Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archive 1
archive 5
Line 1: Line 1:
== December 2009 ==
== December 2009 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arrow (missile)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/School Rumble/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Davenport, Iowa/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cavalera Conspiracy/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Chinese Restaurant/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Union Avenue Historic Commercial District/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Union Avenue Historic Commercial District/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Fifi/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Fifi/archive1}}

Revision as of 16:43, 5 December 2009

December 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 16:43, 5 December 2009 [1].

Arrow (missile)

Nominator(s): Flayer (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it is the last step of promoting this article and I hope it meets the criteria. Flayer (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

--an odd name (help honey) 02:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Prose needs some work: in the lead: "funded and produced by Israel and the United States, development of the system began in 1986 and has continued since, drawing some contested criticism.", later "Once again a missile malfunction resulted in the abortion of the experiment." - these are just examples. "hermetic defense" if a standard term needs explaining. Virtually all the sourcing seems to be from Israeli sources or US government ones. It seems unlikely the system has not been discussed elsewhere. Has the programme been discussed in Congress? Frankly mostly pretty boring to read, but seems comprehensive on the technical side. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:43, 5 December 2009 [2].

School Rumble

Nominator(s): 陣内Jinnai 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The article has undergone several external assessments and a major copyedit.陣内Jinnai 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Technical comments

  • No dab links, but refs 68 and 72 and the first external link are all dead.
  • "2004=2005"—should this be 2004–2005 (with an en dash) or was this intentional (like the Lucky Star star)?
    • First assumption was right.
  • Ref dates are all Month Day, Year, except for a few Day Month Year dates in "Other related media" and maybe other places.
    • Checked there and elsewhere and found them all to be MDY.
  • All images have alt text. The cover's alt should be obvious from viewing the image alone, though—I suggest you replace Tenma and Harima's names with descriptions of the characters, and maybe describe the text on (and appearance of) the cover as well, to meet that. Otherwise, they have no obvious errors. (added on 22:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

Other comments

  • I wonder if Kobayashi intended "School Ramble" (with an a) instead of "Rumble". It would make vastly more sense, and one source in the article is spelled "Ramble". Do any sources discuss the spelling?
  • I see sales data for the manga. Is there such data for the anime? (Inspired mainly by your review at Talk:New Cutie Honey/GA1—here I turn the tables a bit *wink*)

--an odd name 22:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for now. I will probably add more later since I'm skimming really fast. —Arsonal (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any particular reason why the infobox image isn't using a cover image of the first Japanese manga volume?
  • First TV anime infobox section: extraneous closing bracket after "Revelation films", whose "f" should be capitalized.
  • Media/Manga: Is it necessary to provide the Japanese name for Weekly Shōnen Magazine if it already has an article?
    • Removed it. I think it was originally added for consistency with the other publications.
  • Media/Anime: In the image, "Initial D" should be italicized. "Azumanga Diaoh" is a misspelling.
  • Media/Other related media: Add a comma after "July 21, 2005". Remove comma after "It was later reissued". "Famitsu" should be italicized and linked as Famitsū.
  • Reception and sales/Anime: Italicize foreign words like shōnen and shōjo.

Comments by Extremepro (talk · contribs)

  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: favorite (A) (British: favourite), mustache (A) (British: moustache), recognise (B) (American: recognize), criticize (A) (British: criticise), fulfilment (B) (American: fulfillment), sceptic (B) (American: skeptic).

Note: This comment is from User:AndyZ's peer review script. Extremepro 22:59, 20 Nov 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 16:43, 5 December 2009 [3].

Davenport, Iowa

Nominator(s): CTJF83 chat 01:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked really hard over the last 2 years to improve it. The article was not promoted at the last FAC, 366 days ago, and I have done extensive work since then to improve the article. I believe the article meets the FA criteria. CTJF83 chat 01:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments by an odd name (help honey)

  • No dab links, but the external link for ref 40 (a davenportone.com PDF) is dead (goes to main page).
  • Most images have alt text, but...
    • The infobox images are missing alts. The four big ones need it; the two small flags do not.
    • "A large f-story red brick building with many windows"—is "f-story" a technical term, or did you mean "four-story"?
  • Speaking of four, spell out small (0–9) numbers.
    • Is it possible to spell out the numbers in the {{convert}} template? It didn't work for me CTJF83 chat 08:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't worry about those cases: "Measurements, stock prices, and other quasi-continuous quantities are normally stated in figures, even when the value is a small positive integer", says the guideline. I mainly meant the alt text, which still has a few (like "A row of 3 older buildings"). --an odd name 10:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--an odd name 01:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support on 1b and 4—the article isn't too long, and deals with all the stuff I'd expect a city article to in good detail, and separates large parts to other articles. You mention food a bit in "Events and festivals"; comparing this and New York City, I suppose more could be added about cuisine, if they have some distinctive food of their own. (See also discussion on my talk page.) --an odd name (help honey) 00:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2c
Refdates are consistent YYYY-MM-DD
Corporate Authored Works should list their corporate author in shortcites, shortcites which shorten titles should only do so at the subtitle indicator (a colon, or semi-colon.) In relation to: Historic Preservation in Davenport, Iowa; which should read, "Plan and Zoning Commission, Historic preservation in Davenport, Iowa for inclusion in the Davenport Comprehensive Plan"
Manual short citations should end with a full-stop (en_US:period) to match fullcites in the footnotes
Please check all your newspaper articles for by-lines, and indicate the author if a by-line exists.
In general, please check your web references for authors. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by your points that start with Corporate, and Manual, please explain more. I fixed the other two. CTJF83 chat 08:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. When a work is authored by a corporate entity, like a government, government department, company, etc, for example by the "Plan and Zoning Commission," it is usual to treat the corporate entity as the author of the work. So |author=Plan and Zoning Commission
Where you provide a short citation, for example, "Svendsen, p. 82" the citation does not end with a period. When you provide a long citation, for example, "Doxsie, Don (1994-07-31). "Q-C race has grown from a humble beginning into one of the nation's most spectacular events". Quad-City Times. Retrieved 2009-09-22." the citation ends with a period. Its a matter of stylistic choice if you go for "no periods" "periods only for long cites" "periods for all". (A short citation is a citation where the work is referenced in full in the bibliography, and you provide minimal identifying material, a longcite is when you provide the citation in full in the footnotes).
Does that help? Fifelfoo (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think so....so I need to choose if all citations get a period, just long, or just short? For example are you saying, citation 32 should be changed to "Plan and Zoning Commission, p. 19." with changing the "author" and adding the period after 19? CTJF83 chat 10:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'd suggest. The full stop at the end is a style issue only, as long as you're consistent with whatever choice you make. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also check that your webcitations aren't really other works, say, newspaper articles, with a signed author? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Just a general picky thing, but you're a bit confused about what a publisher is. It's not "Quad City Memory" but "Davenport Public Library" that publishes the work that's entitled "Quad City Memory". Same for "weather.com" which is the work, and the publisher is "Weather Channel", similarly throughout. It's not worth an oppose, but it makes it much harder to check sources for reliablity when the two things are confused.
  • NOAA or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration? Need to be consistent in how you refer to entities throughout.
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
  • : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All concerns fixed. CTJF83 chat 21:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else see further issues? --an odd name 23:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In my opinion, there are significant 1a, 1b, and 1c issues with this article.

