Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2009

November 2009

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:44, 15 November 2009 [1].

---

2009 Giro d'Italia

Nominator(s): Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 07:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

Kov 93 hasn't edited the article since July, but still should have been notifed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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 back and 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
    • 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)
      • ...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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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." [2] Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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 - [3]. 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)

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)

• • • • 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)
• 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)
• 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.
  • Well taken. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
    • 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
• 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • Thanks, that looks great. Eubulides (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• 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)
    • 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)

Eubulides (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference
  • Done. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
    • "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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
• 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)
• 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, particularly and 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)

I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
          • 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)

These are small issues, easily resolved. Awadewit (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

All image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

I just moved the pic down to the routes and stages paragraph. It's fine there. Amandajm (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • 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)

• 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)
  • 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)

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 [4].

---

The Ex-Girlfriend

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 19:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 21:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Seems fine. ceranthor 23:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
  • "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)
  • "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)
  • "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)
  • The characters seem to do a lot of "finding" in this article...
    • Reduced.--Music26/11 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • "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)
  • 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)
  • "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)
  • "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)
  • "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)
  • Please cite quotations. TwilligToves (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Which one isn't?--Music26/11 20:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Image review - Images check out. Awadewit (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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 [5].

---

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)

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)

He asked me to nominate it after completing the changes from the peer review. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

I assume, not sure how to do it though. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I will add his name, if you confirm that he is participating in the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Note: there are footnotes in section headings (per MOS section headings should have no special markup). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

Dashes are fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There is a dead link; check the toolbox at the top right. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed HowardMorland (talk) 07:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
  • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Ling.Nut (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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 [6].

---

Dan Povenmire

Nominator(s): The Flash ^{talk} 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

Thanks for the comments, Auntieruth. I believe that is what Sandy was looking for. :) The Flash ^{talk} 01:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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 [7] where news sources cite it for information. The Flash ^{talk} 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    Was this article run in the Mobile The Mobile Press-Register? Perhaps you might check there. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    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)

    This can then be left for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• Can the comment be struck then? The Flash ^{talk} 23:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• Thanks then. :) The Flash ^{talk} 03:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• • 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)

    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)

    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)

    No, not really. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    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)

  • 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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.

Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Done. The Flash ^{talk} 01:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No more issues from me. Majorly talk 23:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Support No more issues from me. Majorly talk 23:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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 [8].

---

Lisa Simpson

Nominator(s): Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets FA criteria, after a PR i think it is ready Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: Excellent articles, sources are all reliable and the prose is clear. Minor issues:

• Wikilink to "animated television series"

Done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 12 does not need to link to IMDb

Done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• De-capitalize ref 74

Done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• The Flash ^{talk} 00:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Issues taken care of. The Flash ^{talk} 01:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: State what country this TV program comes from, and link it, in the first paragraph, preferably first sentence. If you say it is an "American" program, link to United States. Amandajm (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 10:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose (suggest withdrawal): Has the primary contributor of this article User:Scorpion0422 been informed of this FAC nomination? This article uses primary sources (ie the episodes themselves) as a reference some fifteen times (refs #41-#55). In my book, watching an episode, determining character traits (or whatever) based on that viewing, and then adding that interpretation here constitutes original research. Only include information sourced to independent reliable sources, or at least, direct comments from the creators themselves. —indopug (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

He is informed--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think most of the statements sourced to episodes are neutral (though I could be wrong), but I could try and source some of the statements to books. Is there anything in particular that strikes you as being very ORish? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to give Pedro thy master a lot of credit for cleaning the page up. It's better than it was a month ago. However, I think it's not quite in FA territory yet. What is there very good, but I think it could still be expanded, with more influence and reception and possibly some more real-world info added. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you sugest i close it and wait some more?--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

And thanks:)--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, since it's open, we might as well see what kind of feedback we get before closing it. Perhaps others think the current amount of content is perfect. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah look at flash's comments.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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 [9].

---

Andrew Johnston (singer)

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Image copyright review: Both images look good. NW (Talk) 15:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments There are still some differing date formats in the references that need to be formatted. Hekerui (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Made some fixes. Any I missed? J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
  • Done my best- never done that before. J Milburn (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It looks very nice; thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

Ot

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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?

4. 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)

   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)

5. 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)

• --Otterathome (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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:

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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

• 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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "...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)

• "Johnston announced that he would be taking a year out from singing due to the breaking of his voice," passive voice?

  Fixed. J Milburn (talk)

• "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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

RB88 (T) 18:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

  Sorry for the delay, I will be doing this later today. J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  I could look into balancing it with a quote from his father? J Milburn (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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 [10].

---

Lomana LuaLua

Nominator(s): Spiderone 16:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Was Malcolmxl5 (talk · contribs) consulted about this nomination? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

He has been consulted now Spiderone 17:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/spielbericht/71860/panathinaikos-athen_olympiakos-piraeus/spielverlauf/index.html

I don't know German but this might be useful Spiderone 09:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.goalzz.com/main.aspx?c=3821&stage=1&sch=true

It has a lot of dedicated contributors and moderators [11] and is one of few websites covering Middle Eastern football Spiderone 09:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.sportingreece.com

In the "about us" section it claims to be the only English language website covering Greek sport Spiderone 09:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.kickitout.org/news.php/news_id/1158

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)

• 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)

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)

Are any of the four sites still not reliable? Spiderone 18:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Alt text added Spiderone 21:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that; I tweaked it a bit. It looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

I've addressed these 3 points Spiderone 22:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• • 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)

I've addressed these points now Spiderone 09:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 [12].

