business being here," is really uncalled for Fowler. Especially considering the amount of supports the article has received. If you are still under the impression that the article is so poor then why not go ahead and give a copy-edit? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 08:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. ceranthor 08:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to see if you can obtain some free images. Shame we have none of the earthquake. Have you checked out USAID for possible photos and more information on relief efforts? Himalayan 21:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a bit - I've looked around and haven't found anything, unfortunately. Good to see you again, btw. If you find anything, I'll put it in asap, just ping me. Perhaps you have better connections than I do. ceranthor 00:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to see if you can obtain some free images. Shame we have none of the earthquake. Have you checked out USAID for possible photos and more information on relief efforts? Himalayan 21:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (at present). I had given contingent support earlier. Prompted by Fowler & Fowler's remark, I went back and read more carefully. I have found a number of prose and content issues that I should have seen before, which i think mean the article does not meet FA criteria. However, give me a couple of days, and I hope I can address most of these issues. They include:
- Material in Background and geology that belongs in later sections
Reference to a Japanese geological team's work, but not to the important part - their conclusions
There is one matter i would ask a nominating editor to address:
The article has this at one point: "it registered magnitudes of 7.3 Mw, 7.2 Ms, and 7.7 Me and a Mercalli scale intensity...". Later, it has this: "Up to 155 aftershocks, some of which reached a magnitude of 5.5 on the Richter scale,..." The mix of technical measurements, and lack of explanations in most cases (Mercalli scale is an exception), presents the reader with a comprehension problem. Moment magnitude scale and Surface wave magnitude are at least wikilinked, but the lay reader won't know what they are, nor why they differ. Me lacks any link or explanation at all. In my part of the world at least (Australia), the measure of earthquake intensity used in everyday conversation (eg. news reports) is the Richter scale. There is no comparison offered here between Richter and other measures and, most annoyingly, we are offered a Richter measure for the aftershocks, but a completely different (and less well-understood i think) measure for the main quake. Can this be addressed? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Now addressed, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]There is an issue with the use of a reference too. The article said this: "The 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering in Vancouver, Canada concludes that there are a number of increasingly common issues leading to the large death tolls in Iranian earthquakes. These problems are mainly a result of poorly constructed homes, not just traditional structures."
- However, in fact it was not the conference that said this - according to hte footnote it was a paper by T. Mahdi. What the paper actually says is this:
In recent years and due to the relatively high cost of traditional construction, lack of proper construction material and the lack of qualified trained people, the quality of the newly constructed traditional buildings has been deteriorated. Accordingly, most of the existing buildings that considered as “traditional” ones have not met the minimum requirements for such buildings. Unfortunately, no official regulations exist for these buildings in Iran. Furthermore, the blame for high causalities in previous Iranian earthquakes was squarely laid at the door of these buildings. On the other hand, and due to the existence of new materials and systems that have been supported by relatively good codes of practice, most of traditional buildings have been replaced by new systems such as reinforced concrete frames, steel frames, confined masonry buildings, and semi-engineered brick buildings.
The text requires tweaking both to cite this more accurately and to report it more accurately. I'll try and get to this later. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)I have now made an attempt to fix this.hamiltonstone (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I won't express a view about whether it should be promoted. As this diff shows (which covers edits all but two of which are my own), I have done quite a bit of work revising the article. I am surprised at some of the 'supports' this attracted as, while i'm very happy with ceranthor's efforts and would like to see the article promoted, it had a lot of issues. Looking back, i have no idea why i supported it the first time, and had it not been for F&F's intervention, i may not have gone back over the piece. I hope editors will also check and respond to Karanacs, and then maybe it can get promoted. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I've been exceptionally busy. I will do my best to get to this today or tomorrow.
I've made a few small edits, and I'm now ready to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose by Karanacs. I think there are still some comprehensiveness issues.
- I was glad to see a discussion of the types of houses that fell, but I think this would likely be more appropriate in the damage section rather than the background section.
- There is still no discussion of previous earthquakes in the area or mention that this was the third(?) earthquake to hit Iran in a very short amount of time. (Have you been able to get the other source I had linked?)
- I think there is information in "Preliminary Report of The Damage Due To The Qayen Earthquake of 1997, Northeast Iran" which would be very useful to this article.
Karanacs (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't been able to get that source. I'll keep looking though. ceranthor 10:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you fetch it form here? Ruslik_Zero 11:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you still can't access it, email me and I'll send it to you. Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Emailed. ceranthor 15:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I sent you a PDF of the article. Let me know if it doesn't come through. Karanacs (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'm sorting through it now. Unfortunately, my weekend is consumed from 12-7 tomorrow, so I'll do my best in incorporating it. ceranthor 00:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Has this info been worked in, and has Karanacs been pinged to have a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes and yes, via email. ceranthor 22:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Has this info been worked in, and has Karanacs been pinged to have a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'm sorting through it now. Unfortunately, my weekend is consumed from 12-7 tomorrow, so I'll do my best in incorporating it. ceranthor 00:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I sent you a PDF of the article. Let me know if it doesn't come through. Karanacs (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Emailed. ceranthor 15:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-check on prose in a randomly selected paragraph:
- "Most homes in the stricken area that fell were built traditionally,"—sounds like an area that fell to the Roman army. "Most seriously damaged homes in the stricken area were ..."? Please check your own prose (after gaining strategic distance by thinking "defensively"—that is, with eyes open to potential wrong meanings.
- "The walls ... were unresistant to the earthquake"—It's not idiomatic (specifically, "unresistant"—if that is in the dictionary, it's still an odd one). "were extremely vulnerable to the massive forces involved in earth tremors" ... or something like that? PS "resistant" is OK a few lines further on.
- "Exhibited"; yes, native speakers use this too, but it's not nice. "were more resistant to earthquakes than ...; however, the heavy roofs and weak joint connections between the major structural elements of such buildings close to the epicentre were typically unable to withstand the onslaught." ... perhaps? And the commas could go in the "exhibited" sentence.
I opposed this first time around. I'm afraid that I'm still uncomfortable, although it's better than it was in terms of 1a. I don't want to stand in the way of promotion if other people strongly support this one, though. Tony (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I addressed those. I did ping a copyeditor who pretty much sorted out all the problems from last time, at least to my satisfaction. That paragraph was recently added, so it makes sense it's weaker than the rest. If you're still unsatisfied, considering the length of this FAC, it might just have to be archived. I am awaiting now both Sandy and Karen's input on whether it's ready or not. ceranthor 14:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support After just a read-through, seems fine but I've not checked it thouraly, so weak. Bottom of the pile, eh Cer? A dubious honor you have of making it here :) ResMar 03:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another spot-check:
- "the cost of the damage at 1997 $67 million.[6] The estimate was later raised to 1997 $100 million."—this is not the standard way of expressing the inflation-adjusted values. Please see what Julian Coulton et al. do in the hurricane articles.
- "Most homes in the stricken area that fell were simply constructed"—"had been".
- "height to width ratio"—strictly speaking, two hyphens are required for easier reading.
- "between major structural elements of such buildings"—I think we need "the" here, unless you want to emphasise that it was only some of the major structural elements. In fact "the" before "weak", as well, would stop this meaning leaking back to roofs.
- "sent 9,000 tents, over 18,000 blankets, canned food, rice, and dates"—I guess the tents did end up being "over" the blankets, but that's not the "over" you mean here. Better style—I think—is "more than".
- "A specialist British disaster rescue organisation, the International Rescue Corps, offered to send a team but were refused visas, and a Swiss offer of additional assistance was also turned down." Any reason why? It seems incredible to the reader.
- Logic issues: "No more survivors were expected to be found in the rubble." So no more were expected then, but did that turn out to be true? Either "... rubble, an assumption that turned out to be true", or something like that.
- Ellipsis dot spacing: still not right. See MoS.
It's borderline in terms of the prose. I'm wearying and also aware of the good faith and hard work of the nominator; if this is promoted, my advice to the nominator is to get a native speaker on board before taking the article to FAC. Tony (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, this has been here a while so if you feel it's not ready it can be archived. I've gone through and fixed the majority of your concerns - as for the rubble one, I don't believe any more were found, but no sources say that, so I'd let the reader make their own conclusion. Taking care of the inflation and ellipses. ceranthor 04:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think the material which has been recently added to the article allows it to meet comprehensiveness concerns (and makes it a much better article). I've copyedited the article again, with special attention to the newly-added material (which was the focus of Tony1's prose comments above). My apologies for the delayed response - I had no computer access last week. Karanacs (talk) 19:02, 28 December 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:41, 8 November 2009 [63].
Boeing 777
- Nominator(s): SynergyStar (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it has improved significantly over the past year, benefiting from Wiki's article review process, and in the process attaining GA and currently A-Class status. Suggestions from a recent Peer Review along with a 2008 FA nomination have also been implemented. Upon mutual agreement with fellow primary editors on the talk page, I am submitting this article for your evaluation. Thanks in advance for your consultation and advice. Sincerely, SynergyStar (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The most common 777 variant used worldwide is the 777-200ER, an extended range version of the original 777-200, with 412 aircraft delivered as of July 31, 2009.[1] In total, 56 customers have placed orders for 1,116 aircraft, with 798 delivered as of July 31, 2009.[1]" Repetitions of the same date and reference are unnecessary. What about this? "As of July 31, 2009, the most common 777 variant used worldwide is the 777-200ER, an extended range version of the original 777-200; 412 aircraft have been delivered, and 56 customers have placed orders for a total of 1,116 aircraft, with 798 delivered.[1]"
- Done. Rewritten to "The most common 777 variant used worldwide is the 777-200ER, an extended range version of the original 777-200, with 412 aircraft delivered. As of July 31, 2009, 56 customers have placed orders for 1,116 777s, with 798 delivered.[1]"
- My dict. says "dub" means to name unofficially.
- Done. Changed to "named".
- There are lots of important links, so I'd be rationing those you can, like the repetition of the "wide-body" link within 15 seconds. Why is "computer" linked? Why not just the more specific "Everett" linked, with the state not linked (it's a "chain" link, isn't it?). Europe linked? Ummmm ....
- Done. 2nd wide-body link moved; computer link removed by colleague Fnlayson. "Everett factory" only linked now; no states or continents linked.