  • The lead is not a good summary of the article per WP:LEAD - major sections of the article, such as the "Geography" and "Demographics" are skipped over.
  • The "History" section is sourced primarily to a timeline and a pictorial history. This has created a "factoid" effect. Each paragraph is about a small incident in the town's history, but the section does not convey the overarching history of the town or the town's place in Iowa history. For example, an entire paragraph is devoted to a steamboat crash and another to an orphanage, but neither explain why these are crucial to the development of the town. Later in the article, there is a passing reference to the German immigrants that settled the town, but no mention is made of this in the "History" section. There is a lot of information published on German immigration to Iowa. For example, see this book, which even has an essay specifically about Davenport in it.
  • What about the political history of the town? I think more needs to be added on that either in the "History" or the "Government" section.
  • The first chiropractic school in the world, Palmer College of Chiropractic, was founded in 1897 - I expected to hear more about this school in the "Education" section but did not. Also, this detail seems more appropriate for the "Education" section than the "Geography" section.
  • The prose also needs some work. There are two primary problems with it: 1) repetition; 2) stiltedness. Let me give two examples to highlight what I am talking about. A good copyeditor will need to go through the article and work on it to fix these problems.
  • Ex: There are six public intermediate schools and twenty-two public elementary schools. Phebe Sudlow was the first female public school superintendent in the United States.[81] She was superintendent for Davenport schools from 1874–1878. There are also six private kindergarten-through-eighth-grade schools. - The fact about the first female school superintendent is jarring and the reader does not understand why it is being introduced during the description of Davenport's schools. Note how the paragraph returns to describing the number of schools in the town after this random fact. You need to find a way to gracefully introduce this interesting fact.
She is mentioned at the end of the public schools section on it, being she was a principal and superintendent of the public schools. It then goes on to the private schools, which is a different "section" then the public schools. CTJF83 chat 22:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ex: Davenport has a variety of neighborhoods dating back to the 1840s.[27] The city can be divided into five areas for neighborhoods: Downtown, central, east end, near north and northwest, and west end. The neighborhoods contain many architectural designs, including Victorian, Queen Anne, Tudor Revival, and others.[28] Many of the original neighborhoods were inhabited by German settlers.[27] The original city plot was around current day Ripley and 5th Streets, where Antoine LeClaire had built his house. Housing is among the most affordable in the nation. - The whole paragraph sounds repetitious since the word "neighborhood" appears at the beginning of almost every sentence. Also, the paragraph doesn't flow very well - each sentence is a contained unit rather than leading the reader into the next one. For example, we begin with history and then return to it later. The last two sentences have nothing to do with one another. This kind of problem contributes to the stilted nature of the writing - the reader is jerked back and forth between topics.
  • Davenport is believed to be protected from tornadoes by a blessing from a "mass mound", similar to an altar. - This is sourced to an opinion piece. We need to find a better source, as opinion pieces are not as reliable as history books. Find a description of local history and use it to explain the mound story.
  • This is a tourism website. I do not think this is a high-quality source, particularly to describe the geography of the area.
  • This source does not support the following statement in the article: "Davenport is the headquarters for department store Von Maur, which has twenty-two stores in nine states."
  • This source does not support the following statement in the article: "Together the facilities have 665 beds.[87] The hospitals employ more than 600 physicians and 5,000 staff members" - Notice that the website says "Our affiliates bring together more than 665 licensed beds, 600 physicians, 5,000 staff members and hundreds of volunteers to serve our community." - The "affiliates" constitute more than the hospitals, I think.
  • This is not a high-quality source for the birthplace of Cody.
  • The "References" need places of publication.

Because more research needs to be done and the "History" section needs to be entirely rewritten (not just copyedited), I would suggest withdrawing this article from FAC and working on these issues without the pressure of the candidacy. Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:43, 5 December 2009 [4].

Cavalera Conspiracy

Nominator(s): Cannibaloki 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... After follow the rituals presented at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, I decided to nominate this article. To reach here, this article passed for a GA review (conducted by user:Maclean25), and then a peer review, where it received a copy-edit, done by user:Finetooth. I am willing to fix [any?] possible problems that the reviewers find.--Cannibaloki 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

  • No dab links or dead external links.
  • All images have alt text. Make sure that the text would be obvious from seeing the image alone—I think "four members of a musical ensemble", for example, should be changed (they could be from different groups or even all solo, unless we read the article!). How about "Photomontage of four male musicians. Each man appears in a separate column." for the first alt?
  • Ref dates are consistent Day Month Year.

--an odd name 17:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the text, take a look please. Is in this way?--Cannibaloki 19:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. --an odd name 20:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeWeak support - 'weak' mainly because of my unfamiliarity with the sources and content in this area. If this article did not represent a comprehensive survey of the relevant literature, I wouldn't know :-) Suggest the second para of the lead be shortened to stick to major facts. Otherwise now looking OK i think. hamiltonstone (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:I haven't generally commented on articles about bands / singers etc, so this is not input from a topic expert at all. I thought this article appeared unbalanced. Entire article text is under the heading 'History'. That looks wrong, and not everything is historical material. The article needs a separate section on musical style etc. Also a section on critical reception, of which there appears to be nothing at all. The article's entire content on impact, style, lyrics, etc appears to be as follows: "...peaking at number 72 on the Billboard 200, selling more than 9,000 copies during its first week in stores.[7] The album blends elements of punk rock and hardcore punk, Sepultura's thrash metal of Arise (1991) and the groove metal of Chaos A.D. (1993),[1][6][8] with its lyrical concept taken from movies Apocalypse Now, City of God, A Clockwork Orange, and La Haine." Surely more would be needed than this for an FA on a band?