---

Well Dunn

Nominator(s): GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

But she did not strike them, meaning they still needed review for reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Alt text and images cleared in previous FAC; please advise if they have changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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)
  • 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 ([13]) and [14]), both of which are accepted as reliable sources for wrestling articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • 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)
      • 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" ([15]).
  • 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)
  • 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)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave these others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• • 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)

"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)

"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)

• 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)

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 [16].

---

No Line on the Horizon

Nominator(s): MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

• 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)

--an odd name 03:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment The toolbox reveals a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed with Google cache. --an odd name 23:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Cheers; I've done that now. Does it look acceptable? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment References 103 - 106 are broken. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Yep, once I fixed the format those broken links went away. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Source comments What makes this reliable?

• http://www.atu2.com/news/the-full-willie-pt-2.html

• 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)

• http://www.u2wanderer.org/disco/sing061.html ; http://www.u2wanderer.org/disco/sing062.html RB88 (T) 01:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Replaced. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• 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.

• Done. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• • • 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)
      • 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)
        • The other ones, expect for Canada, can be accessed through the Ultratop derivative websites or Billboard. RB88 (T) 02:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Okay, all replaced with Ultratop, Billboard, or Irish-charts. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

<- 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)

• Corrected. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

That's fine. Just add "Subscription required". RB88 (T) 02:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

This is stronger, yes. Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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 [17].

---

Midshipman

Nominator(s): Kirk (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Done - Kirk (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • 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.

    Eubulides (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• Done - thanks for your suggestions! Kirk (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• You're welcome, and thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Support - 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)

• 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)

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)

Done - thanks! Kirk (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• • 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)

• Everything else not specifically addressed I changed; Thanks for your comments!! Kirk (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

That makes it clearer, which is what we want. Xandar 01:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Done - thanks! Kirk (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• Still has no source. Awadewit (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Done - really added it this time. Kirk (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• Done - really added it this time. Kirk (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• Done - I added a rationale. Kirk (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• It has no purpose of use. Awadewit (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Done - must have missed it when I changed the article. Thanks!Kirk (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• "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)
• I changed it to - "Display the insignia for the rank of Midshipman in the Pakistan Navy."? Kirk (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• Done Link fixed. Kirk (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• Yes, removed from article. Kirk (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• First round of changes. Kirk (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Second round of changes.Kirk (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Third round of changes. Kirk (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Fourth round of changes. Kirk (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Fifth round of changes - all images fixed. Kirk (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Sixth round of changes - hopefully fixed everything! Kirk (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Seventh time's the charm?Kirk (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• All images have been cleared - striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• • 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)

• • 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)

• 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)

• Done, removed Canada, fixed SA and New Zealand (the culprits I could find) Kirk (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• Fixed Kirk (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
  1. 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.
  2. 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)

• 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)

• Just to clarify, my opinion is its a good candidate for another article, not a section in this article. Kirk (talk)

• Leaning Strong 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• "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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Thanks for your suggestions. Kirk (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

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 Dabomb87 13:50, 10 November 2009 [18].

---

Bionicle

Nominator(s): Twilight Helryx 02:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it that it has met all FA criteria. The issues which got it rejected the first time are no longer there, and after fixing all the issues the now-removed templates said needed fixing, I think it is ready for a second chance.--Twilight Helryx 02:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - the major issue identified in the last FAC (lack of inline citations) has not been resolved at all, and there are scores of other issues with the article as well. Recommend withdrawal and a series of peer reviews to help improve the article. Steve Smith (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - adding the necessary citations. Thank you for pointing that out. May I ask what the other issues are? Sorry, but I'm currently the only person whose really editing this article now.--Twilight Helryx 03:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's written from a very "in universe" perspective (see WP:MOSFICT for more on this), the prose isn't great, and it's severely short of references to reliable third party sources. This is a good start, but it really has quite a distance to go before it will be ready for FAC. Steve Smith (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Please add alt text to the two images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, suggest withdraw (by an odd name) I clearly see Steve Smith's issues. Also:

• Most importantly, what are the actual toys? There are subarticles, so at least summarize what they say about the actual toys and toy sets (if they say anything about them); maybe list a few examples if you want a full list somewhere else. This is the central subject of the article ("Bionicle is a toy line from the Lego Group marketed at 6-16 year-olds"), so at that point I simply demoted to C and didn't look back.
• How has the toy line sold overall? How have critics generally received the line?
• Contrary to popular belief, "Bionicle" is not "Bionic" with an "-le" suffix, but a portmanteau constructed from the words "biological" and "chronicle".—if there's no clear (cited or common-knowledge) evidence people actually think it's "'Bionic' with an '-le'", just say what it really is. Use italics, not bold, for the emphases.
• However, a recent advertisement for the Toa Mahri listed Kongu as a "Kahu" bird rider.—I didn't see the ad. Source please.
• Any info on the development of the general line? I see a tiny bit in the lead: "The concept was derived from Lego Group's earlier themes Slizers/Throwbots and Lego RoboRiders. Both of those lines had similar throwing disks and characters based on classical elements." How do you know this? Sounds like original research unless the Lego teams, critics, or some other reliable source has said so. (added on 05:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC))
• The Three Virtues (Unity, Duty, and Destiny), a recurring theme throughout the Bionicle storylines. You say this and then make no further mention of them in the body; are they minor aspects, then? Also, unless the symbols themselves (which is which, by the way? Is only the middle dot Duty, or all three dots?) are the Virtues (as opposed to the qualities of unity, duty, and destiny), just remove the non-free image. (added on 05:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 04:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing.--Twilight Helryx 13:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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 [19].