- Do the images all have to be tiny? The cockpit image is detail-rich, so why not force the pixel width to ... 250? A few others could be enlarged. Have you thought of joining a few of the pics of the aircraft lower down into one group? (Not sure of the term for this). Tony (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sizes changed. You mean a gallery of the different 777 variants? For image size, it's possible using the "upright=1.4" code to make the cockpit photo larger, although individual users could adjust their preferences for large thumb sizes. Thanks for your comments and suggestions! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A thumbnail size was added to about 3 of the more detailed images. Maybe you mean a multiple image box with the images stacked or side by side. I'm not sure that is needed, except maybe in the Design section. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does these changes cover the concerns? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice - reviewer hasn't returned. I have asked requested the reviewer to return to this page here: [64] and [65], but evidently he has been quite busy the past several weeks. SynergyStar (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thx for your comments. Flight Global is a reliable source, it is the website of the world's oldest continuously-published aerospace weekly publication, Flight International. The SeatGuru reference is more unusual; the ref is simply to point out that the abbreviations 772 and 773 have been used. I've replaced that with a Japan Airlines official reference. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3 - File:Vietnam airlines boeing777.jpg - The source link for this image is broken and the licensing is unclear. Who is the author of this photo? The original upload history does not seem to indicate that the original uploader was the author, which suggests that the copyright holder is someone else. To check this out, we need to look at the source. Awadewit (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So shouldn't that image be tagged then? That image is not needed in the article anyway. Image was removed. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking oppose, since image was removed. Awadewit (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on prose.Was there a competition to get "777" into every line at least twice? Seeing the article text from some way away it looks as if it has been hit by a repeating text vandal. Obviously a lot of "777"s & model variants are needed, but a great number can just be dropped, & others rephrased by the use of words like "model, aircraft, type, variant, version". Is:
really any less clear (in context) than:To accommodate production of its new airliner, Boeing doubled the size of the Everett factory at the cost of nearly US$1.5 billion[23] to provide space for two new assembly lines.[24] New production methodologies were developed for the aircraft, including a turn machine which could rotate fuselage subassemblies 180 degrees, giving workers access to upper body sections.[29] Major assembly of the first prototype began on January 4, 1993.[38] By the start of production, the program had amassed 118 firm orders, with options for 95 more from 10 airlines.[39] Total investment in the program was estimated at over US$4 billion from Boeing, with an additional US$2 billion from suppliers.[40]
- which has far fewer 777s than some passages? Nothing added to my version, just all 4 "777"s removed. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]To accommodate production of its new airliner, Boeing doubled the size of the Everett factory at the cost of nearly US$1.5 billion[23] to provide space for two new 777 assembly lines.[24] New production methodologies were developed for the aircraft, including a turn machine which could rotate fuselage subassemblies 180 degrees, giving workers access to upper body sections.[29] Major assembly of the first 777 prototype began on January 4, 1993.[38] By the start of 777 production, the program had amassed 118 firm orders, with options for 95 more from 10 airlines.[39] Total investment in the 777 program was estimated at over US$4 billion from Boeing, with an additional US$2 billion from suppliers.[40]
- Good point. Changes are in work. They should be done in a couple days. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I had some time today--went through each article section and pruned "777"s. Changes include the revision of the above paragraph to the exact "777"-less version. Thanks for the suggestion. SynergyStar (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks [66]. That's resolved. I won't support just yet, as I haven't read the article thoroughly, & don't know the area. I'll see what other points get raised. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I had some time today--went through each article section and pruned "777"s. Changes include the revision of the above paragraph to the exact "777"-less version. Thanks for the suggestion. SynergyStar (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Slightly weakly as it is a bit of a fact-clogged read, but I know that rather goes with the territory. A bit more strategic analysis would be nice. The lead should perhaps mention 2 or more the model's "firsts" - all designed by computer, & with the help of the 8 airlines. If it was me I'd put a pic next to the TOC to use all that space. But clearly covers the ground & I think meets the criteria. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support and comments. Per your suggestions, the lead section now has a photo next to the TOC; and mentions the "firsts" - computer design, fly-by-wire, 8 airlines. If there are any particular strategic discussion points, those could be added. SynergyStar (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I read the article through and would support it for promotion. I did not observe any significant errors, though I stumbled on the word "fit" in: In designing the 777 as its first fly-by-wire commercial aircraft, Boeing decided to retain conventional control yokes rather than fit sidestick controllers as used in many fly-by-wire fighter aircraft and in some Airbus transports. Does this mean fit as in make space for or fit as in outfitting?
- As a general interest reader without a background in aviation engineering, the second half of the article is quite difficult (aside from being extremely boring). I would be interested in expansion of the "Development" section, if possible from the available sources, at the expense of the some of the detail in the following sections (e.g. available engines for different models and their thrusts) if necessary. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fit was used there to mean use, install, or equip with side stick controllers. Boeing stayed with conventional yokes instead of switching. I changed the wording to clarify that. A lot of the content from the Variants section has already was moved to the Development section over the last year or so. There's little notable detail left to add to the Development section and it is getting somewhat long now as is. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support, comments, and edits. Yes, the different variants and their engine choices can be rather dry to the uninitiated reader, but it's in the interest of being comprehensive regarding their defining characteristics. We've worked to make the variants sections simpler and more readable, but further improvements are always possible. SynergyStar (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I understand now how you've set it up, I think it is effective. I didn't really mean I felt there was too much in the article of that sort of information, just that any future expansion should probably be in the direction of further fleshing out the first sections and addressing non-technical issues, e.g. what kind of revenues/profits has the plane produced for Boeing, that sort of thing. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for the suggestion, I've added a paragraph to the Next-generation models section summarizing the status of the 777 program so far as revenues and profits thus far, from the sources I've been able to track down. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, I think that is a useful addition. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything else preventing support? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For clarity, I support. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I saw the appeal for reviewers, was a little bit reluctant as a fellow aviation editor to partake but I'm here now as I know how it feels to watch an article review stagnate. I'm going to use bullets if that is ok.
Lead - Has blue links to variants, I expected to go to another article but they are linking to article sections, seems abnormal practise to me, possibly too much detail on variants. Dimensions are precise, better to round them or leave them out completely using words like longer, shorter, bigger, better etc. No mention of the alternative Rolls-Royce Trent engine. No mention of the 'Incidents and accidents' section, a fair sized accident was caused by a Trent sub-system.- Article length - At 81 kb it would seem entirely reasonable to me to split off the variants section to Boeing 777 variants or List of Boeing 777 variants leaving a reasonable summary behind. The number rich specification table for the variants could go there as well to be replaced by the usual standard aircraft specification table for just one main variant.
Images - The glass cockpit image could be edited to remove the glaring backlight from the windows. The infobox image has a tree in it (bottom left), it could be edited out (is that the best inflight 777 image on Commons? Have not looked myself).
Have not looked at the text or any references yet, I think some basics need to be addressed first. I am happy to help if you agree that the changes are needed, I can edit the photographs if desired. My impression is that it is a big article, lots of input from enthusiastic editors that has turned it towards unencyclopedic for 'laymen readers' with too many raw numbers which may well be masking the underlying story. Don't stone me please!!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't think there was that many numbers mentioned in the Lead, but fair point. True, the other engines are not mentioned in the Lead, only the GE90. There's little to say in summary of the 777's safety record except it's been very good with just 1 hull loss over 15 years of service. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments here, and also during the recent Peer Review; let me also address them in bullets.
- Lead - blue links to variants removed; RR Trent mentioned. Fnlayson addressed the Trent sub-system.
- Some detail from the variants section has since been removed, leaving pertinent summary information. Per WP:SIZE, it is the readable prose that is measured, not the 81 kb (including refs); currently the article stands at ~10,000 total prose words (50 kb); the specifications table is 455 words.
- Regarding precise numbers vs. adjectives, several in the lead have been replaced. Further examples could be considered for replacement with generalized statements, if pointed out.
- The image glare--feel free to edit the image as you see fit. Same with the lead photo.
- Thanks for your comments here, and also during the recent Peer Review; let me also address them in bullets.
- Those should address the basics, thanks for the help! SynergyStar (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking of cropping the tree branches yesterday but felt the little bit of tree gave some perspective on how close it was to the ground and was in the corner largely out of the way. It's been cropped now so nevermind... -Fnlayson (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can revert to the version with the tree if you like!! I have edited the glass cockpit image as well. There are a number of good flight images on Commons with the aircraft flying right to left (towards the text), it might sound daft but there is a guideline I believe for images of people to be facing the text if possible, I try to do this with aircraft and even engines (propshaft towards the text) for the infobox image. Lead looks better, I still think that the good safety record should be mentioned in the lead as a summary of the article contents. On design perhaps there could be a little more content on how it all works, I am thinking of the third criteria at WP:DETAIL (for readers that want to know everything!), how many hydraulic systems does it have, what happens if both engines stop, does it have a ram air turbine? Just examples of what I am thinking of, don't feel that you need to go off and add these specific details.On article length it is your judgement call. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- The image is OK as is. I'll try to add a safety statement. Adding some details like you mentioned are in order. I added a sentence on the hydraulic systems. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. RAT added; all photos save the lead (which was by consensus at the time), I had already selected to face article center; the lead pic is now aligned as well. A safety statement has been added as well. Edits to trim the variants section have removed about 4 kB, 13 references, and several hundred words regarding orders, engine details, etc. SynergyStar (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Numbers have been removed from multiple sections, including each of the Variants subsections. They have been replaced with more general mentions, or left to the specs table. SynergyStar (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I noticed that several news citations from news media were missing the authors of the articles. Similar articles cited from the same news media have authors listed elsewhere; specifically, Flight Global and/or Flight International, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. --Born2flie (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for highlighting this, some of them were transferred by an editor who switched the {{cite web}} format to a plain text one; however some Flight Global / Flight International references do not state an author because the actual article is uncredited (probably staff writer): e.g. [67], "World Airliner Census". Flight International. SynergyStar (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Though I'd add my 2 cents to the review. I like the article, it has indepth coverage and a very healthy set of references to support the statements made. The History coverage is very good, and I believe this is one of the best articles for aircraft on Wikipedia. It does niggle me slightly that the page now uses plain text when it once used {{cite web}} templates, but I suppose it is a matter of debate that the cite templates are inherantly better. Though you are almost certainly already aware of it, Boeing 747 is an FA already, if you need some inspiration and looking for ways to improve this one, I can't suggest any better way than to take a look at either the 747 article, or my personal favourite Airbus A380; it may help, it may not. This article gets my vote already though! Good luck on the review. Kyteto (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support and comments. Indeed, many prefer the {{cite web}} template and I implemented them on the article a year ago, but they have since been replaced. I did inquire about a faster way to convert them back, but it's a rather difficult process. At least the references are consistent per requirements. SynergyStar (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support - There is still some work that can be done to better meet criterion 1(a). I think the article should easily be featured article quality with only a small amount of work in response to comments here during the review. --Born2flie (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In many places, it would be simpler to state the type designation ("777") rather than wordy phrases such as, "its new proposed wide body aircraft".