The content that has been written is generally well prepared and referenced, but I would not have seen this as close to FA at present. Happy to have a discussion here, though. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doing... Please, next time give examples (ie. like article X or Y).--Cannibaloki 15:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Agreeing with your comment above, I expanded the article into a new section entitled Style, lyrics and reception.--Cannibaloki 06:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased to see the style etc section introduced. That's better. More comments:
  • Is the guy's name Igor or Iggor? Both spellings are used on different occasions.
  • Lead needs to be more balanced - too much space taken up on formation of the band; no space devoted to critical reception.
  • Image review - Images check out. Awadewit (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, I think there's a problem with the images. The montage includes images sourced from File:Cavalera Conspiracy 004.jpg, File:Cavalera Conspiracy 005.jpg and File:Cavalera Conspiracy 013.jpg. According to the tags on Commons, the files were taken from a Flickr account operated by Flickr user Eurockéennes de Belfort. All three images - here, here and here are clearly marked as copyrighted (as are all of the Flickr user's submissions). This looks like a Commons error, and I'll be tagging those as copyvios, but the upshot is that File:Cavalera Conspiracy.jpg is also non-free and will be tagged as well. The image is therefore, even if transferred to Wikipedia, non-free and speedy deletable as a copyvio as well as failing WP:NFCC#1 as the images of living people are replaceable. Black Kite 18:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps the Flickr user has changed the license.--Cannibaloki 19:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If Flickr has a "View licensing history" feature that illustrates past license changes, this would be less of a problem. (Of course, the Flickr user should be asked to clarify or relicense.) --an odd name 19:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Possibly, but given that the images in the Flickr collection - which is run by the Eurorockennes festival - were not taken by one person, but a collection of photographers (some professional), I would be very surprised if any of them were ever anything but copyrighted. This isn't the first time - by a long way - that Flickr images that have been marked as "checked" on Commons have turned out to be copyrighted, though. I note that the images were never checked by a human, but by a bot, which has caused issues in the past. Black Kite 19:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I just assumed that the licenses had changed since the check - I was unaware that there had been problems with Flickr checking on Commons. I had been relying on that for image checks. Could you please leave a detailed explanation on my talk page of the problems with Flickr checking? And thank you for bringing this up. Awadewit (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Everything just about fine. If you're going to include work and publisher, do it for all or none. As it stands, some are non-uniform with others. RB88 (T) 23:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now, using only the field "work".--Cannibaloki 02:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article may have received a copyedit, but it is badly in need of another one. There is an improper comma in the very first sentence. (Can you find it?) There is a major failure of explication in the very first paragraph. (What contract with Max Cavalera's wife? Was she the band's agent? Manager? Lawyer? Promoter?) There is a substantial failure of focus in that very same sentence: This is an article about Cavalera Conspiracy, not Sepultura. Why do we need to know in the lead of an article on Cavalera Conspiracy that Sepultura broke up "after a sold-out show at London's Brixton Academy"? ("After a London concert" or even nothing at all would be sufficient.) Please, go to the Guild, get a serious copyeditor to do a serious copyedit on this article, and I'll be happy to revisit. DocKino (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:43, 5 December 2009 [5].

The Chinese Restaurant

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I think this meets the FA criteria. This is the third Seinfeld season two episode I'm nominating for FAC, both previous episode articles have not been promoted (yet). Mostly because nobody seems interested enough to review them. Hopefully, as this is considered a "classic episode", reviewers will come in greater numbers. Thank you.--Music26/11 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

--an odd name 20:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - The sole image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd like to see an image for this article's infobox; something like this. With that image, you can have a rationale for "Hong's performance became one of his most famous roles in the United States" or "The plot was believed by NBC to be nonexistent and uninteresting to viewers, which the crew vehemently denied" or even "The very simple and generally nonexistent storyline for the episode was praised by critics, who believed it help define the series' "show about nothing" concept."
  • The fact that you prefer an image in an article like this (a TV episode article that is) is understandable, but I believe other users will critize an image such as the one you propose. The thing is (based on experience with other FACs) most reviewers only think an image is neccesary when whatever the picture depicts can't be explained in words; for instance the image you used on your first FA, you can see in the image what is explained in the caption, in other words, you can see the design of the Electro character. The thing is, the image you propose, as well as any other image, would be considered redundant as it doesn't add anything; we don't have any info regarding the set of the episode or the clothes the characters wore or something like that. That's why I believe an image will be critized by other reviewers. Sorry for the length ;).--Music26/11 18:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Richard's quote, please decapitalize "restaurant" as it implies he's referring to the episode's title, not the plot.
  • As this article's references show "Inside looks" on the episode are available on the DVD, I'd suggest removing the instance that is wasn't from Seinfeld (season 2).
  • Throughout the article, a citation used is the DVD feature "Inside Looks - The Chinese Restaurant." On the season 2 page, it is said that the feature is not available for the episode. It doesn't truly pertain to the article itself, but when viewing it one is bound to read the season page, which gives false info on one of the article's sources. Is that a bit clearer? The Flash {talk} 19:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Michael Mitz portrayed the man who is on the phone when George tries to call Tatiana, Mitz would return[...]" -> "[...]to call Tatiana; Mitz would return[...]"
  • "[...]he is sitting by the door of the restaurant at the beginning of the episode, he is still sitting at the same spot when Jerry, George and Elaine leave." -> "[...]the beginning of the episode and is later still[...]"