---

Denton, Texas

Nominator(s): Mahanga^Talk 21:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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. Mahanga^Talk 21:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. Mahanga^Talk 17:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• 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?
  • http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2008/11/signs-of-life-2008-best-music-scene---denton-texas.html
  • http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2008/jul/17/dentons-fry-street-village-plans-hold/

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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. Mahanga^Talk 21:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is "300,000 thousand people" a typo? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Fixed. Mahanga^Talk 19:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

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)
      • Ok. The uploader seems active, but hasn't responded. The image only has until Sunday before it's deleted.
• 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)
      • Oops, I was looking at the caption, instead of the image description. Replaced description.

• 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)

Thank you for the extensive review of the images in the article and for editing the article to match MOS#Images. Mahanga^Talk 19:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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 [20].

---

Boys in Red accident

Nominator(s): Kuzwa (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Weak oppose - Problems with pictures Changed 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)

* 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

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)

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)

• • Comment: Reference 22 is dead. It just leads to an "under construction" website with no information.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 15:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Dealt with thanks. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. To my mind this article meets all the FA criteria. DQweny (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Image review - Both images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• 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.

• Ling.Nut (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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 [21].

---

Obesity

Nominator(s): Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Did you consult the main contributors, per WP:FAC instructions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Doc James = User:Jmh649; he is the main contributor. – iridescent 22:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • ah, ha. Thanks :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

Add some alt text. Not completely sure if this is what is desired?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

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.

Eubulides (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

All above items have been fixed; thanks for doing all that. Eubulides (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

• At 141KB, is this a bit long? Stifle (talk) 10:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease are of similar lengths.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Prose is only 48kb, and well under the guidelines at WP:SIZE Parrot of Doom 18:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• 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)

Uploaded new images which I hope are within copyright.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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.

Colin°^Talk 21:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks Colin for the comments which I by and large agree with. Have made changes to address them except the genetics section that I am still thinking about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ott

1. "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.

   Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

2. 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)

3. Caloric at the start of Causes section needs wikilinking?

   Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

4. "Agricultural policy and techniques" mention and wikilink to gm crops as an example?

   Linked Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

5. 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

6. 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.

   Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

7. The pedometer line can be written to be more helpful and could probably be added in to the paragraph above it.

   DoneDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

8. City of Bogota is one example on it's own, provide some more?

   Added a review to support bogota's efforts. Will add more examples to the subpage.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

9. Clinical protocols section only gives North America's protocol, what about other countries?

   Added examples from the rest of the English worldDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

10. In other animals section needs expanding.

    Expanded some further expansion should take place on the subpageDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

11. Why is Canadian Obesity Network in the external links section?

    No idea therefore removedDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

12. 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)

    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)

    Figured it out and done.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

13. You should merge the sister links together, see Template:Sisterlinks

    Cool done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

14. 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)

    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)

    Okay get it now. Done.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

15. Some of the external link sources need updating, see EL checker tool.

    Is there a bot that can fix these redirects?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

16. 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)

    SureDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• --Otterathome (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I have address all the above concerns?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There still seems to be many very short sections sentences such as in the Diet section.--Otterathome (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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. [22] 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)

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)

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)

Many thanks looks good.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

It was a bit redundant I agree therefore removed. But you are right it just implies that it increases risk of death in everyone.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Will be away for 4 days.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Break

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?theme=8&variable_ID=212&action=select_countries

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)

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)

This info is provided on the site.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

• • http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=obesity

What source do we usually use for this info?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A plain dictionary is fine, it doesn't have to be online. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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.

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 222 (Fennoy...) lacks a last access date.

Fixed ref Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• "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)

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)

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 01:02, 5 November 2009 [23].

---

Battle of Yarmouk

Nominator(s): الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... The article apparently seem perfect to be a featured article as it fulfill all the requirements for the same, there has been exhaustive research and editing on this article to make it compatible with the needs of a featured article. The article has been referenced with several Wikipedia:Reliable sources. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - There are numerous "citation needed" tags and several unreferenced paragraphs. The lead is also too short. Recommend withdrawing and renomination once these and any other issues have been addressed, as FAC is not peer review. At a glance, the article has plenty of potential, though; it's just not close to there just yet. Steve Smith (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Since the article is only B class, I would recommend that the article either be nominated as a Good Article candidate or take it to WP:MILHIST's A-Class Review. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • the B class category tag is the old one i think no contributor (including me) really bothered to put it for the nomination as GA and A class aricle. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Right; I agree with MBK004 that taking it through one or both of those processes (with maybe a peer review first) could give you some pointers on how to bring this up to featured article standard. Steve Smith (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • thanks for the advice, i just nominated it for the A class military history articles.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Second Steve Smith that its an article with potential. Second Steve that its the wrong forum, FAC isn't an article workshop. Take to Milhist A then Good Articles first. Article violates WP:MILMOS#SOURCES through primary source use leading to original research and the use of inappropriate tertiaries. The references are completely inconsistent, years are formatted in and out of brackets. Akram lacks page references. Article in The Medieval Review miscited. OUP Pakistan lacks a city. "Khalid ibn al-Walid, Encyclopædia Britannica (2007)." dog doesn't eat dog. Biblio not alpha. Naftziger not in bib. Page number referencing all over the shop. fn8 and thus fn10, 6, 5 are all OR through using primary sources in a history article. Density of citation is insufficient in some places. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Withdrawn by nom: [24]. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the FAC template on the talk page until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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 18:51, 3 November 2009 [25].