- The second paragraph in Design effort states, "$US11 billion" when it should be "US$11 billion".
- "Divided into 240 design teams of up to 40 members, working on individual components of the aircraft, almost 1,500 design issues were addressed." Who? This sentence is written so that the 1,500 design issues were divided into 240 design teams with 40 members each. It is also written in a passive voice. I would recommend that it reference the development team of the preceding sentence as a subject.
- "On May 15, 1995, Boeing completed the first 777 delivery to United Airlines." Couldn't that just be said as, "On May 15, 1995, Boeing delivered the first 777 to United Airlines."? This may just be a writing style preference for me.
- Re: -300ER first flight in Next-generation models: Is certification achieved or received? Also, passive voice used again when a more direct voice would be shorter and clearer.
- "Fly-by-wire" is only linked in lead and doesn't show up again until the second subsection of the Development. Might want to link it again. I found myself wanting to click there, and I know what fly-by-wire means.
- Done. Fnlayson and I have implemented your suggestions: US$11 billion changed; 1,500 design changed; May 15, 1995 changed; -300ER first flight changed; fly-by-wire relinked.
- Regarding stating '777', the euphemisms were added because of FAC comments above stating that the '777' word appeared too often. I've added back '777' over the above wordy phrase, and in several other locations. Thanks for your support! SynergyStar (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Italics is improperly used in some references; companies and websites are not italicized. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see additional effort here on prose redundancy (some of my edits might not be optimal, but I do see issues), numbers next to each other that are hard to read, and undefined jargon ("uncommanded thrust reduction" lead me to see that thrust is never defined or linked, so I suspect there may be other issues). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed. Companies and websites not italicized in references. On prose: redundant "all", "total of", etc. removed; instances of two numbers replaced; and multiple wikilinks added (thrust linked, heat exchanger, among others; some wikilinks repeated if they are far apart). Thanks for the suggestions. SynergyStar (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but with entreaty for continued work on jargon reduction, clarification, and prose improvement in the after glow of the bronze star. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is obviously packed with details as, I'm guessing, such an article should, but it also has much more jargon than such an article needs. The prose still has speed bumps, and some things are confusing. Here are examples from the lead:
- It is commonly referred to as the "Triple Seven" and is the world's largest twinjet
- (In an encyclopedia sentence, the more important part should come first): "The world's largest twinjet, it is commonly referred to as the "Triple Seven."
- The aircraft has seating for over 300 passengers and has a range from 5,235 to 9,380 nautical miles (9,695 to 17,372 km).
- The range part is not clear, you need to clarify, as in: "The aircraft has seating for over 300 passengers and has a range that varies between 5,235 to 9,380 nautical miles (9,695 to 17,372 km) depending upon the model."
- Distinguishing features include the largest diameter turbofan engines ...
- (Remember, these are not specs in a web page, where one can skimp on grammar): "Its distinguishing features include ...
- it is Boeing's first fly-by-wire airliner ...
- (The link for "fly-by-wire" is not very helpful; it gets around to explaining the term only in the fourth paragraph.) Perhaps, it should be briefly explained in a clause: "As Boeing's first fly-by-wire airliner, it has computer mediated controls; it is also the first entirely computer-designed commercial aircraft."
- The 777 is produced in two fuselage lengths, signified by the -200 and -300 designations.
- (Jargon: signified by the -200 and -300 designations) Are these lengths in feet? If so, why not say it? "The 777 is produced in two fuselage lengths: 200 ft and 300 ft, and designated the -200 and -300 models." If not, then you should really give the actual lengths (which I couldn't find in my cursory read).
You obviously know more about the topic than I do, so you will have to find the best approach to reducing the jargon, especially in the lead. A new reader doesn't want to be zapped with fancy-schmancy terms as a part of their welcome. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, getting better, but still concerned about jargon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is ... varies between x to y ... correct English ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "from" x to y. Have incorporated the above, save fuselage lengths (in progress). Thanks for the support and suggestions. Regarding jargon, identification of further examples that need attention would be appreciated. Thanks for the comments. SynergyStar (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The fuselage length has been added; I tried the individual lengths, but perhaps simply stating that one is # longer is simpler [68]. In addition, jargon has been removed from several sections, and eliminated entirely or replaced with more general statements. SynergyStar (talk) 23:59, 8 November 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 20:50, 17 November 2009 [69].
The Author's Farce
- Nominator(s): Ottava Rima (talk) and NocturneNoir (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I and NocturneNoir present the first FAC nomination of a long and major project dealing with the plays of Henry Fielding. Though previously neglected, the current work presents a thorough background into the creation, plot, themes, and critical heritage of The Author's Farce, one of Fielding's greatest plays. It has been a pleasure to work on this project and I am happy to present this nominee. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review (Support on image copyright):
File:Colley Cibber as Lord Foppington in The Relapse by John Vanbrugh engraving.jpg needs a real source; not just "web".- Other image is fine.
- NW (Talk) 20:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image is in the National Portrait Gallery. I linked to their new site which has an uncropped and untouched version (perhaps when they redid the images). The old link would not exist anymore, as it most likely deprecated. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - a few comments from the lead:
- "about the Goddess Nonsense choosing a husband..." This is what Tony1 calls noun+ing. Better: "about the Goddess Nonsense's choice of a husband" or something similar.
- "Through the use of a play within a play,.." - perhaps link to "play within a play" since it is a dramatic device. Also, it might help to move this into the first paragraph, as I had to puzzle for a while over "Although rejected by one theatre, the play is eventually put on at another during the third act", as at first I thought perhaps it was meant that happened in reality before I read on and it became clearer.
- "Additionally, having the Little Theatre..." - personally, I think the "additionally" can be dropped as unnecessary, and it weakens the impact of the second sentence by making its contents seem less important effects.
—mattisse (Talk) 15:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made three changes. See if this clarifies the second point: "Although rejected by one theatre, the play becomes a play within a play when it is eventually put on at another theatre during the third act." Ottava Rima (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. During the middle of the third act of another play. Or was it tacked on at the end? —mattisse (Talk) 17:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See if this helps: Reality - Fielding had a play that was rejected. The Author's Farce uses that as part of the plot. Fiction - Luckless has a play that was rejected called The Pleasures of the Town. Act 1 - writing the play. Act 2 - play is rejected. Act 3 - play is put on within The Author's Farce. The third Act is about Luckless putting on The Pleasures of the Town, which is interrupted at the end with word that he is really king of some distant land. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. During the middle of the third act of another play. Or was it tacked on at the end? —mattisse (Talk) 17:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made three changes. See if this clarifies the second point: "Although rejected by one theatre, the play becomes a play within a play when it is eventually put on at another theatre during the third act." Ottava Rima (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, excellent article. Ironholds (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MoS comment (the type people complain about on the FAC talk page): in the cast section, hyphens should be spaced endashes per WP:DASH. Mm40 (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've attempted a fix; let me know if this was incorrect. (I'll admit to knowing nothing about MOS:DASH right now; it confuses me immensely...) ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 16:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's now correct. Thanks, Mm40 (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've attempted a fix; let me know if this was incorrect. (I'll admit to knowing nothing about MOS:DASH right now; it confuses me immensely...) ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 16:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I took the liberty of putting your OCLC numbers in the OCLC template and adding two missing periods.) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even know we had an OCLC template now. Blah. I should pay more attention to these things. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - with comments. Looks great. ceranthor 22:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However, he is given horrible advice and the play is rejected by the local theatre. - advice from whom?
- I think I clarified - all of the characters offer advice. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Signore Opera, among others.[17] Eventually, she chooses Signor Opera, a foreign, castrato opera singer, as her favourite, after he sings an aria about money. In response, Mrs. Novel claims that she loved Signior Opera and died giving birth to his child.[18] - different spellings?
- Hahahahaha. I fixed it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The character Signior Opera, the image of the favoured castrato singer within the puppet show, mocks the foreigners that would perform as singers along with the audiences that accepted them. - again, different spelling?
- It should all be Signior right now. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hated it. Gurch (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: 2c Fifelfoo (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that two of the supports here are only partial (images and 2c). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And the oppose is amusing. Don't forget that. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC) I'm afraid the article falls far short of meeting criterion 1(a). Here are some examples:[reply]
- Lead paragraph
- (Sentence 1:) "The play was Fielding's first success and was written as a response to Theatre Royal, Drury Lane's rejection of his previous works."
- "Response" can mean "reply" or it can mean "reaction." In the former sense, a sentence such as "Das Kapital was written as a response to the theories of Adam Smith," is entirely appropriate. But that sense cannot be employed with "rejection of his previous works," since a satirical play doesn't counter anything in a rejection. We can use "response" in the sense of a reaction (or stimulus-response), but the stimulus there is the anger, shame, humiliation, or pain experienced as a result of the rejection. (Another playwright, for example, could have been relieved by the rejection (feeling the pressure to be off)). Please rephrase (as long as it is consistent with sources.) This, however, is meaningless. (Clarified. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Besides, one earlier play, Love in Several Masques, if its link is accurate, was in fact performed in Theatre Royal. Please amend statement accordingly.
- Needs to be "Drury Lane's rejections of (some of) his previous works."
- (Sentence 2:) "The first and second acts describe Harry Luckless's attempts at romance and writing plays to make money."
- (Incorrect and ambivalent.) If "romance" is meant in the sense of love, the sentence should read "The first and second acts describe Harry Luckless's attempts at finding romance and writing plays,"
- or, if by "romance," a literary work is meant, "The first and second acts describe Harry Luckless's attempts at writing (both) romances and plays."
- or, if by "romance," lovemaking is implied, then say, "The first and second acts describe Harry Luckless's attempts at romance and at writing plays," though this last version is too ambiguous for an encyclopedia.
- "to make money" is ambivalent and vague. Not clear if it applies to romance, to writing plays, or to both. Please make more precise: as in "writing plays to earn a livelihood," "writing plays to make quick money," etc. If, for example, the former is meant, please say, "... attempts both at romance and at writing plays to earn a livelihood."