Support: My issues have been taken care of; I believe the article now meets FA criteria. The Flash {talk} 21:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sources fine. Great little article. Nicely researched and written. RB88 (T) 23:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support its very nicely done, also remember to review my FLC Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Family Guy cast members/archive1--Pedro J. the rookie 16:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note; involved reviewers should indicate so i their declarations; Pedro J. passed this artilce at GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but the prose doesn't meet 1a standards. Please solicit a copyeditor for assistance. Here are some example problems from the lead and the Plot section. Sasata (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Unable to get a table they hang around and talk" Is idiomatic English considered good prose for an encyclopedia?
Loiter? Sasata (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...George tries to use the phone that is constantly occupied..." is a phone occupied? (changed)
  • "It was not until David treatened to quit" typo (fixed)
  • "Television critics reacted positively to the episode, which went on to become one of the show's first classic episodes; in 1998, a South Florida Sun-Sentinel critic wrote that the episode, along with the season four episode..." Did anyone notice this sentence has the word "episode" four times? (cut down to two)
  • "Jerry, George and Elaine decide to get dinner without reservations..." Needs rephrasing, as the phrase "without reservation" has a meaning that is not the one intended here. (done)
  • Chinese restaurant is a dab (I delinked it - so generic as to be of little use I think)
  • "George is nervous about his girlfriend Tatiana, whom he left during sexual intercourse because he needed to use the washroom due to an upset stomach and worried that the size of her apartment did not allow for him to have enough privacy to avoid making it obvious as to what he was doing in the washroom." This run-on monster sentence needs help. (reverted back to old plot)
  • "...but a man (Michael Mitz) occupies the phone" again the phone becomes "occupied" (fixed)
  • "Jerry notices a woman (Judy Kain) whom he recognizes," whom should be who, but why not just leave the word out? (good idea. done)
  • "Elaine approaches a table and tells them her friends would give her $50 to eat one of their egg rolls and she was willing to give them $25 of it." The first "them" in this sentence has not been clarified; "she was willing" verb tense is not consistent with the rest of the section. (done tense) (explained 'them')
  • "When he is finally able to call Tatiana, he gets her answering machine" how does he "get" it (i.e. it's idiomatic) (better now?)
  • "Jerry remembers she's his uncle's receptionist." contractions are to be avoided (done)
  • "Realizing his cover is blown" idiomatic (to has been caught out)
  • "In his explanation, Jerry makes a reference to the Bermuda Triangle stating: "Unfortunately nobody ever disappears!". Haven't given enough context for readers to appreciate why this quote is humorous. (reverted back to old plot)
  • "Jerry, George and Elaine both agree to leave." Both implies two. (done)

(ec) Ok, I'm striking my oppose as these two sections read much better now, and the remaining two aren't as problematic. The overall prose still doesn't qualify as brilliant or professional (imho of course), hence my reluctance to support. Sasata (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to do whatever you want, and I respect your opinion ;). The two remaining issues have been fixed, thanks for striking the oppose.--Music26/11 12:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments good timing Sasata, I'd just done some copyediting and considered some of the same issues. Strike out if I do some :)
As well as the prose, I wonder about comprehensiveness - the show about nothing theme, did David cite any influences? Also interesting comparing this sort of story with various curb your enthusiasm episodes...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find any sources, be my guest.--Music26/11 15:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have looked and didn't find anything else, I am satisfied, as I wouldn't know where to start. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find anything to expand the production section, there were a few reviews (mostly just pass-on mentions as an example of the show's format), but I did not add them as I felt the section is fine as it is now. I'll see if I can find some comparisons between the ep and CYE, though I wouldn't know where to put it.--Music26/11 19:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It'd sorta be a legacy-type thing, so maybe at the end (?). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall...wavering on supporting - it's okay, I massaged the prose a fair bit and nothing stands out as a drop-dead deal-breaker. Some extra context might be helpful but not a deal-breaker if none exists. Interesting read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs copy-editing Just a brief scan-through of the article revealed something almost immediately to me—the word "episode" is used an astonishingly large number of times. 42 to be exact—7 in the lead, 22 in Production, and 13 in Reception (this excluding the infobox and references). Please audit throughout the article for oft-repeated words and redundancy.—indopug (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decreased. The word is still used in the article, if you have any ideas to replace the words, be my guest. Also, finding a copy-editor is quite hard (in my opinion), I frequently contact participants at he GOCE, but rarely get a reply and I find listing the article usually takes too much time for FAc.--Music26/11 17:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs on prose and comprehensiveness grounds.

  • Tatiana calls back, but the maitre d' calls "Cartwright" instead of "Costanza". - these two halves of the sentence don't appear to go together....I think we are missing a tidbit somewhere
  • The plot section really ought to repeat the wikilinking and full names of the main characters and include the names of the actors (not everyone reads the lead)
  • The prose needs work.
    • Be more specific please.--Music26/11 17:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are significant grammer issues - missing words, misspelled words/wrong tense, punctuation problems. I fixed a few of these in the lead but see them throughout the article.
      • I have no problem with you saying this, but if you fixed the issues you saw, why didn't you fix the one that are left? I mean, if you say there are more, where are they?--Music26/11 17:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a lot of repetition. Examples: directed by Tom Cherones, who directed all of season two's episodes. and As the episode took place in only one location, it took less time than other episodes to be filmed.[5] Cast members have remarked that the filming was shorter than on any other episode, as it took roughly half of the time it usually took.
  • In the original draft the three friends also discussed how to prevent the events in the future - what events?
  • David's voice can be heard - this is right after a sentence about David Tress, so I'm confused as whether this means him or Larry David.
  • Have you exhausted scholarly sources rather than just newspapers? The following may be useful [6] [7] [8]
  • The episode is also discussed in this book [9] and this book [10] discusses the theme of Seinfeld characters being confined someplace

Karanacs (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The prose issues I've listed are only examples of problems I see throughout the article. I had intended to fix them until I saw that is was pervasive. I strongly encourage you to find an independent copyeditor. Also, please specify why the sources aren't useful? Have you been able to access them in full? Karanacs (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, two copy-editors have done their on the article. Second, I'm not sure of the first source because I think there's some kind of accesslink I'm missing, but the other two sources simply do not contain enough information.--Music26/11 05:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:49, 3 December 2009 [11].