---

Kerry slug

Nominator(s): Snek01 (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because 1) previous candidate discussion did last 10 days although it should "lasts two to three weeks". 2) Everything was going good and every requests were fulfilled. 3) I think, that the one who closed the discussion accidentally added "not promoted" instead of "promoted". Snek01 (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no support in the first nomination—articles need both wide declared support and resolution of standing problems to pass. There was an Oppose that still stood in the first review, for example. Now, SandyGeorgia did say it could be re-nom'd "in a week or two"; you clearly have. Still, this nom should only continue after you've resolved (or explain why you shouldn't resolve) the remaining Oppose issues, and any other needed cleanup. If you've done so already, good luck! --an odd name 20:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As was the case with the first application for FA status, the rest of the members of Project Gastropods were not notified that the nominator was about to re-submit the article. I would have attempted to clean up the prose some more if I had known this was about to happen. As it was, it took me by surprise once again. Invertzoo (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: citation style is consistent. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment

• The article was not at FA standard when Sandy archived, and there have been no subsequent edits. Although the article improved considerably at its previous FAC, the changes were largely made by Invertzoo, whereas the nominator tended to argue instead. I suggest that the nominator withdraws the article for two weeks, and works with other contributors (who seemed surprised by the first nom) to get this ready for FAC. This is potentially a good FAC, but the nominator needs to get advice and help to cross the remaining hurdles. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you focus on constructive criticism, please? The fact, that nobody edited the article in last 18 days (since rash adding "not promoted") means, that NOBODY knows what else should be improved (if anything). Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason that I for one did not edit the article during the last 18 days had more to do with the fact that I had no idea what was going on, and thought perhaps the attempt at FA had been given up completely for the foreseeable future. It was not because I thought that nothing needed fixing. Invertzoo (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I am prepared to do some work here and now, as long as they are things that I know how to do. Invertzoo (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments on text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Geomalacus maculosus, please clarify why bolded in lead, this is not normal practice, can you give a link to an MoS or Gastropod project policy?

Scientific name is more important than common name. It is in bold in (nearly all) every 5000 gastropod articles. (Bold scientific name is compatible with bold name in taxobox and usually it is compatible with article name. It is a part of guideline, how to write gastropod articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Taxonomy.) --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• An adult Kerry slug generally measures about don't need both "generally" and "about"

I changed this as suggested, thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• It is an arionid, which means it is a round-backed slug, and shares a lot of suggest It is an arionid, or round-backed slug, and shares many of

I changed this exactly as suggested, thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Kerry slug is in the genus Geomalacus, which literally means "earth mollusc" surely the name of which means... . I'd be inclined to start with The Kerry slug's binomial name is Geomalacus maculosus and explain the words' meanings afterwards.

OK, great, changed that as suggested, thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• It is the only species within the subgenus Geomalacus better to say there are two subgenera first, so we know where we are (especially as the genus and subgenus names are the same)

I change this around, hope it reads better now. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• As it has the same subgeneric name as the generic name, this means it is in the "nominate" subgenus, which means this slug is considered to be typical of the genus. I don't think that is what "nominate" means, please amend wording and give a wikilink to nominate

Took out the dubious wording and put in the wikilink, thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• redundant And as there are no other species within the subgenus, that means there are no other species quite like this one. that's what species means, not subgenus

Took out the dubious phrase. Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• William Andrews - does he need a link?

No, probably not notable. --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Its specific name maculosus means spotted, from the Latin word macula "spot"., - fine, but shouldn't this be with the explanation of the genus name?

It's there now, thanks for the suggestion, Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Color variation Image caption - why suddenly American spelling?

Sorry that's an accidental oversight, that was probably me, I have live in the US for over 30 years. Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Although you have glossed Taylor's "shagreened" and "trifasciate", might read better if just replaced.

Replaced them, and yes it does read better, thank you. Invertzoo (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• The salivary and digestive glands are the same as they are in Arion species Which is? Meaningless as it stands.

I tried to make this read better but we could remove it completely if this is not sufficient. Invertzoo (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Before the reproductive system is described This para could also benefit in places by replacing technical terms rather than glossing, eg the proximal (near) end, why not just near end?

OK, fixed the most obvious ones of these. I previously did a fair bit of work on this section in an attempt to make it less dense and impenetrable, but am reluctant to simplify too many pieces of terminology for fear of removing the correct scientific vocabulary which is very precise and accurate. Invertzoo (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• The mating of this species is described in Platts & Speight (1988). Could you describe it for us please?