- (Sentence 3:) "In the second act, he finishes a puppet theatre play titled "The Pleasures of the Town" about the Goddess Nonsense's choice of a husband from allegorical representatives of common theatre and literary genres.
- I am assuming by "finishes" you mean "completes writing." Why not simply say, "In the second act, he writes a puppet theater play ...?" Or was the puppet theater play begun in the first act? (If so, why weren't we told.)
- "(Still sentence 3:) the Goddess Nonsense's choice of a husband from allegorical representatives of common theatre and literary genres."
"choice of the husband?" You mean "... of a husband."- In any case, it most likely is not about the choice, but rather about the selection. In other words, say, "... about Goddess Nonsense's selection of a husband ..."
- Too much jargon in the sentence.
- To improve the prose, the sentence is best broken up, as in: "In the second act, the protagonist writes a puppet theater play parodying some common literary and theater genres. Titled, "The Pleasures of the Town," the play centres on the Goddess Nonsense's selection of a ..."
- (Sentence 4:) "Although rejected by one theatre, the play becomes a play within a play when it is eventually put on at another theatre during the third act."
- I doubt you mean "Although." Please say, "After being rejected by one theatre, the play becomes ..."
- There is no need for "eventually" if it is staged in the very next act.
- (Sentence 5:) "Instead of using puppets, the puppet characters are portrayed by actual actors, and the play ends with a merging of the play's and the puppet show's realities."
- "Instead of using puppets" is both wrong and redundant. Say simply, "The puppet characters are now portrayed by human actors ..."
- (Still sentence 5:) "play ends with a merging of the play's and the puppet show's realities."
- What does this mean? Please clarify.
These are just the five sentences of the lead paragraph. I'm sorry the prose needs drastic reworking. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - per usual, the above statements will be ignored as inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It says "In the second act, he finishes a puppet theatre play titled The Pleasures of the Town about the Goddess Nonsense's choice of a husband from allegorical representatives of common theatre and literary genres.", not "the Goddess Nonsense's choice of the husband from allegorical representatives of common theatre and literary genres." Curious why there is that difference. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 23:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- [70] Even the 31 October version says "a husband". Perhaps this should be brought up at WT:FAC like the last time such problems like this have happened regarding this user's FAC posts. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless, I've enacted a few changes. Take a look, Fowler. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 23:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are right. It is actually "a husband" in my Sentence 3 above. My mistake. Have struck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- [71] It was originally added in as "a husband", and, after checking through all diffs, it was never altered to "the husband". Ottava Rima (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To NN. It has improved a little, but "choice of husband" is still poor, if not incorrect. Also, one play was staged by TR,DL in 1728. Then there is the rest of the article. I'm happy to add some more sample sentences from other sections. The main point for me is that the prose doesn't flow (yet). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An attempt to address some other comments:
- "The response (as reaction) is not to the rejection, but rather to the shame (or humiliation or pain) of rejection. Please rephrase (as long as it is consistent with sources.) This, however, is meaningless. Pretty sure the shame of rejection is implied here; clarifying would result in The play was Fielding's first success and was written as a response to the shame he felt because of Theatre Royal, Drury Lane's rejection of his previous works is wordy, likely inaccurate, and sounds of original research. — NocturneNoir (23:48, 11 November 2009), — (continues after insertion below.)
- I don't mean you have to be explicit. There are ways of finessing it. For example, "Born of anger felt at Theatre Royal, Drury Lane's rejections of two previous works, "The Author's Farce" was Fielding's first success." or, "The Author's Farce—its writing triggered by Theatre Royal's rejections of two previous plays—was Fieldings first success." I don't have the source(s) here so I can't say for sure what will work, but I can't imagine an English language source saying, "... was written in response to the rejection ..." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The first and second acts describe Harry Luckless's attempts at romance and writing plays to make money." - I believe "romance" is a general term encompassing both love and lovemaking (though not romances as a type of play). "to make money" is also purposefully vague. Luckless needs money, period; short-term and long-term are both necessary. — NocturneNoir (23:48, 11 November 2009), — (continues after insertion below.)
- Well, acts of a play don't really "describe." Again, there are many ways to skin the cat. You could say, "The first two acts present protagonist Harry Luckless looking for romance and writing plays to make money." etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am assuming by "finishes" you mean "completes writing." Why not simply say, "In the second act, he writes a puppet theater play ...?" Or was the puppet theater play begun in the first act? (If so, why weren't we told.) Not sure why this is relevant at all. Seems to give undue weight to when the writing began. — NocturneNoir (23:48, 11 November 2009), — (continues after insertion below.)
- OK, let's not worry about it for now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Too much jargon in the sentence. This isn't Simple Wikipedia.
- It has improved a little, but "choice of husband" is still poor, if not incorrect. What do you suggest? My strong suit isn't English (in fact, it's likely Math), and I'm at a loss for a better wording. — NocturneNoir (23:48, 11 November 2009), — (continues after insertion below.)
- Do you have the actual quote from the source? If so, I can take a stab at paraphrasing it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind copyediting the prose for anything you notice? It seems that many of the quick-fixes you suggested (such as "Drury Lane's rejections of (some of) his previous works.") are quite appropriate and entirely correct. It seems to me (and I've seen this happen at both GAN and FAC) that a reviewer, such as yourself, may find it easier to just enact the changes instead of commenting here, waiting for the article's nominator to fix it, and then checking again to see if the fix has been enacted.
Regardless, thanks for the review; I already have taken a look at the prose to the best of my ability and do think it meets 1(a) (and would therefore disagree with you that the prose doesn't flow). I feel many of the points you mentioned are extremely precise, and, in my opinion, overly so. Though I welcome such comments, I feel you're checking for brilliant prose while merely professional prose will suffice. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 23:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Note - Fielding's first play was staged by the Theatre Royal. Fielding's next two plays were denied. All of the works describe the situation as them rejecting plays. The language corresponds to the sources used. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless, I've enacted a few changes. Take a look, Fowler. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 23:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- [70] Even the 31 October version says "a husband". Perhaps this should be brought up at WT:FAC like the last time such problems like this have happened regarding this user's FAC posts. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Here are the first three sentences of section 1:
- (Sentence 1): Same issues as Sentence 1 above.
- (Sentence 2): It was advertised as being rehearsed in the 18 March 1730 Daily Post and in the 21 March 1730 Weekly Medley and Literary Journal.
- (Ambiguous: it's not being rehearsed in the newspaper) Replace with, "In the 18 March 1730 ...., it was advertised as being rehearsed."
- (Sentence 3): "The Daily Post ran advertisements for its opening in its 23 and 26 March publications, noting that the play would contain a puppet show."
- You mean in its "23 and 26 March editions."
I think you guys will honestly be better off working on the article without the FAC pressure, nursing it some more, and then resubmitting. I will be delighted to support it if it is well written. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To NN again. OK, I'll edit the lead tonight. See if you guys like it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer you do not, because your edits to pages before have added in original research, faulty syntax, imprecise language, and many other problems. My response below verifies these problems, as well as multiple FACs in which you have done the same thing and, in the end, your opinion was ignored as inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To NN again. OK, I'll edit the lead tonight. See if you guys like it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edition is a term that implies the same work changed or altered in some manner. Publication implies independent works. Also, "It was advertised" is the phrase connected to "in the" per Subject vs Object syntax. The word "as" means that the "being rehearsed" is a modifier of the "advertised". Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked Tony1 for clarification with regards to prose. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 00:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To NN: I'm afraid there are unacceptable levels of paraphrasing errors in the article. I have created a section Inaccurate paraphrasing of the talk page detailing some in the first paragraph of the first section. Please have the paraphrasing (with respect to the source) vetted by an uninvolved copy-editor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article begins The Author's Farce and the Pleasures of the Town, a play by Henry Fielding, was first performed on 30 March 1730 at the Little Theatre, Haymarket.
- It should begin The Author's Farce and the Pleasures of the Town is a play by English playwright Henry Fielding and was first performed on 30 March 1730 at the Little Theatre, Haymarket.
- The first sentnece needs to state the obvious, not in passing, but as the main topic. We also need to know the country. Amandajm (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just a question, actually. The first edit summary says the material was moved to its own page. [72] Where was it moved from, as a matter of interest? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nearly there, and covers the ground, but needs a good prose edit, and more linking. I did some changes to the first few paras, but gave up without getting to basic things like "land-lady". WP:ENGVAR needs attention. I think I changed these, but please note a "production" of a play implies at the least some cast changes -you don't have four "productions" on consecutive nights. There were far too many "showing"s, a word that should only be used as a last resort when "performances" pile up. "revival" is a useful word here. Bantam (city) in the East Indies, of hen fame & where the English had a trading post from 1603, should be linked to & explained. Generally there are a number of missing links to literary terms that won't obvious to all readers. Is it the case that the play has not been seen in public since the 1730s? Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to follow the specific term used in the source when possible. By the way, I do not have any sources that say that the "Land of Bantam" is the same as Bantam city or has any connection. "not been seen in public since the 1730s" - from the page: "The last documented non-puppet version of the play was given on 28 March 1748 by Theophilus Cibber as a two act companion piece for a benefit show. The Pleasures of the Town portion was performed outside London throughout the century, including a show in Norwich during 1749, 15 shows at Norwich during the 1750s, and a production at York during 1751–1752 theatre season. There were even benefit shows, including the third act, performed in Dublin on 19 December 1763 and in Edinburgh during 1763." Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in Woods Introduction: "Bantam in Java had long been considered an exotic place of incredible ..." - I can't read the full thing but google search picks that up. But you don't need it anyway - Bantam would have been as familiar a name as say Kuwait today. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, okay. I don't have Woods's introduction, only summaries of what he said. Interesting how no one mentioned that later. Ah well. I'll link. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The link for Bantam is not the city, which was the capital of the Kingdom, but rather Sultanate of Banten. A better reference that this meaning is intended is footnote 2 on p. 285 in the Lockwood edition (2004). I have copied most of the footnote to a section of talk page of the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, okay. I don't have Woods's introduction, only summaries of what he said. Interesting how no one mentioned that later. Ah well. I'll link. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As invited, I've looked at the rewritten "Background" section, which I've tweaked a little & renamed "Performance history", which the great bulk of it is. I'm ok with the prose here, & don't think it gives too much detail per SV below, though I agree it is not the most interesting reading. But moving on to the next prose after the cast list, I hit issues again. The first sentences are:
- It's in Woods Introduction: "Bantam in Java had long been considered an exotic place of incredible ..." - I can't read the full thing but google search picks that up. But you don't need it anyway - Bantam would have been as familiar a name as say Kuwait today. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although Fielding predominantly wrote five-act plays, The Author's Farce is a three-act play. The beginning of the play depicts Harry Luckless's attempts at romance with Harriot, daughter of his land-lady Mrs Moneywood, in addition to his attempts at earning money. Although the work begins in the same manner as Fielding's previous romance-themed comedies, it quickly transitions into a different type of play that emphasises the literary and theatrical establishment. [my bolds]
-some specific points already raised above. The first sentence invites the comment "and so?". Is he trying to marry or seduce the girl, or both? "Landlady" is one word (as it is later), he is attempting to earn money. Is "manner" making a stylistic or genre point? Can't "transitions" just be "turns". Is "emphasises" all it does in respect of "the literary and theatrical establishment" - doesn't it at least "deal" with them, or something more informative? The "horrible advice" later is a horrible choice of word. Since little concrete is said on the themes of the play, there should be some quotations from it to illustrate them. Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I applied some fixes. The first sentence is only declarative and factual - this is a plot summary section not an interpretative section. "manner" is a genre point. As for quoting the play, I don't know what you would want to quote - most fiction tries to reduce plot sections and the plot is from a third party source's interpretation of what happens. What is wrong with "horrible advice"? The advice, according to multiple sources, was very bad. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not thrilled with the writing; I've copy-edited the top as an example. Lots of repetition, especially of "the play". Please check my "as far away as", which was a hunch. Tony (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS I don't like my "it" in this revised sentence: "The version was created for Theatre Royal after it suffered from the Actor Rebellion of 1733." Can't work out what to do with it. Perhaps if the previous version hadn't introduced the notion of a theatre's suffering from a rebellion (huh?), it might have contained the solution. Tony (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm wondering about the level of detail in the background section—when it ran, alongside what else, and so on. It's quite hard to get through. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The different formats are key to showing the evolution of the show, as it was not a piece like The Beggar's Opera that had mostly large runs with little change in format. Sometimes it was paired (popularly or unpopularly), sometimes not, and sometimes only a tiny portion was shown. I don't know how else to really discuss it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 17 November 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:12, 15 November 2009 [73].