Union Avenue Historic Commercial District

Nominator(s): Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it represents a good portion of Southern Colorado history including national events and figures. It is well written and follows the guidelines for sourcing, pictures and has no ongoing edit wars. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose and suggest withdrawal. Article has a cleanup template, bare URLs as refs, sources of questionable reliability/quality (e.g. http://www.bstreetbash.com/), awkward writing (e.g. "originally part of South Pueblo, a small city until incorporated into Pueblo which combined South Pueblo, Central Pueblo, Pueblo and Bessemer into one municipality"), grammar issues (e.g. missing comma in "Bat Masterson, best known for his association with Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday was brought"), image with questionable provenence (File:Union Depot, Pueblo, CO.jpg) and appears to be the result of purely online research (a notable, century-old business district has no print sources? Was Noel, Thomas Jacob (1997). Buildings of Colorado Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195090764, for example, consulted? It appears to discuss Union Depot and may contain background on the district. If the depot is "a prominent building in the district", why does it receive no discussion? Surely architecture is relevant; is there a comprehensiveness issue?) Эlcobbola talk 16:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't expect to be able to improve the article much more myself, I'm curious — what can I do to improve the image? I don't see how the image is affected by matters covered at provenance, but perhaps I'm missing something. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The description says the photo is "by Einar Einarsson Kvaran". The image was uploaded by Carptash. Are they the same person? Carptash's user page doesn't give a name. The description also links to http://www.pueblouniondepot.com/, which could suggest it was taken from that site (which has a photo gallery; this image isn't currently there but, as a file uploaded in 2004, the page my have changed). Where is the image truly from and does the uploader (Carptash) have permission from Kvaran (if they're not the same person) to license it as GFDL/CC? I don't know the answer, as the information provided is unclear, thus the provenance issue. Эlcobbola talk 17:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carptrash has uploaded lots of images, and they all credit Einar as the author, so I'm sure that's Carptrash's real name. Perhaps we could discuss this with him? Nyttend (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the only issue is the lack of clarity. If Carptrash confirms he's indeed Kvaran, the summary can be tweaked to be more explicit and the issue will be thusly resolved. Эlcobbola talk 18:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See this edit. Nyttend (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to your opinion, some of the clarifying sources have been removed in the wordsmithing. No complaints as I feel a good job was done there, however if you notice most of these buidlings are notable within their own right so their is a article Dedicated to it. Pueblo Union Depot, Vail Hotel. I am however having a bit of difficultied in adding some of the more interesting folklore. I have mentioned this to Nytennd and do not know how to proceed. Within the district we have several markers that explain individual buildings and their notability. The Union Depot district was the Main part of the old incorporated South Pueblo. Four towns were in a close vicinity and asouth pueblo because of the Union Depot was an economic hub. How would I go about using the Plaques for Information? Would it be nec. to photograph all the plaques? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's of course desirable that the buildings have their own articles in keeping with summary style, but certainly a summary of the notable architecture is relevant and necessary to comprehensively discuss a historic district. That's merely an example of a comprehensiveness concern; there may well be other aspects that also need discussion. Sources provide support for facts and data; altering wording (certainly a good thing, as to avoid plagiarism) should not result in their removal. Whether sourcing to plaques is acceptable sourcing, I don't know, but uploading such images to Wikipedia would likely be a copyright violation as they would be derivative works and the United States does not have freedom of panorama. Эlcobbola talk 17:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on photgraphing the buildings within a week or two if this image is an Issue I can replace it by pictures by me. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't know much about FAs, but this is far from being comprehensive among many other things. I wrote much of the current edition of the text, and I don't think my writing is FA-quality. Nyttend (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:34, 3 December 2009 [12].

Hurricane Fifi

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | Talk, User:Cyclonebiskit


I am nominating this for featured article because after collaborating with User:Cyclonebiskit on what's likely among the top-5 most important Atlantic tropical cyclones, I think it's ready to be put to the test. The credit for most of the research goes to CB, and I did a bunch of copyediting to ensure the prose is good. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments No dead externals or alt bugs here, but two dabs. Month Day, Year throughout. --an odd name 00:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the disambig links Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Grief! I find it hard to believe a person could write about an historical subject without the year of the event in the first sentence. In fact, it is nowhere in the introduction at all (except in conversion rate). Date and location are absolutely basic information. Amandajm (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody out there? :) –Juliancolton | Talk 01:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just me, apparently :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now by Karanacs. I just realized that today is the official end of hurricane season :) That puts me in just the right frame of mind to review an article on the dratted things.

  • Orlene storm traveled in an arced path - is that the appropriate way to refer to the storm is that a mistake?
  • Is there any information on why so many in Honduras did not evacuate? Had there been a history of storms hitting and not causing a lot of damage? Was it too short notice? Did people not get the message?
  • I'm not sure why the article includes information about the first report of damage. In most cases, the initial reports are quite wrong...was this one significant in any way?
  • Are there any details on the specific impact to the economy of Honduras since the banana crop failed?
  • An estimated 150,000 people were left homeless due to Fifi.[14][20] However, the Honduran government estimated that between 350,000 and 500,000 were left homeless.[21] - we need to know who estimated the 150,000 people homeless to judge its accuracy vs the official govt estimate
  • Hundreds of people in the town of Wiwili clung to treetops and roofs along the Coco River. - any idea what happened to them?
  • Instead of "Mexico and Arizona" should this be "Mexico and the United States"? This is the only place where a state is put on the same level as a nation.
  • Why do we care that in 1980 "Frances" was used instead of Fifi? I'd remove this sentence.
  • By the end of 1975, a local world fund set up at a church in New York had raised roughly $46,000 for victims of the hurricane -- this seems like excessive detail; we shouldn't highlight one group when I'm sure many other small groups were also raising money
  • Need conversion for meters -> yds/feet in the Rebuilding section
  • More seriously, I have comprehensiveness concerns. A lot of this is cited to newspapers, which I think is probably inadequate for a storm with this much impact. I've seen several books on disasters and risk management that mention this storm. Have those been consulted? I've listed below a few journal articles I found in a quick search of Google scholar. These all appear to have useful information, although I don't have access to more than the abstract and summaries.
    • Did the storm and the response to it have any impact on political stability in the country? The aftermath section does not mention any more long-term effects of the storm. This journal article [13] implies that there were.
    • The article contains nothing on the environmental impact of the storm apart from the human impact. This journal article [14] discusses the impact of the storm on bird migration....I can't access more than the abstract but suspect it may contain information that could be useful. Several journal articles also appeared to discuss erosion along the shores of Carrie Bow as a result of Fifi.
    • This [15] discusses land use policies and changes after Hurricane Fifi. Also [16]
    • Comparison of Carmen and Fifi conditions [17]
    • (Here's an article about housing 2 years after Fifi [18] and another about post-disaster housing [19] and possibly this one [20]

Karanacs (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:34, 3 December 2009 [21].

Smile (Lily Allen song)

Nominator(s): 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that, after working on it for three months (give or take), it is ready for this recognition, I hope. 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was fast! Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The site says it will return in a few days, hopefully before the end of this nomination. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a replacement which is also a reliable source.
Done.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please audit throughout for sentence and paragraph length. For example, the sentences "While John Murphy of musicOHM...", "Rob Sheffield from Rolling Stone Magazine..." (and why mention him in the lead?) are huge. The first paragraph of 'Music video' too. —indopug (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned him in the lead because he is a reliable and famous reviewer; if you want, I can remove him. I reworded some sentences that seemed too long. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on criterion 3

For help in writing purposes of use, see the end of this dispatch. Awadewit (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Is it better now? --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks! Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on sources What makes these reliable?