This source is unavailable for editors of the article. --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• please check my edits

Very good. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• As first time round, references are riddled with incorrect and inconsistent formatting, I'm disappointed that no effort has been made to fix this before returning to FAC

User:Fifelfoo wrote "consistent". Feel free to improve details by yourself or propose changes/improvements. --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Fifelfoo didn't write "correct". Fifelfoo (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes made so far. With respect to the references, I should point out that I did correct a good deal of the formatting last time around, but nothing further was doen my the nominator. The nominator had the opportunity to sort this before coming back to FAC, but chose not to do so. I am not prepared to put further effort into getting this article to FA if the nominator can't be bothered Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have improved punctuations in references. Is there anything else what could be improved? --Snek01 (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Consistent style for dates, page numbers etc, journals, reports and books all italicised, journal names spelt out, not abbreviated, check for nonsense like (file created 26 February 2008) 2008 9 pp.. Do the reports have authors, year for the reports like the books and journals. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Dates are corrected: these two additional years are deleted.
• Page numbers are unified (one correction made).
• Journals are/were italicized correctly.
• Books are/were italicized correctly.
• Reports are not italicized, which is correct.
• Journal names are not abbreviated and will not be abbreviated.
• Reports have no authors if they are them not written.
• There is not possible to add accessdate in cite conference template for EUNIS.
• All references provide as much as informations as possible. --Snek01 (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• You need to change the citation style refs to cite style for consistency. You don't have to have a Further Reading section, but if you keep some or all of it, you need to format those too and expand abbreviations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Snek, strong arguments have been made above that this article was not ready to be brought back to FAC, because previous issues haven't been addressed; unless other contributors (like Invertzoo) are prepared to move forward here, the FAC should be withdrawn until the work can be completed. FAC is overloaded, we have to avoid having it used as peer review, and if the Project members state that there are still issues and that it wasn't ready to be re-nommed, those issues should be worked off-FAC. Please consult with them and advise. I apologize for not responding to your e-mail, and understand that may be part of the confusion here, but I prefer that FAC business be kept public. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Everybody is prepared to move forward here, of course. At least abide with rules stated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and not delist it too early (at least in this case it was not useful at all). You recommend "Please consult with them and advise." I have consulted with you asked if its time to nominate, but you did not responded at all. Thank you cooperation. --Snek01 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

A note about FAC transparency (and my apology for not responding to the e-mail) here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The FAC instructions are clear that a nom should not be brought back until previous issues are resolved. Please have Invertzoo confirm if s/he is prepared to participate at this time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

1) All previous things ARE resolved. 2) She (and me too) was very surprised that FAC ended (see my talk page). Nobody (although long time wikipedia editors) understands the reason, why was (unreasonably - according to my point of view) FAC ended. --Snek01 (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Nearly all of the images are incorrectly licensed. Copyright term of p.m.a. +70 years (i.e. {{PD-Old}}) is only the test for unpublished works. Published works have different criteria. As, per the sources, these are indeed published, alternative tagging is needed. {{PD-US}} would be appropriate for works published before 1.1.1923, as I believe all of them are. Эlcobbola _talk 15:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

All tags are correct. They are tags from Wikimedia Commons. They are not tags from English wikipedia, as you have linked. All images have added death date of their authors. (And, by the way, they were not published in the USA.) Everything is OK with licensing of them and there are even no alternatives for tags for these images. --Snek01 (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Snek01, ElCobbola is a Commons administrator and a very knowledgeable editor wrt image issues; if he suggests something needs to be resolved, it will be expedient to heed his advice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Being an administrator is not an guarantee of information always. --Snek01 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Commons tags are in all ways germane identical (PD-US vs. {{PD-US}} and PD-Old vs. {{PD-Old}}); the en.wiki versions were linked only as an expedient way to demonstrate the difference. Please read my comment and the PD-US tags critically; the date of the author's death is irrelevant when the work has been published. The PD-US tag doesn't say it must have been published in the US. Эlcobbola _talk 16:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

1) Images are in public domain, this means that LICENSE is OK on every image. 2) You probably wanted to say, that it could be also possible to add tag http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-1923 to the images also. I do not consider it necessary. There is nowhere written that such additional template is necessary and it is written nowhere in guidelines neither at Commons nor at English wikipedia. Theoretically maybe you will find such information somewhere and then add such additional template. --Snek01 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Snek, everyone agrees that the images are in the public domain, but images have to be tagged with an explanation of why they're in the public domain. The tags currently say that they are in the public domain because their creator died at least seventy years ago, but that is not why they are in the public domain, because that rule applies to unpublished works. The reason these works are in the public domain is that they were published before 1923, and that's what the tags should say. Steve Smith (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

On my computer there is this text on image (for example File:Geomalacus maculosus 3.jpg) "This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to the United States, Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years." This IS the reason: "because its copyright has expired" explaining why they are in the public domain. There is nowhere in guideline written that additional tag is necessary (that would be useless). Is the same text on your computer also? --Snek01 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The problem is that the text is incorrect: it's not in the public domain because of the "life of the author plus 70 years" rule, it's in the public domain because of the pre-1923 publication rule. What is required isn't an additional copyright tag, but a different copyright tag, since the current one is incorrect. Steve Smith (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Then improve TEXT of the template. After that I can decide to add a different tag, if it still will be needed. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The template isn't wrong. That template is for unpublished works. These are published, so their term is based on publication, not life of the author. You're welcome to read Title 17 or this "Reader's Digest version". Эlcobbola _talk 18:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The text currently in there comes with that tag, because that tag is intended to be applied to works that are in the public domain by reason of the "life plus seventy" rule, which this one is not. The text on that tag is fine, it's just that that tag doesn't belong on these images. A different tag, with different text, is required here. I don't know how to be any clearer about this. Steve Smith (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have changed PD-old to the PD-old-70. Its OK now in this one image. --Snek01 (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to use {{PD-US}} instead, as {{PD-old-70}} still refers to the life plus seventy rule. Steve Smith (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