The Beatles: Rock Band
- Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 22:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the nature of this video game, there's actually a lot of good development information that is probably of interest to both gamers and audiophiles - and those that just love the Beatles. Because of this, this article has gain more attention than a usual VG article, and we have had constant copy-editing throughout the game. I will note that there is one piece of information that will be added in the next few days (Sept. sales numbers, though they are hinted at by analysts as sourced) but I do not expect this to be an issue with the nomination. MASEM (t) 22:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed while doing some ref fixes that you've got some dead links. The external link checker shows seven right off the bat. Pagrashtak 02:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm left with two I'm unable to resolve. The Game Informer one is likely due to the fact they have recently reorganized their website, so older content may not (yet) be available. The GameCulture blog one, unfortunately, has very limited and/or broken archives, so I cannot see that page. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you try looking them up at archive.org? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither are at archive.org. I can pull the google cache version of the GAmeCulture one, but barring checking my print version of the magazine, I don't see a cahce of the Game Informer one. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated I've confirmed that the GameInformer websource only repeated details from other existing articles, so I've replaced that. I've also found that GameCulture has a facebook presence and that post is posted there, and thus replaced the broken link. --MASEM (t) 04:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither are at archive.org. I can pull the google cache version of the GAmeCulture one, but barring checking my print version of the magazine, I don't see a cahce of the Game Informer one. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you try looking them up at archive.org? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm left with two I'm unable to resolve. The Game Informer one is likely due to the fact they have recently reorganized their website, so older content may not (yet) be available. The GameCulture blog one, unfortunately, has very limited and/or broken archives, so I cannot see that page. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alt text done; thanks.
Alt text is mostly present (thanks) but is missing for File:Hofner 01.jpg and for File:Beatles Drums 01.jpg; please add that. Also, the alt text phrase "The typically The Beatles: Rock Band screen shows" isn't grammatical and has WP:ALT#Verifiability problems: I suggest shortening it to "Video game screen shows" or something like that.Eubulides (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Added the two for the controlles, and fixed the one noted above. --MASEM (t) 03:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; it looks good. Eubulides (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added the two for the controlles, and fixed the one noted above. --MASEM (t) 03:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a comment: the source of data I was waiting for above arrived in a timely manner (sales figures from NPD) so that portion is no longer "incomplete". --MASEM (t) 00:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image comments:
- I'm uncomfortable with the use of some non-free shots in this article. I don't think File:The-beatles-rock-band-stage.jpg, as it's only really used for one element that doesn't require much in the way of visual identification (okay, so there was a yellow background.) In addition, File:Thebeatles-rockband-opening-cinematic.jpg doesn't add much that isn't covered in some portion by File:Thebeatles rockband concept and gameplay.png
- Free images appear correctly licensed and attributed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The opening cinematic is a very different art style, and is actually not used directly in gameplay, so I don't believe it to be duplicating the existing shots. The stage picture I can see as somewhat non-essential, to some extent, but compared with the one gameplay picture that is not a dreamscape, which is one at the Budoken, it's very different to see that set, and thus the Ed Sullivan stage picture is used to highlight the detail they've put into recreating one of the more iconic appearances of the Beatles. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
Current ref 3 (Beatles Rock Band official site) lacks a publisherCurrent ref 8 (Albanesius...) lacks a publisherCurrent ref 16 (Rock Band compatability...) lacks publisher and last access date.Current ref 23 (Courtin...) lacks a last access dateCurrent ref 32 (DeGooyer..) lacks a publisherCurrent ref 62 (MTV cues...) lacks a publisher- These should all be fixed.
- What makes the following reliable sources?
http://kotaku.com/5070885/mtv-and-apple-corps-join-forces-for-beatles-music-game- removed - same info in better sourceshttp://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/01/rock-band-beatles-to-feature-harmonizing-vocals/- replaced with Wired sourcehttp://kotaku.com/5221506/retail-listings-confirm-the-beatles-rock-band-3+part-harmonies- removed - duplicative info- http://www.crispygamer.com/
http://kotaku.com/5337248/the-beatles-rock-band-preview-story-mode-beatles-beats--beyond- replaced by CNN review article- http://www.totalvideogames.com/The-Beatles-Rock-Band/feature-14400.html
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/03/12/the-beatles-rock-band-features-unreleased-material/- replaced with cited Billboard source
- http://www.offworld.com/2009/06/e309-does-beatles-rock-band-ha.html
- http://www.cartoonbrew.com/advertising/trailer-for-the-beatles-rock-band.html
- http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2009/09/behind_the_music_art_from_the.php
http://www.thelawyer.com/eversheds-works-eight-days-a-week-for-beatles/1001954.article- http://kotaku.com/5182683/the-beatles-rock-band-site-slowly-fills-with-instruments
http://kotaku.com/5348213/the-beatles-rock-band-tv-spot-does-abbey-road-overload- replaced with G4TV article
http://www.industrygamers.com/news/beatles-all-you-need-is-love-becomes-fastest-selling-song-in-rock-band-history/- Replaced with 1up article
http://www.gamervision.com/gamer/00_19/news/article/e3_09_beatles_39_all_you_need_is_love_not_exclusive_to_360http://www.joystiq.com/2009/08/14/video-interview-harmonixs-john-drake/- replaced with CVG article
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/02/the-beatles-rock-band-dlc-not-compatible-with-other-rock-band/- replaced w/ 1up article
- http://www.esdmusic.com/2009/04/02/dhani-harrison-talks-up-the-beatles-rock-band/
- replaced with the more complete interview from the same collection of sites (see below on reliability issue)
- http://www.gameculture.com/node/1399 deadlinked (current ref 47) What makes this a reliable source also?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- of the above:
- Nearly all of the Kotaku/Joystiq articles are from regular contributors to the site, and include interviews given to those sites. Kotaku has recently gained video game journalist Stephan Tolito as a managing editor. One Joystiq ref actually was replaced as it sites a more reliable source.
- Crispy Gamer includes staff that do have some reliability in the VG area, in this case, the author, Kyle Orland, also does VG coverage for NPR among other places.
- Totalvideogames.com appears to be under an editorial board, but in this case, it is an interview with a developer so reliability is coming from that.
- Offworld is an offshoot of Boing Boing, its primary contributor (and author here), Brandon Boyer, is an editor for Gamasutra and other places.
- Cartoon Brew is run by Jerry Beck, an animation historian /expert.
- GameSetWatch is a sister publication of Gamasutra
- The Lawyer is a trade publication in the UK about the legal industry there.
- IndustryGamers is managed on James Brighton, editor for Game Daily (the same company that owns Joystiq among other sites), which itself is owned by AOL.
- ESDMusic seems to be one blog of a series of diverse blogs out of a network, and though I wouldn't call absolutely reliable, is just an interview with Dhani, so take as it should be.
- The Gamervision site, I'm not sure about, and the fact in that article, that the song is not a exclusive to the 360, is yet to be backed up by any other source, so I've removed that statement until such proven differently.
- Gameculture is a blog run by the Entertainment Consumers Association. Unfortunately, as I've pointed above, I can google-cache the article, but its not on the Wayback. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- of the above:
- 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. You've done a bit of this, but some evidence that the various authors, etc are experts would be helpful. Also, just because something is an interview doesn't make it reliable, it needs to be shown that the interviewer/site are reliable interview sites. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, just because something is a sister publication of another reliable source, it doesn't necessarily mean that the other site is reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:24, 25 October 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'll check them in a moment. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that, I've moved what I changed out of there.
- In any case, of what is left that I cannot outright replace:
- Crispy Gamer, as a site, does not show direct signs of an editor-in-chief or the like. But I am pointing to the author of the articles listed there, Kyle Orland, who, as I've noted, has extensive history in the field in reliable sources before and would be considered an expert for this field per the Signpost suggestion. CrispyGamer does have this concept of a "GameTrust" between its editors presuming they review each others content but I cannot find a link to confirm that.
- The totalvideogames.com is difficult to assess editorial standards. Unfortunately, the statement made via an interview is irreplacible as it was based on an interview, and seems to be the only place where Drake has said something like "The entire catalogue might be stretching it a bit.". However, I did find that other reliable sources point to that interview, such as the Wired source I've added. All the other facts of the interview are consistent with other interviews/articles from reliable sources.