This probably does not have permission to repost the video so needs to be replaced:

Refs 46-51 are Discogs which is open source and thus not FA reliable. RB88 (T) 01:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually asking me, or is it a rhetorical question? Anyway, Chartstats is reliable (had his conversation at a previous FLC, hope it won't start again) and it and aCharts are put under WP:GOODCHARTS.
Being listed on project talk pages does not make sources automatically reliable. This takes precedence: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. I can't see any info here and here that warrants their inclusion. Ideally, we would like reliable and notable third-party sources using their info as was the case with EveryHit for example. RB88 (T) 00:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Songfacts is a database of song information compiled by music enthusiasts, radio professionals and songwriters, who are often interviewed to determine the stories behind their songs, so I'm guessing it is notable (it has its own Wikipedia entry). For the rest of them I will try to find a replacement. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've removed last.fm, dailymotion, discogs and ciao.co.uk. Chrismoyles.net is apparantly his website, it is linked from BBC.co.uk, which is reliable.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
chrismoyles.net is a fansite run by fans and by its own wording "unofficial". It's not FA reliable. http://chrismoyles.net/mw/contact.shtml
Songfacts is open source has thus not FA reliable. Having its own wiki article does not automatically qualify it for inclusion. http://www.songfacts.com/about.php
Again see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches
Fine, I won't argue anymore. After many searches on Google, I managed to remove ChartStats, chrismoyles and Songfacts. I am still looking for a replacement for aCharts, but, just so you know, I have seen some FAs citing that website; their authors should replace them, too. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure they do, but this is the only article open to dissection here at the moment. Quick question: with what sources did you replace the ones you removed? Or did you remove the material sourced to them too? RB88 (T) 17:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I replaced ChartStats with Billboard, ChrisMoyles.net with The Sun and Songfacts with Entertainment Wise and NME. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I did find a replacement for acharts at Billboard.biz. The only problem is that it's only available for subscribers, so not everybody can see it. I am not a subscriber, so this is as far as I can go. Could it still be used as a source? --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Check the toolbox for dead and rotting web links. Current ref 4 is a deadlink; it just redirects to the main page of the magazine's website. You might also want to fix the URLs that are changing paths; they too might die in the future. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, replaced dead link. All external links are now good.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't think so. Initially, I linked to John Ellis, which was a disambiguisation page, so I chose him because he seemed the obvious choice. I don't know if it is him or another John Ellis, but I removed him just to be safe. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best action as he is definitely a different John Ellis, from his photo. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:34, 3 December 2009 [22].

Denton, Texas

Nominator(s): MahangaTalk 05:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started working on this article over a month ago. With the help of other editors, the prose and flow has improved significantly. I think it has reached FA quality. MahangaTalk 05:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have been given the go-ahead by SandyGeorgia to renominate this article.[23]

  • Oppose per criterion three:
    • File:Denton County Flag.jpg - has no license tag (NFCC#6, NFCC#10B and WP:IUP). Additional research should be done, as this would likely be PD due to pre-1.1.1923 publication or publication without copyright notice.
    • File:Dentontexasseal.png - rationale is identical to File:Denton County Flag.jpg. Why are both needed needed to accomplish that goal? NFCC#3A requires minimal use and does not consider the need to "decorate" an infobox. May also be PD, as per above.
      • I'll start off by saying I'm not very familiar with copyright issues, so any assistance in this area would be greatly appreciated. I removed the Denton County flag, since the article is for the city, not county. I can't find any information on the seal, so I have no way of knowing if it is in the public domain or not. I followed other city FAs in assuming it's copyrighted and using a fair use rationale.
    • File:Denton, Texas sightseeing low quality.ogv - should not be using a license with a self modifier; Mahanga created a derivative and has no rights to the original or resulting work. The OTRS ticket for the original releases this under CC-by only; the current CC-by-SA/GFDL license is incorrect.
      • My mistake. Changed it to CC-BY, like the original.
    • Per MOS:CAPTIONS, complete sentences should end in a period (full stop). Эlcobbola talk 15:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a period to one of the complete sentence captions. All the other ones are nominal groups and don't need periods per WP:CAPTIONS. Please let me know if I've missed one.
    • These should be easy to remedy. Эlcobbola talk 15:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs. The article is in much better shape than some city articles I've seen nominated for FAC - good work getting it this far! Unfortunately, I think it needs more work. Overall, I have issues with the sourcing and with the prose. The prose is okay, but there is a lot of repetition or general wordiness, and the sentences and paragraphs don't always flow well. I've listed examples of other issues below.

  • Lead
    • The prose does not flow well and there is a lot of reptition. Examples University of North Texas, the largest university in North Texas and Geographically, it is situated...
    • There is excess detail. It is not important in the lead to describe the two universities.
    • A Texas land grant led to the formation of Denton County in 1846 - This doesn't make sense and needs to be reworked
    • The establishment of the two universities helped distinguish the city from neighboring regions. - this sentence doesn't give any useful information. distinguish how?
  • History
    • You need to better specify that Europeans began settling the area while it was part of the Republic of Texas.
    • There is no information on native populations after 1800. Did any of the native tribes move to the area as they were pushed out of the United States? I know many migrated to East Texas, and I would assume that some also lived in North Texas. Also, what about the Comanche? Did the Comancheria include the area that is now Denton?
    • Any idea why Denton was chosen as the county seat? Was there something wrong with the other two cities?
    • Have you consulted History of Denton, Texas, from Its Beginning to 1960 (Clarence Allen Bridges)? There is also the freely available History and remniscences of Denton ([24]), which is quite old but may have more information. There may also be useful information in the Southwest Historical Quarterly [25]
    • This source mentions a slave insurrection that appeared to spark a panic across lots of Texas in 1860 [26] (note that this event is mentioned in multiple SW Historical Quarterly articles)
    • Prose doesn't flow well. One paragraph has two sentences on a particular area of the town and then one sentence on city government.
    • Be more specific that I-35 was constructed during this time of population growth - that is not clear from reading the article.
    • The last paragraph in the history section seems to be undue weight and a little like recentism.
  • Climate
    • Need sources for "snow falls a few days a year, if at all", " tornadoes rarely form" and "Flash floods and severe thunderstorms are frequent occurrences"
  • Demographics
    • the Workforce Diversity Plan is not explained, it is cited to a self-published source, and adds very little information to the article. I would recommend removing this.
  • Primary sourcing
    • I'm concerned that there are a large number of self-published sources used. For example, why is the Barnett Shale portion sourced entirely to SPS? There are lots of newspaper sources that could be used.
    • You cannot use a self-published source to justify phrasing like "a major source of retail trade"
    • I don't think a self-published source should be used for The positive response to the courthouse renovation sparked a downtown revitalization program that generated new jobs and reinvestment capital. - the source may be a wee bit biased.
    • Overall, the culture and recreation section is sourced to far too many self-published sources. Many of the festivals, etc, should be mentioned in newspapers. The article should be summarizing what is in those independent sources rather than collecting the SPS (which can lead to OR).
  • Other
    • There is at least one instance where a newspaper is not italicized in the references
    • Need conversions from degrees F to degrees C and from inches to cm.