1) Link to exact template to be sure what you mean. 2) Alternativelly you can link to a DIFF of your edit and then I will understand or I will explain you what was incorrect with your edit. --Snek01 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Elcobbola did link to the exact template above: commons:Template:PD-US. Steve Smith (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not possible to add because the image is not U.S. work. (That is very annoying to gave such primitive advices to an administrator and to student lawyer). --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, you're correct; the correct template is commons:Template:PD-1923. On another note, please do not strike out reviewers' comments unless they have confirmed that they are resolved. Steve Smith (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If you will find a guideline which states that this additional template is necessary when there already is PD-old-70 template, then it can be added also. --Snek01 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose and suggest speedy archiving. Article does not currently meet 1a or 3, and nominator shows no willingness to acknowledge problems, let alone make any attempt to correct them. When FAC is backlogged, we can do without this. Steve Smith (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please consider, that images are tagged correctly. It was also checked in previous FAC. --Snek01 (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Snek, it has been explained to you ad nauseam why the image tags are not correct. I do not know what else to tell you. Steve Smith (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Snek, US law on copyright expiration is very complicated. This flowchart was created by copyright lawyers to figure it out. Isn't the result of the first decision yes? If not, please apply the decisions in the flowchart to the images in the article and report the path by which you get to “Expires 70 years after author’s death.” —teb728 t c 04:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC) As an example, suppose a work was published in 1925, the author died in 1935, and his heirs renewed the copyright in 1952. The path through the flowchart then is no, yes, yes, yes; so the copyright expires 95 years from publication in 2020—even though the author died 74 years ago. —teb728 t c 05:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your comment. I understand your point of view. I also understand comments and the same point of view of other participants. We together agree what the license of the file is. Then there is the task, what tag or tags will be the best. Files are hosted on Wikimedia Commons and primarily this should be resolved regardless of this FAC. Because if this FAC will be closed, then the problem will stay (from your point of view) unsolved. There are also many other possibilities how to solve this. No party did convinced other party yet. What do you suggest? --Snek01 (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose pending resolution of the criterion three concerns noted above. This is an easily remediable and unambiguous issue. Simply astounding is the senseless combativeness and failure to recognize an untenable position. Эlcobbola _talk 14:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added a note to Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Public_domain_templates . I hope that tags of images be solved soon, so we will be able focus on other points of improvements of the article. I would like to thank to all reviewers for their comments. I would like to especially thank to reviewer Jimfbleak and I will try to focus on improving references, although I do not know how yet. I would like to thank to Invertzoo for improving the style. --Snek01 (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Closer's note I am closing this nomination early because it is obvious that many of the problems that existed in the previous FAC have not been fixed. I strongly encourage the nominator to work closely with the significant contributors of this article, and engage the reviewers as necessary, to identify areas in which the article still needs to be improved. I will remove any further nominations that occur without work having been done on the article. Karanacs (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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 19:23, 3 November 2009 [26].

---

Kala (album)

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I got M.I.A.'s first album to FA some months back, and feel this article is now of comparable quality. I think I've taken care of alt text, reliability and correct formatting of refs, correct licensing of images, etc, so all that remains is for people to pick my prose apart :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Source comments Dabs and links fine. Current refs: What makes this reliable (used three separate times in refs 32, 43, 47)?

• http://s26928.gridserver.com/info/?m=200705
  • It's part of her official site - if you go to http://www.miauk.com (apologies for any retinal damage that may be caused by looking at her website) and then click on "news" it takes you to the blog. To link directly to specific pages for earlier months, though, you have to use the gridserver URLs
    • Fair enough. I am now blind but was wondering why you haven't merged all three refs into one as they all have the same url address. RB88 (T) 13:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Good job. As an aside, I spoke to her on the tube today (no joke). RB88 (T)
• Ref 1 needs an author.
  • Done
• Ref 9's author is Robert Christgau (add it), but then you have to replace either that ref or the MSN Music one as they're written by the same author. The infobox reviews need POV spread.
  • Done - removed double Christgau review and inserted a less favourable one into the infobox
• Ref 16's work is simply Remix.
  • Done
• Ref 53's work is simply Stylus.
  • Done
• Replace ref 74 with this as it's more notable due to being an awarding body.
  • Done
• Replace ref 77 with the official Irish IRMA archive here.
  • Done
• Using the "work. publisher" citing convention has ruined the refs' consistency. Either follow it for all refs or remove it for the ones you've used it on. It also throws up problems with web-only media like PopMatters being italicised.
  • All done now, I think, let me know if I missed any or got any wrong......

Other comments

• WP:CHARTS limits the amounts of chart positions to 10 charts and 8 auxiliary charts. Remove some in the list.
  • Done
• Try and put the Personnel section in two columns for enhanced readability.
  • Done

RB88 (T) 20:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your comments, I have addressed some and will get to the rest tomorrow, as right now the wife's badgering me to get off the computer and give her a foot rub :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Some more done now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
    • All done now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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 19:23, 3 November 2009 [27].