- Offworld and Cartoon Brew, I've pointed out the expertise of their editors. However, what is important here is that these articles are either asserting a non-controversial fact that can be gained from watching said video, or providing their expert opinion about it. In light of the latter aspects, these are irreplaceable, and the only thing I can do is assure that these are experts whose opinions matter about the video.
- GameSetWatch, as noted, is a sister publication of Gamasutra, itself the online arm of Game Developer magazine. The content on GSW is, but not always, new content that gets bubbled up to Gamasutra, or is republished from previous Gamasutra articles. Both editors [74] are key to editing of the print and web side of the articles. But also to point out again, all they are doing here is providing what I would consider non-controversial statements (where the art for the game came from with examples) backed up by Brandon Boyer from Boing Boing/Offworld. I can't prove those reliable any more than that.
- The esdmusic, which I replaced with a more complete interview from the "parent" site, Bullz-eye.com - well, I can't find editoral information for either. As it is an interview, and like the above one in totalvideogames, has a statement that only appears there, maybe borrowed in other publications, but irreplaceable. I can attest that all other statements made by Dhani in the interview agree with other sources from reliable works, so I don't believe it to be a falsification. But there's little else I can do about this one.
- I've explained the source of the GameCulture one before, but it's important to note that this, like the Offworld and Cartoon Brew articles, are only be used to express expert opinion and not state fact. (See [75] for google cache version).
- --MASEM (t) 19:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to leave the rest of these for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a noted as per below, I've taken out the totalvideogames.com and bullz-eye.com refs and the statements only supported by them. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to leave the rest of these for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On sources
- GameSetWatch has been demonstrated reliable enough for me, and Offworld, Crispy Gamer, and Cartoon Brew at the least meet WP:SPS. However I'm not sure that esdmusic/bullzeye or totalvideogames meets any kind of standard. As much as I wish we could just get away with "it's an interview", we simply have no way of confirming the interviews are legit and that they haven't somehow modified the content. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I look at the those two sources, there are only two statements that they support not already supported by other statements, both being about what other songs the game may get - the last paragraph of "Downloadable content". The article does not hinge on these facts, nor that section, but it does help assert the breadth of the songs that may appear in the game. So technically, the above two sources could be removed along with some of these lines, the question is if that harms that para. (And I've looked for sources to replace those facts, but the only one I come up with is the Joystiq interview). --MASEM (t) 14:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd recommend you just remove them. If it can't be cited to something else, that's a pity, but I just can't see how those meet the "high quality" requirements of the FA criteria. I'll try and sit down and review the whole article later today. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone ahead and removed/replaced them where appropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd recommend you just remove them. If it can't be cited to something else, that's a pity, but I just can't see how those meet the "high quality" requirements of the FA criteria. I'll try and sit down and review the whole article later today. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I look at the those two sources, there are only two statements that they support not already supported by other statements, both being about what other songs the game may get - the last paragraph of "Downloadable content". The article does not hinge on these facts, nor that section, but it does help assert the breadth of the songs that may appear in the game. So technically, the above two sources could be removed along with some of these lines, the question is if that harms that para. (And I've looked for sources to replace those facts, but the only one I come up with is the Joystiq interview). --MASEM (t) 14:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As promised... it looks pretty good, but some issues:
- There need to be nonbreaking spaces between units (I added one, for example to the lead).
- I think I got these all.
- Why are there citations in the lead? There are no quotations.
- There is actually one quote, but all others I've removed/moved.
- Similarly, why are only some things cited in the infobox, and not others? (Why one platform, and not the other, for example?)
- Removed.
- I spotted some occasions where the tense was still indicative that the game had not yet come out. I'd also say its better to describe its reception as having occurred as well.
- I will review again for tense issues, but I didn't seem many outside the ones you found.
- "The game allows players..." better to restate the game's title, considering this is the start of the body.
- Fixed
- "The game interface is stylistically unique to The Beatles: Rock Band to reflect the band's era" reword to the simpler "The Beatles: Rock Band's game interface is stylistically unique..."
- Fixed
- "Some alterations to the Rock Band formula were made to preserve the sanctity of The Beatles' music." Okay, I'm probably the biggest Beatles fan of my age group, but even I would stop before calling The Beatles' music holy.
- Changed to "sound"
- "Four new instrument peripherals modeled after those used by The Beatles members have been introduced alongside the game." Same thing about the tense.
- Fixed.
- "The Rickenbacker and Gretsch guitar peripherals are sold separately." source?
- repeat of previous source, but added
- "Each song contains a "lead" and "bass" guitar track, and each are playable regardless of the type of guitar controller used by the player." source?
- This para was added by someone, I don't know, but it is awkward and unnecessary. and thus removed.
- Last two paragraphs of "#Instrument peripherals" aren't long enough to be real paragraphs. Merge or flesh out.
- The last para was removed, rest merged.
- "As in previous Rock Band games, players can play any song in the game either cooperatively through "Quickplay", or competitively in "Tug of War" and "Score Duel" modes." Care to explain those modes for us newbs?
- Added and sourced
- "For example, Ringo Starr was estranged from the rest of the band during periods of recording for The Beatles (commonly referred to as The White Album). Thus, he did not perform on certain songs, such as "Back in the U.S.S.R."." would be nice to have a source for those not familiar with Beatles history.
- Added
- "In addition to Apple Corps' material, Harmonix designers watched the eight-part The Beatles Anthology on a weekly basis for further reference on the band. These materials were meticulously reviewed to replicate the outfits that The Beatles wore for each of their concerts, as well as the instruments they used for recordings and live performances." source?
- Repeat of NYTimes source, added
- "The game was formally showcased on 1 June 2009 at E3 2009. Presented by Harmonix at the beginning of the Microsoft press conference, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr briefly took the stage to discuss the games.[51] Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison, widows of the late John Lennon and George Harrison respectively, also made a brief appearance. The game's E3 demo booth was modeled as a recreation of Abbey Road Studios.[52]" There's a hell of a lot of redundant linking in that paragraph, and that might be an issue elsewhere, this is just where it caught my eye (also, you mention that Ono and Harrison are the widows earlier, so that can be cut.)
- I will review for overlinking, but this is the only major place on a first read I caught
- "As of August 2009, VH1 Classic has been airing music videos from the TV special Around The Beatles (1964), Help! (1965), and a music video of the "Birthday" gameplay footage, promoting the launch of The Beatles Rock Band online store." more tense issues!
- Fixed
- "On 8 September 2009, Dhani Harrison appeared as a guest on The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien to promote the game. Harrison and O'Brien (along with Tonight Show web manager Aaron Bleyaert and The Tonight Show Band member Mark Pender) performed the song "Birthday" at the close of the show.[58]" Another non-paragraph.
- "#Downloadable content" features more nonparagraphs and excessive spacing.
- More nonparagraphs in the reception section...
- Both above issues with non-paras have been fixed.
- Having more thoroughly read the article, I'm still not convinced File:Thebeatles-rockband-opening-cinematic.jpg and File:The-beatles-rock-band-stage.jpg are necessary.
- I have no qualms about removing these, but I would like more opinions before doing so. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There need to be nonbreaking spaces between units (I added one, for example to the lead).
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do another readthrough and watch the tenses and linkage, but I believe I've gotten all the above dealt with. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I would really like the images cut, but I recognize that you would also like a second opinion, so I'm voicing approval for all other aspects. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's really no question about the images. They abide by the letter of our policy and, most crucially, its spirit. They clearly contribute to a deeply informed understanding of the game and its design, and there is no conceivable way in which they are displacing free content, actual or potential. Of course, it's always helpful to reacquaint oneself with our policy. "Necessary", for instance, is not a sensible standard--and that's why it does not appear in our policy. Are these images judiciously chosen? Yes, quite. Do they significantly increase understanding of the topic? Indubitably. Is there any free equivalent, here, there, anywhere? Nyet. Job well done, Masem. DocKino (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support The article reads great, and Masem and company have done a great job cleaning up what needs updating for the FAC. I agree with David Fuchs on the amount images in the article. I think removing the image RockBandBeatlesPAX.jpg would be enough, as the McCartney/Starr image is more than enough to cover the Promotion section, and there's nothing particularly of note about the PAX image in comparison. There are also a handful of redlinks in the reference section that need cleaned up. --Teancum (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Full Support per other supporters. I'll concede on the image :D. --Teancum (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cleaned up the references - I'd still like to see the PAX image removed though. --Teancum (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, first, its a free image, so it's not a non-free issue. But in this case, I think the image helps to demonstrate the types of promotions that they have done with the game, and to give a sense to the non-gamer what playing this game actually, physically looks like. I'm not fighting on removing it, but like the above ones that Fuchs questioned, I'd like more opinions before doing so. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but even if it's free it doesn't mean it's adding to the article more. The external reader might care less about random people playing the game at PAX, but every reader will see note in the fact that Ringo and Paul personally came out to support and introduce the game. As far as demonstration of how to play the game, such images may be better suited for Rock Band (series), unless the image more clearly demonstrates multiple vocalists, which of course is unique to this title. --Teancum (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the concern is that we're putting nobodies above Paul and Ringo in this section? That can be fixed by image placement. --MASEM (t) 04:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really -- it's more of a is it necessary kind of thing. As a reader I wouldn't care if the game was demoed at PAX, but it makes a difference that Ringo/Paul were a big part of the game. --Teancum (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's necessary either - but it is also a free image, so we're not as strict with those. That said, what would be your take if the image was located in the gameplay section? I don't see this as much a promotion (though we do advert where it was taken) but more "here's what people look like when playing the game" which helps who has never played a music game to get the feel of. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the caveat that I am not a fan of The Beatles and I have never played or seen anyone play Rock Band or Guitar Hero. I was therefore pleasantly surprised that I could follow this article reasonably well; it is presented very accessibly for newbies like me. A few minor issues:
- I have no idea what a "fret button" is. Perhaps an entry could be created at wiktionary and linked back here?
- I didn't know who/what "Apple Corps" was and had to click the link to find out. Perhaps we can make this a tad clearer in the article for non-Beatles fans like me?