Karanacs (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I second Karanacs' concerns - however, these are readily fixable without too much fuss. I have massaged the prose and might do some more. I'll post some queries and comprehensiveness issues below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some sections are a bit disjointed and listy - if possible, some statements giving an overall flavour would be helpful - eg. In the politics section, is the city mainly republican or democrat leaning? (I am guessing the former but might be wrong).
    • Any big parks near the city centre? What about other types of recreational areas? Also, principal churches or places of worship?
    • I don't get an idea of how far Denton is from Dallas and Fort Worth from the article - does anyone commute to either bigger city?
Thanks to those who helped copy-edit the article. English is my second language, so that helps a lot! I'll start working on all the issues brought up as soon as I can. Unfortunately, things have picked up at work after the Thanksgiving break, so it may be a few days. MahangaTalk 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is good, but I think it's lacking a bit of depth before it can be considered comprehensive. My concerns mostly lie with the demographics and economy sections. The demographics section should put the figures into perspective. For example, was the ethnic make-up of the city unusual? How did it compare regionally and nationally? The same can be said for the figures in the economy section, eg: how did the figure of 16.2% below the poverty line compare to the area and the rest of the US? Also, are there figures on employment/unemployment rate? A couple of other points:

  • Was the place called Peters Colony or Peter's Colony?
  • The info box says Denton was founded in 1857, but the history section isn't clear, it just says that Denton was voted as the county seat in 1857. Was the settlement created specifically for the purpose of becoming the county seat or did it already exist?
  • Instead of "…and manufacturing destination for mills and cottage industries" it might be better to say "…and a destination for the produce of mills and cottage industries".
  • Are there any population figures from the late 19th century? It might be interesting to illustrate the impact of the railway (with its influx of people) by comparing populations before and 20 or 30 years after the introduction of the railway.
  • I'm surprised there's no mention of the American Civil War an it's impact on the article. As a major point in America's history, even if it had no effect wouldn't it be worth mentioning that Denton emerged unscathed?
  • Davenport, Iowa (also currently at FAC) has crime figures in the demography section; if they're available for Denton they might be worth including.
  • "The median income for a household was $35,422, and the median income for a family was $51,419. Males had a median income of $33,698 versus $26,037 for females. The per capita income was $19,365. About 8.7% of families and 16.2% of the population were below the poverty line, including 14.1% of those under age 18 and 7.0% of those age 65 or over.[22]": shouldn't this be in the economy section (perhaps with the map of median family income)?
  • Since it's mentioned that "For every 100 females there were 96.7 males" it doesn’t really add anything to say that "For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 94.4 males" as there’s not a huge difference. Statistics will bore the reader, so it’s best to keep them to a minimum while still incorporating the important ones.
  • When talking about the city's population in 2008, the past tense should be used as the figure will have changed since. So "Denton has a population of 119,454 according to July 2008 population estimates, making it the 207th largest city in the U.S. and the 23rd largest in Texas" becomes "Denton had a population of 119,454 according to July 2008 population estimates, and was the 207th largest city in the U.S. and the 23rd largest in Texas".
  • "area history and culture" is odd syntax, perhaps "history and culture of the area" would be better?
  • The government section feels a little light. The district Denton is in is currently represented by a Republican in the Texas House of Representatives, but has the district representative always been a Republican? Nev1 (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:32, 2 December 2009 [27].

Cato June

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because. This is a very complete and detailed biographical account and it is worthy of consideration for FA.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

--an odd name 23:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm ready to support based on everything else but experienced this as well. Connection times out on the tool so I started going through by hand and received several "Headline cannot be found" errors. Some of these were sources I remember looking at so I hit reload and it popped up just fine. It looks like an error on their end but I am not sure. Has anyone experienced something like this? I'm under the impression that we don't need to use only online sources but since they appear to work most of the time it is nice to have them.Cptnono (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I have read through the article as the GA reviewer, and have also read through most of the references to make sure that they matched up with the text of the article. There is great detail, needless to say, in the article, and I do think this represents Wikipedia's best work. Wizardman 20:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support More comments Everything below has been addressed. This is a thorough and complete treatment of the subject. Nice work. Cptnono (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on getting the infobox perfect per the template's parameters. I am impressed that you were able to provide such in depth info from his youth. Nice workCptnono (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do a lot of U of Michigan and Chicago area athletes and have trolled through a lot of newspaper archives to do so. For most guys who went to high school in the last ten or twenty years this kind of detail is easy to find with the source I use. I tend to do athletes off the beaten path. I have not taken on athletes that are surefire HOF or anything where reviewing all their newspaper articles would be impossible. Since I do athletes where you can read every newspaper article, starting with the first one I can find is pretty easy. For Evan Turner, I was even able to find a youth league source and for Tate Forcier, I found stuff from his midget days. I am still looking for someone who wants to help me overhaul Rob Pelinka. If you want to do a co-nom, I would love some help overhauling his article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of papers you go through is apparent with all of the facts you have provided. It is a thorough and complete treatment of the subject. I made a second pass through and saw need for some minor clean up. Consider the notes below and make any needed corrections. I expect that I will be popping in later tonight or tomorrow to support this nomination. The other article looks like fun so I will check it out, too.