---

Joey Hamilton

Nominator(s): Giants27(c|s) 17:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because prior to the first FAC it underwent a peer review by Brianboulton (talk · contribs) and Finetooth (talk · contribs). It also underwent a review by DoubleBlue (talk · contribs) (here). Following the FAC, Giants2008 (talk · contribs) reviewed it on the talk page. Finally, 66.213.50.2 (talk · contribs) peer reviewed it very recently. Thus, after five reviews before and after the FAC, I believe it is ready to become a Featured Article. Thanks, Giants27(c|s) 17:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.thebaseballcube.com
  • http://www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/?l_id=48&t_id=793&id=3019360
  • http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2009/01/12/theres-not-always-next-year-for-these-hall-of-fame-candidates/

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Baseball Cube, is uneditable by the public (however you can send them an e-mail telling them about any inaccuracies) so I am of the belief that it's reliable. While Our Sports Central is fully reliable since it doesn't have any random blogger speaking their mind, it's simply an organization that reports on minor league sports. Finally, Fanhouse is usually unreliable however there are numerous writers who are not your random person and actually have a history with major publications. The author of that particular article won some writing award in 2004 or so, which in my opinion makes that particular article reliable.--Giants27(c|s) 17:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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 18:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

After a look, I couldn't find anything that proves my belief that they're reliable for the Baseball Cube and Our Sports Central, thus I replaced them with more reliable sources. However, I have kept the FanHouse ref because although it is called a "blog", it is owned by AOL and the writer along with others have received accolades for their work, which IMO shows accuracy.--Giants27(c|s) 18:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave the fanhouse out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Image review, or lack thereof: No free images to use? Did you try looking through Flickr and possibly emailing some of the copyright holders to see if they will change their license? NW (Talk) 19:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I do recognize there is an issue with it having no images. However, I've looked through Flickr a few times since I started work back in May, however the resulting image is copyrighted and out of focus and because of this, I opted to not contact the author about releasing it under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.--Giants27(c|s) 19:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment – No dabs present. Will offer a full review if there's ever a time that I'm not swamped in real life. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Hamilton had stints in training camp and the minor leagues which included some of the Padres and Reds affilates." Didn't like the way this read when I first saw it, and I think I know why. Try changing "which included" to "with" and put an apostrophe at the end of Reds, and this will be better.
  • Done.--Giants27(c|s) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• "Hamilton became eligible for election in the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2009". "in" (first use) → "to".
  • Done.--Giants27(c|s) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Early life: "He attended Statesboro High School in Statesboro, Georgia." The previous sentence says he was from Statesboro, and it should be clear enough that there's where the high school was. Consider dropping the last two words for tighter prose.
  • Done.--Giants27(c|s) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• I see some overlinking in the early part of the body. Basic words like elbow and sue do not need links, which can clutter up the text if overused.
  • Looked through and removed the links from those occurances, but other than Driving under the influence (which I kept for now), I didn't see any that should be de-linked.--Giants27(c|s) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• "He was elected to the Georgia Southern University sports hall of fame in 1997." From reading the source, it looks like the official title is the Georgia Southern University Athletics Department Hall of Fame. If so, I'd imagine that should be used in the article.
  • Done.--Giants27(c|s) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• San Diego Padres: "but ended winning the game 6–3 after Phil Clark hit a three run home run." Missing "up", and there should be a hyphen in "three run".
  • Done.--Giants27(c|s) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• In the next sentence, remove the space after the dash in the win–loss record.
  • Done.--Giants27(c|s) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• "In his fourth year in San Diego in 1997". Try "In 1997, his fourth year in San Diego".
  • Done.--Giants27(c|s) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Disabled list would be good to link to, since non-baseball fans won't immediately know what that is.
  • Done.--Giants27(c|s) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• "There was a rumored trade around the 1998 MLB trade deadline that would have sent Hamilton to the Detroit Tigers but the trade never materialized." This is an example of redundant phrasing, with three "trade"s in a single sentence. Try making the third one "it", as in "but it never materialized".
  • Done.--Giants27(c|s) 00:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Should the "game one"s and such be changed to "Game 1" etc.?
  • I'm not really sure, I'm not opposed to either but just looking at it, "Game 1" looks better than "game one".--Giants27(c|s) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Will look at the rest later. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• • After San Diego: "Once again in 2000" reads like he started the season in Syracuse multiple times that year, not for the second time in his career (the intention). A prose tweak will be needed here and at the start of the next paragraph ("For the first time in 2001").
    • Done.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I think the year should be given somewhere in the sentences, unlike in the changed version. I just didn't like the wording when I first read it. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Final years: move the Cincinnati Reds link to the previous section, unless there's already one there that I'm missing. In situations where wikilinks are appropriate, it's usually best to provide them on the first possible use.
    • Done.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comma after "and optioned him to their Triple-A affiliate", and another after "Hamilton appeared in 11 games with the Beavers".
    • Done.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Not sure if I mentioned this before, but consider removing italics from reference publishers that aren't printed publications, such as Georgia Southern University.
    • Done.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Giants2008 (17–14) 22:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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 19:23, 3 November 2009 [28].