Karanacs (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've worded it slightly differently and linked to fret (here on WP), and explained a bit what Apple Corps is in their first appearance in the dev section. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, those little tweaks help! Karanacs (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've worded it slightly differently and linked to fret (here on WP), and explained a bit what Apple Corps is in their first appearance in the dev section. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was reduced to some minor grammar fixes and copyedit tweaks. Nothing else stands out as a deal-breaker pre FA status. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Casliber...--Sabri76'message 12:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to reviewers who supported: please comment on the reliability of the sources that Ealdgyth left unstruck above. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking through the above and at the sites, Crispy gamer looks okay. Will look through others later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Isn't it a bit soon after the release of the game? I fear we're still too close to the "event" so to speak. Surely secondary source material is still actively being generated about the game. It's not that big a deal with behind the scenes information, but it does become an issue when considering still-gelling critical and commercial reaction (for example: have nominations for video game industry awards been determined yet?). Just something to think about. 10:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- I did ponder that- my personal take on it is that it is settled to the point where a cohesive article of FA quality is possible, and that adjustments from this point on are minor enough so that the core of the article will remain relatively intact (with minor upkeep). Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only likely things that will change in the future of this article are more sales figures (either through the holidays or over the year), and if Harmonix decides to publish more downloadable content. There are placeholders for these should that information appear, but its information we cannot assure of being there, nor its it critical for a total comprehensive article. That is, there is no short-term instability envisioned for this article. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 15 November 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 promoted by Karanacs 20:44, 10 November 2009 [76].
Upper and Lower Table Rock
- Nominator(s): LittleMountain5 14:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the criteria. My thanks to ZabMilenko who created the article last April, Sasata who gave it a review in August and passed its GAN, Ruhrfisch who gave it a peer review in September, and everyone else who has helped out. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 14:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yay, geology article other than hurricanes >_>!
- Created by a andesitic lava flow approximately seven million years ago and shaped by erosion, they now stand over 800 feet (240 m) above the surrounding valley. - I think it might be better to use specifics here
- The land is jointly owned; The Nature Conservancy is responsible for 3,591 acres (14.53 km2), while the Bureau of Land Management is responsible for 1,280 acres (5.180 km2 - what land? The land where the U<R are? The land surrounding it?
- The 44-mile (71 km) long lava flow produced by the eruption nearly blanketed the entire Rogue Valley,[1] - no hyphen
- Erosion has continued, leaving the rocks 800 feet (240 m) above the valley floor,[4][6] and just over 2,000 feet (610 m) above sea level.[4] - erosion of what?
- From the outermost base of the rocks, three regions called oak savanna, chaparral, and mixed woodland surround the relatively flat tops. - the regions are called this? Do you mean they consist of?
- This Indian reservation remained open for three years,[6][20] at which time the inhabitants were moved to other reservations.[18][21] - grammar
- Finish those and we'll continue. ceranthor 19:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @Comment 1: Fixed.
- @Comment 2: Fixed.
- @Comment 3: Not sure where you want the hyphen...
- I think it is fixed now, but I am going to have to take a look at Template:Convert for a more permanent solution... ZabMilenko 03:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @Comment 4: Fixed.
- @Comment 5: Fixed.
- @Comment 6: Fixed?
- Thank you very much for commenting. :) LittleMountain5 02:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll return tomorrow. ceranthor 01:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Many apologies for not coming back beforehand. :( ceranthor 23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, thanks for the support and the review. :) LittleMountain5 01:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments Refs, dabs, links fine.
Ref 4 is cited nearly 50 times and I'm assuming it's a book. All the citations need page numbers without fail. You can add the book to a new bibliography section and then cite simply "xxx, p. xx" each time. RB88 (T) 20:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Unfortunately I borrowed that book and have since returned it (I've been kicking myself for not writing the page numbers down). I'll try to get my hands on it within the week. LittleMountain5 01:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Got the book, I'll start working on it. LittleMountain5 23:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately I borrowed that book and have since returned it (I've been kicking myself for not writing the page numbers down). I'll try to get my hands on it within the week. LittleMountain5 01:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: (by Finetooth)
Quite a few passive-voice sentences in the article could easily be flipped to active voice, and I think they should be. For example, "The rocks were inhabited for at least 15,000 years by the Takelma people" can become "The Takelma people inhabited the rocks for at least 15,000 years." The next one that is easy to flip is "Due to these species and others, the rocks have been listed as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern by the Bureau of Land Management since 1984." This could become "To protect threatened species, the Bureau of Land Management has listed the rocks as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern since 1984." When the actor is known, instead of "noun was verbed by X", write "X verbed noun" for more concise and punchy prose throughout.
I see overlinking in the article. "Snow", "wind speed" and "climate", "treaty", "telephone", "fall", "blooming", "snake", "poisonous", "fundraising", all familiar to most readers of English, are examples.
The common names of bird species are usually capitalized even if editors elect not to capitalize the common names of other species. The bird convention is explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Bird names and article titles. This does not apply to groups of birds such as "woodpeckers", but it does apply to Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, Anna's Hummingbird, Pileated Woodpecker, Turkey Vulture, Rock Wren, and Acorn Woodpecker. I note also that many Wikipedia articles on non-bird species use capital letters for the common names of species as well. Examples in this article include Heermann's Kangaroo Rat, California Ground Squirrel, Ringneck Snake, and Striped Whipsnake. I'm inclined to follow the lead of biologists on these conventions.
"Vernal pools fill on the top of the plateaus in the winter and the spring due to the impermeable andesite located there." - Would this be more clear as "Vernal pools atop the plateaus fill during the rainy season in winter and spring because the andesite is impermeable"?
I find the fifth paragraph of the lede confusing. "The plateaus are named for their location along the Rogue River, not for their height." Doesn't "table" refer to their flat tops rather their elevation, height, or their relationship to the river?
"Sandstone and shale are the most common type of rocks hidden underneath the andesite cap" - "Types" rather than "type"?
"In May, most of the rest were relocated via the Columbia to the Siletz Reservation." - Perhaps saying that Columbia was a ship would make the meaning more clear to readers unfamiliar with Oregon history. Or you might just not mention the mode of transportation; it was actually modes since the Grande Ronde Reservation is not on the ocean or a navigable river.
"The facility is closed to the public due to the threat to the safety of the occupants of the aircrafts." - "Aircraft" rather than "aircrafts"?
- Finetooth (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for the review! I will most likely get to them tomorrow, I'm fairly busy tonight. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 23:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @Comment 1: I think I've fixed them, but you might want to take a look.
- @Comment 2: Fixed.
- @Comment 3: Fixed most, but I'm not too sure which names to capitalize and which to not.
- @Comment 4: Yes, much clearer, thanks!
- @Comment 5: Wow, I never looked at it like that before... Fixed.
- @Comment 6: Fixed.
- @Comment 7: Removed.
- @Comment 8: Fixed.
- I'll fix the rest later. Thanks, LittleMountain5 14:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed some more. LittleMountain5 23:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll fix the rest later. Thanks, LittleMountain5 14:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for the review! I will most likely get to them tomorrow, I'm fairly busy tonight. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 23:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck comments above. This is quite a nice article, well-illustrated, and I think it now meets the criteria. I changed one more passive to active, added uppercase letters to quite a few more species, and unlinked a few more common words.
I'm not a biologist, and I sometimes have trouble deciding whether a common name refers to a species or a group; I looked up the ones I changed, but it's possible that some are still imperfect. A third opinion from a scientist might be helpful.Also, some of the image licenses look odd to me. Image:Table Rock Galls.jpg looks familiar and complete, but Image:Upper Table Rock Trail.jpg and some of the others are less tidy and are flagged for a doublecheck. I suggest using the Table Rock Galls format for all of the license pages and then removing the flags so that readers can see at a glance the description, date, own work statement, and author.Finetooth (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Thank you for your support and your work on the article. I've started to fix the image pages, it seems they all got jumbled up when they were moved to Commons. Thanks again, LittleMountain5 14:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the images have been fixed. Cheers, LittleMountain5 23:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Looks good. Striking my image comment. Finetooth (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've dug up a couple links about capitalization: 1, 2, 3, 4. Summary: There's no consensus. Either way is accepted, although all the specific bird names should be capitalized. I'm fine with it either way. Thanks, LittleMountain5 01:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with whatever you decide. I wish it were a settled matter, but it appears not to be. Please undo my caps if you like them better in lower-case (except the birds). Finetooth (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, consistency is good. It would look odd to just have the birds capitalized and nothing else. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 03:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with whatever you decide. I wish it were a settled matter, but it appears not to be. Please undo my caps if you like them better in lower-case (except the birds). Finetooth (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've dug up a couple links about capitalization: 1, 2, 3, 4. Summary: There's no consensus. Either way is accepted, although all the specific bird names should be capitalized. I'm fine with it either way. Thanks, LittleMountain5 01:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Looks good. Striking my image comment. Finetooth (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the images have been fixed. Cheers, LittleMountain5 23:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment (by Ruhrfisch) As noted, I peer reviewed this and think it is pretty close to FA now. I have some questions / quibbles first though:
There is a problem with this sentence The Takelma tribe of Native Americans inhabited the Table Rocks for at least 15,000 years by the Takelma people. Please fix itCould One species of wildflower called the Dwarf Woolly Meadowfoam grows around these pools,... be made more concise as The Dwarf Woolly Meadowfoam, a species of wildflower, grows around these pools,...?I think I asked about this in PR, but The Table Rocks have continued to erode, leaving them 800 feet (240 m) above the valley floor,[4][7] ... seems incorrect - the Table Rocks do not erode (at least as much), the surroundings do, which is how the Table Rocks formed (if I understand what is going on correctly)Here the first subject is Joesph Lane, but the party doing the ceding in the clause are the Native Americans, which could be confusing (makes it sound like Lane did the ceding). Would it read better as The Native Americans signed a treaty with Joseph Lane in September 1853, ceding 2,500 square miles (6,500 km2) of their land for $60,000. ?
Hope this helps - I also made a few copyedits (please revert if needed). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @Comment 1: Oops, fixed.
- @Comment 2: Changed.
- @Comment 3: Tweaked, see what you think.
- @Comment 4: Yes it does, thanks.
- Your multiple reviews and copyedits are much appreciated, thanks. LittleMountain5 15:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All resolved, changed to support. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on criterion 3 - File:Table Rock VOR.jpg - The image description page says "This picture was taken by my wife (who of course has no problem letting me upload it)". We need an OTRS ticket confirming this. (We don't want to start saying that a husband has total ownership over his wife's intellectual property! We'd be slipping back a few centuries.) Let's hear that the copyright is released from the copyright holder. Awadewit (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've notified the uploader. LittleMountain5 14:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see where this has anything to do with "a few centuries" ago. The signal through the noise indicates WP:COPYREQ. Is that what Awadewit (talk · contribs) is talking about? ZabMilenko 14:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is what I'm talking about. As for the rest, I was trying to head off the argument that a husband automatically has the right to release his wife's intellectual property. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image removed. Aristonia (talk · contribs) says she will upload it as herself at her own convenience. I'm not sure how deletion works at commons but I'll go take a peek. I am truly sorry for holding this process up, and Little_Mountain_5 (talk · contribs) deserves props for his patience. ZabMilenko 03:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geology
I've gone through the geology section of the article and I had a hard time following it; I think it would be better if it were in more of a chronological order and would be willing to rewrite it for you. Typically, "inverted topography" refers to a river channel that is filled with lava, and then becomes a topographic high; while I can conceptually see applying that term to a river valley, what in the region that was once higher than the valley floor is now lower than it? (Was it the volcanoes?) If nothing, the term "relict surface" would be better.
I've found a much clearer and more straightforward history published by the BLM; this published history has good figures that we could use because they're from a US government agency, and after reading it, I felt that I understood what the Wiki article was getting at. I know that they don't always get the geologic history 100% correct though, so I'd like to know if the longtime contributors to the article have anything to say on the factual accuracy of the BLM summary. Awickert (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it's a bit hard to follow; a rewrite would be great if you have the time to do it. As for the inverted topography, the river canyon that was filled with lava was once below the the rest of the Rogue Valley, but the valley has since eroded, leaving the much harder lava above it. I'm not sure what 'relict surface' means, but I think 'inverted topography' fits. The BLM page seems correct, and it is actually ref number
13 in the article. I don't think I'd like to directly copy it though, if that's what you're getting at. Thanks, LittleMountain5 00:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- OK - so the paleo-canyon walls eroded, and these are remnants of the valley bottom that now sit high above the surrounding area - I get it now, so inverted topography works for me. But since I didn't get it from the article, a rewrite will be in order; I will do it when I get a chance and give you permission to prod me at my talk until if I don't do it in the next 48 hours.
- To answer your question, "relict surface" refers to any old fragment of a dissected landscape.
- As to BLM: I should have looked at the refs, but Google steered me to the BLM nonetheless. Don't worry - the rewrite will be in my words, Awickert (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Working on it; since I see conflicting info from our current sources, I am going to see if I can get some geologic maps from the USGS. Once I get my hands on those, I'll have a much more authoritative source from which to write about the geologic history, Awickert (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, it looks a lot better already! LittleMountain5 15:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Working on it; since I see conflicting info from our current sources, I am going to see if I can get some geologic maps from the USGS. Once I get my hands on those, I'll have a much more authoritative source from which to write about the geologic history, Awickert (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ProvisionalSUPPORT Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Comments Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC) This is a fascinating article, and I echo sentiments from above: a geology article that isn't about hurricanes and typhoons! Hooray! Provisional because your prose issues (geological jargon?) confuses.[reply]
- I dejargoned the worst paragraph of jargon. Please check!Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the material, your sections on the ecozones could be fleshed out some: primarily why and where do these ecozones exist on the Rocks? what are the conditions that create them? Beyond that, my list is below (of prose issues) and you're addressing them. Keep up the good work on this. Very nice article. :) Also, really need to change history to HUMAN history...since the previous section is also history, you'll need to distinguish. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I have mostly prose issues, and to some extent presentation. In the first section:
[reply]
- Upper and Lower Table Rock were created when Olson Mountain, near present day Lost Creek Lake, erupted approximately seven million years ago.. The eruption of Olson Mountain, near present-day Lost Creek Lake, created Upper and Lower Table rock. (two different wikilinks adjacent, makes it difficult to follow. Also, subject placement...eruption.
- The 44 mile (71 km) long lava flow produced by the eruption nearly blanketed the entire Rogue Valley,[1] covering an ancient Rogue River canyon with over 100 feet (30 m) of lava... The eruption produced a 44 mile long lava flow that covered an ancient river canyon with more that 100 feet of lava. If the ancient Rogue River was so named, then this needs an explanation.
- Since that time, the Rogue River has eroded 90 percent of the lava away from the surrounding areas, leaving behind a sheet of hard andesite with an average thickness of 125 feet (38 m) in place of the canyon.. In the seven million years since the Olson eruption, the Rogue River has eroded 90 percent of the lava, exposing a sheet of hard andesite with an average thickness of 125 feet.
- Sandstone and shale are the most common types of rocks hidden underneath the andesite cap, deposited from the Rogue River approximately 38 million years ago
- The Table Rocks are an example of inverted topography.. This is your first sentence.
- The Table Rocks offer an example of inverted topography. Thirty-eight million years ago, an ancient river deposited sandstone and shale in the valley. The eruption of Olson Mountain, near present-day Lost Creek Lake, created the basic formations of Upper and Lower Table rock. The eruption produced a 44 mile long lava flow that covered an ancient river canyon to a depth of 100 feet or more. In the seven million years since the Olson eruption, the Rogue River has eroded 90 percent of the lava, exposing a sheet of hard andesite with an average thickness of 125 feet.
question: is all andesite hard? if it is, then we don't need to qualify each mention of it. I'll get to more questions later. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- That sounds much better, thanks! I think all andesite is hard, so I'll remove it. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 00:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- organizational issues.
:Geology and climate. In this section, you start talking about the formations' geological history, then you switch to climate, ecozones, etc., and then in the following section you go back to its history (albeit human history). May I suggest the following
Geological history (1.1) Formation (1.2) (1.3) Continuing influences (or something like this)- Human uses (2.1) Clovis period (2.2) Takelman uses (2.4) Euroamerican uses (2.5) Present day uses (2.5.1) Ownership and management (2.5.2) Trails
- and these could be broadened.
*Ecological habitats (3.1) Oak savanna (3.2) Chaparral (3.3) Mixed Woodland (3.4) Mounded prairie and vernal pools.
- and these also could be expanded.
:*this is where the bit on the shrimp goes, not in the geological formation section
- I would be interested in knowing the relationship between these ecozones and the table rocks' geologic development.
;citation issues
- Reyes, Kennedy, Capps, Janes, and Latimer could be shortened. You don't need every author, just one, to identify the source.
- bibliography only has 2 sources, but your citations list many. I realize they are newspaper articles. I would list them. You might look at Inner German Border to see how the editor addressed organizing multiple periodical references.
;prose issues
- For example, He (Day) funded residential lots near the landmark with the intent of marketing them-- landmark?
there are lots of these, that seem to come out of the blue, so to speak. I think the prose needs a bit more work. Actually, a lot more work. Similar to that paragraph I showed you yesterday, you could make sure that your paragraphs actually have a subject sentence, and that the paragraph deals with the subject. It may be helpful to put an "under construction" sign on the article, and really give it a go through.
;images
these are terrific (with Adewait's qualification about the husband/wife thing), and I especially like variety: the panorama and the lizard, the large broad view and the small close up view. The prose should mirror the images, with focus, and big picture. You've caught the idea with the pictures; I'd like to see you do the same with the prose.
Until then, though, I need to withhold support, but I'm looking forward to supporting this later. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Organizational issues
- I've rearranged the article a bit. LittleMountain5 16:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation issues
- @Comment1: Fixed.
- @Comment2: Sounds good, I'll get to it later today. Should the websites stay in the reference section, or be moved to the bibliography section?
- I'll get to the rest later, thanks! LittleMountain5 15:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- everything should stay in your citations section, and be reiterated in the bibliography. I'd probably make a separate section for books, monographs, encyclopedic works, and one for periodicals, and one for websites. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Started to fix the refs. LittleMountain5 02:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done! See what you think. LittleMountain5 00:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Started to fix the refs. LittleMountain5 02:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- everything should stay in your citations section, and be reiterated in the bibliography. I'd probably make a separate section for books, monographs, encyclopedic works, and one for periodicals, and one for websites. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your bibliography is superb!!! You're setting a new standard for bibliographies. I'm very proud of you! I have one question, and you may not be able to answer this, we might need another reviewer who knows these things better than I do. what is the policy on putting the location of the newspaper into the bibliographic entry, when there is a wiki article on that newspaper and it's linked...does it still need to say Mail Tribune (Medford, OR)? or is the link sufficient? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I did some digging and found a bit about news articles at WP:CITEHOW. It states that 'citations for newspaper articles typically include... city of publication, if not included in name of newspaper', so I'll add Medford to the refs tomorrow. Cheers, LittleMountain5 03:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the text very carefully, but I think it needs a little more work to bring the prose up to par. The other ingredients seem to be all in place, and I trust the primary author(s) will continue to work on the article after it gains the star. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some examples:
Lead;
- European American settlers forced the Takelma into Indian reservations.
- (Since the reservations could be on the Rocks themselves, it is better to have:) European American settlers forced the Takelma out of the Table Rocks and into reservations. (I don't think you need "Indian")
- To protect these threatened species and others
- To protect these and other threatened species
- Two trails have been built on the rocks: Lower Table Rock Trail, and Upper Table Rock Trail. The trails were created in the early 1980s by the Youth Conservation Corps, Boy Scouts, and the Oregon Department of Forestry.
- (Trails are typically "cut." Also, I'm assuming you mean "The Rocks" rather than "the rocks," since the plateaus now have topsoil and foliage. Best to combine the sentences:) Two trails, Lower Table Rock Trail and Upper Table Rock Trail, were cut on/across the Table Rocks/plateaus in the early 1980s by the Youth Conservation Corps, Boy Scouts, and the Oregon Department of Forestry.
Might be a good idea to reduce some of the jargon.
Example:
- (Section 1): Starting approximately 40 million years ago in the middle Eocene,[1] an ancient braided river system occupied the region into which the Rogue Valley is now carved.[2] This river system deposited what is known as the Payne Cliffs Formation by first laying down a thin basal conglomerate, which was followed by arkosic sandstones and siltstones.[2][3][4] Deposition halted by 37.9 million years ago.
- Around 40 million years ago an ancient river system crisscrossed the present-day Rogue Valley. For 2.1 million years, it deposited ...
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for the support! I fixed everything except for the jargon, which I will try to get to tomorrow. LittleMountain5 01:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Status: image clearance pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 8 November 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.