---

Anna Anderson

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A notorious imposter who lept into a canal to kill herself, ran around naked on a Park Avenue roof, and spent time in an asylum, believed by some to be Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia (also a featured article). DrKiernan (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC) amended 09:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: At my FAC I was told I could put all my inline citations at the end of their sentence if I wanted. I think this would be a good idea for you, particularly with the last line of the lead. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Image review:
  • File:Botkin,Gleb.jpg — who created the image?
• Others are fine. Stifle (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The uploader claims to have taken it in 1959 or 1960 when "I visited him and his wife Nadine at their little home in the Russian colony of Oceanside, New Jersey."[29] DrKiernan (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, that's fine then. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. The lead image's alt text should briefly say what Anderson looks like; this is obvious to the sighted reader who can see the image, but a visually impaired reader currently is given no clue. Eubulides (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am unable to find a reliable source which describes her appearance, except in relation to someone else's features (i.e. "her nose is more prominent than Anastasia's", or "her eyes are the same colour as Anastasia's"). DrKiernan (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As WP:ALT#Verifiability says, you don't need a reliable source merely to describe what's in an image, as the image verifies its own description. Obviously the alt text can't say "she looks like Anastasia!" but it can say what the image looks like. I wrote something. I noticed my edit was the first in more than a week: I hope the article's not frozen or anything. Eubulides (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No further comment, so I guess my draft alt text is good enough. By the way, I forgot to thank you for writing the alt text for the other images: thanks! Eubulides (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! DrKiernan (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes http://www.serfes.org/royal/rememberingannaanderson.htm a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not especially keen on that reference, and tried (unsuccessfully) to remove it. However, it is written by John Godl, who also wrote an article on Anderson for the "European Royal History Journal" (reference number 3 in the article). So, if you consider that a reliable source, then Godl would count as an "acknowledged expert". I do not believe that the "European Royal History Journal" is a peer-reviewed academic journal, though I could be wrong, but the editor does claim to have a degree in history,[30] to only publish "serious and thoughtful research"[31], and is independent of Godl (and so a third-party). Godl's article is critiqued by Peter Kurth (who wrote the most substantial biography of Anderson) on his website: http://www.peterkurth.com/anna-anastasia.htm. So, that would perhaps count as "academic discourse". I think it is hard to argue that Godl is not a reliable source, given that he has published in the area and his work is criticised by others working on this subject. If your query relates to whether Archimandrite Serfes is a reliable publisher, then I can only say that he is a priest, and independent of Godl, so it would appear that he is (though not a professional one). I realise that some editors may consider this source to be on the border of acceptable, but I have a hard time coming up with a valid reason to reject it. DrKiernan (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but while it may meet the minimum requirements for WP:V, I'm not sure it meets the higher FA requirement. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering other academics are responding to this piece, it seems important to include, although it would be nice to find independent verification for the following information: Five years after the original testing was done, Dr. Terry Melton of the Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, stated that the DNA sequence tying Anderson to the Schanzkowska family was "still unique", though the database of DNA patterns at the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory had grown much larger, leading to "increased confidence that Anderson was indeed Franziska Schanzkowska". Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. This complicated narrative is clearly told - well done! The article is well-written, thoroughly researched, and comprehensive. I do have some minor suggestions:

• I wonder if the lead goes into too much detail about the DNA testing in the third paragraph.
• I'm curious how you decided on the naming scheme used in the article. While I had no trouble following the name changes for Anderson, I'm wondering if it could confuse others.
• I, Anastasia: An autobiography with notes by Roland Krug von Nidda translated from the German by Oliver Coburn, London: Michael Joseph, 1958 - Needs an author
• Clarke, William (2008), Romanoff Gold: The Lost Fortune of the Tsars, The History Press, - Needs a publication location
• Lovell, James Blair (1991), Anastasia: The Lost Princess, Robson Books, - Needs a publication location

Thank you for working on this! Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Added the locations. I'm uncomfortable adding an author to I, Anastasia: there isn't one listed on the edition I'm using (1958). I think one is just supposed to infer that Anastasia wrote it. Modern editions give the author as Anna Anderson, though it was actually ghost-written in her name. The naming scheme came about because I decided that if one introduces her as "Anderson" in the first section the article loses some of its dramatic impetus. I think introducing her as an unknown helps to carry the story along. DrKiernan (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Images, part two
  • File:Kszenyija Georgijevna of Russia.jpg needs a reliable source to establish that it was taken in 1920.
  • File:Ingrid Bergman and Yul Brynner in Anastasia trailer.jpg needs a video (preferably something on Youtube, for example), to establish that it was indeed published without a copyright claim. NW (Talk) 01:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It costs £5 to search the online catalog of de Laszlo's work at http://www.delaszloarchivetrust.com/, so I haven't looked there! I have added a reference to a brief note in a print publication. The portrait looks like contemporary photos of Xenia published in Kurth's biography.
    • I've added a youtube link. DrKiernan (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This article has had some fine, excellent work and represents a major tribute to scholastic overhauling. However, before it explodes on the Wikiworld scene of spectacular articles, I suggest-- as I have continuously done-- that the article's grammar and structure be streamlined. I have read high school term essays that read better than this article. With that one bit of editing, this article would indeed be exemplary. Hopefully, some of the inputters here would not be shy about reading and posting comments at the talk page! It is NOT a controversial subject!76.195.81.239 (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you make some specific suggestions for what to improve? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions?--I could and I did, several times, at the talk page. But I wish to point out here that with user DrKiernan hogging all work in progress, those suggestions really don't matter, unless some admins come and read for themselves.76.195.81.239 (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see that many comments with regard to the prose. Considering the accusation you made above regarding high school essays, you should have no problem pointing out a litany of problems. However, there is no such list anywhere. If you can make one, I'm sure we would all be grateful, as it would only improve the writing of the article. With regards to your contention that DrKiernan is "hogging" the work, you should be aware that as the nominator of this article, s/he is supposed to respond to all the issues raised here and most articles that are brought to FAC have a "primary contributor" that does the majority of the work. Also, you should know that admins have nothing to do with this process. Thanks again! Awadewit (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Awadewit, this IP editor is a former account who invoked right to vanish after his disruptive edits drew the attention of administrators. Typical posts include: [32] [33] and User talk:76.195.82.162. I do not consider his objections to the prose either justifiable or actionable. DrKiernan (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, DrK. I didn't know. Awadewit (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.