Cptnono (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why are the two images so tiny? Please see MoS on images for how to upsize them. I'd be looking at 250px for that kind of detail.
    • They were set for defualt sizing for each user's preferences. However, I will switch the action photo to 250 px. I am not so sure that the image of him autographing really needs to be resized. If you would prefer that one resized as well, I will accommodate that wish.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very heavily linked throughout, especially at the top. I'd audit the links and remove anything not absolutely necessary ... like "free agent", "college football", "Washington D.C." (where's that? and a moment later, "District of Columbia" is linked ... very similar), "California" (who would click on that link?), "class president". And really, I think you could drop the four links here: "high school football, basketball, track and field and baseball". There are plenty of valuable links already. Tony (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – After a prose review/cleanup, I'm confident that this is OK on 1a grounds. Sourcing also appears fine; I scanned through all of them and there are none that I would question. Technical stuff has checked out already and photos are fine, and I can't argue that this isn't comprehensive. All in all, FA criteria all appear to be met. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Much of this —I am sorry to say—is completely unintelligible to me and I suspect other readers who are not fans or know little to nothing about the sport because we live outside the US. OK, I expect to become lost with regard to the esoteric aspects of the game, but can we at least make the Lead a little more accessible? This for example, " A Pro Bowl selection in 2006, June earned a Super Bowl ring with the Colts in Super Bowl XLI, as the team's leading tackler for the season" is gibberish to me. What on earth does this mean? Does it mean, "following a selection", I can understand Russian better than this. I am resigned to become completely lost in the Body of the article, but at least make an effort to make the Lead more understandable. He sounds like a great guy, but I would not be able to tell anyone in the UK why after reading this. Please—because clearly you are passionate—you have to say, at least in the Lead, why the subject warrants a Wikipedia Featured Article. PS don't shoot the Brits . Graham Colm Talk 21:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first, I couldn't understand Graham's confusion (speaking US football), but upon closer examination, I see the problems. He didn't earn a Super Bowl ring as the team's leading tackler; he earned it because his team won the Super Bowl that year. And he may have gotten the Pro Bowl selection because he was the leading tackler, but we aren't told that. In fact, we aren't even told what year Super Bowl XLI was, so we don't know if these events are related at all. The sentence is more than a jargon issue; it mixes unrelated thoughts. This suggests the entire text needs to be gone through by a non-US football person for clarity. Also, the lead says he is "currently" a free agent, which breaches WP:MOSDATE#Precise language and should have a year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am just landing from a Thanksgiving (United States) trip. I will have to take a closer look at this later tonight. However, the sentence seems to be fairly grammatical although jargony. Here is my take on the complaint. I believe the grammatical construction of "A Pro Bowl selection in 2006, June" is that of an appositive. I.E., the sentence "June was a Pro Bowl selection in 2006." is being reconstructed so that the object modifies the subject of another sentence ("June earned a Super Bowl ring with the Colts in Super Bowl XLI, as the team's leading tackler for the season"). I will look more closely at the rest later tonight.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I restructured the beginning of the sentence to eliminate a preposition, but need to examine the end of the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to distill Cato June's notability down to any two sentences in the article it would be the two you two have derided. I.E., "Cato Nnamdi June (born November 18, 1979 in Riverside, California, United States) is an American football linebacker who is currently a free agent. . .A 2006 Pro Bowl selection, June earned a Super Bowl ring with the Colts in Super Bowl XLI, as the team's leading tackler for the season." essentially tells you everything you need to know about who he is to understand his importance. Any American sports fan immediately knows his exact notability with these two sentences. The first sentence says he is a currently-active athlete who is unaffiliated with any team. The second sentence describes his two most important points of notability, which are that he is a former Pro Bowler and a player who led a Super Bowl Champion in tackles for a season. In terms of establishing his notability it is not relevant whether he did these in the same year, but I will examine rewriting for clarity. Give me a few minutes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence does not violate WP:MOSDATE#Precise language because National Football League player pages are updated very quickly for team affiliation. As soon as he signs with another team, his team affiliation will reflect as much.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to rework "as the team's leading tackler for the season", which is malplaced to modify Super Bowl XLI.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from User talk page) GrahamColm, I have read your comments on Cato June. You have essentially asked me to explain why he is sufficiently WP:N to be a deserving subject of a WP:FA. Although I do not believe any page that is sufficiently WP:N to be on WP, needs further notability to be deserving of a FA, the problem here lies with you not understanding the subject. A person who does not understand the significance of being a Pro Bowler or a Super Bowl champion's leading tackler should seriously consider whether they even voice a deciding opinion on the matter. I would not voice an opinion on a singer if I did not understand the meaning of platinum albums and grammy awards, for example.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see some changes, but there are still problems. (TTT, please do not badger opposers as you did above; the article has to be understandable to everyone. GrahamColm may not know US football, but I do, and I can't get past the first paragraph.)
  • Cato Nnamdi June (born November 18, 1979 in Riverside, California, United States) is an American football linebacker who is currently a free agent. ... A 2006 Pro Bowl selection, June earned a Super Bowl ring the following season with the Colts in Super Bowl XLI. During the Super Bowl championship season, June was the Colts' leading tackler.
This is better, but we still need an as of date on the free agency, and "earned a Super Bowl ring" is unnecessary jargon; you need to tell the audience that means his team won the Super Bowl. This is the first paragraph only; I'm concerned the entire article needs a thorough look. Strangely, although the as of date is missing from the lead, the reader is entertained with every single irrelevant date in his college football career (see WP:PROSELINE, and why is the college career of a Pro Bowler discussed in date-by-date, game-by-game detail?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of date, not necessary. I can almost guarantee, if a team signs a Pro Bowl linebacker his team affiliation will be changed within 24 hours. Currently, is thus all that is necessary. This is not like the college guys I usually write about that no one else follows. This is the NFL.
Badgering was not intentional. I wrote my response in parts as I thought about issues. I apologize if this is considered badgering.
College career, mentions all notable highlights. In a typical 13 game season this means mentioning about three or four games. It is not game-by-game. It is a highlight account. Same for pro career. It only mentions a few games a year that help define his career. I think I only included games that helped the reader develop an understanding of his career history. I would welcome some detailed copyedit assistance with this however. The article has been to WP:PR, but I am willing to make a return visit there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I've read one section of this article and I'm not very impressed by it. The article is quite tremendous for a BLP on a relatively obscure football player, and overall I have the feeling that it's way too detailed and presents hundreds of random factoids with no organization. For example, in the Personal section, we have three sentences about the subject's tattoos when they don't really deserve even a mention. In the third paragraph: In college, June and Hobson were roommates. They were known for having sessions of Madden NFL 2003 for PlayStation 2 in an apartment known as "The Stadium", where competition among football team members often occurred. - How is this a notable aspect of June's biography? The fourth paragraph seems to be largely non-notable fluff as well. I glanced through the rest of the article, but was intimidated by the screens upon screens of unbroken, thick, jargon-filled prose that I can't read at all. Finally, there are 227 references, of which all are newspaper entries, which further confirms my suspicion that this article lacks sustenance from major secondary sources. Sorry, but I don't feel this is an example of our best yet. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • TTT, sorry, if "free agent" is used in a specialist sense here, a link is appropriate. I should have checked out the target, and have just done so. The other issue is that the reader shouldn't have to check out the link target to have a basic understanding of the meaning of the text here, so why not add within commas (or parentheses) on the spot, "(eligible to sign with another franchise)"? I haven't looked at the sentence, too busy in RL for another 48 hours. Then I'm FREEEEE. Tony (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have seen free agent used like this in at least one hundred WP bios without any explanation beyond the link. Although your suggestion seems unusual, I have incorporated it. This article is probably 48 hours away from failing FA, so I am guessing you will not be able to elaborate on your thoughts in time for me to get your insights to improve its content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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 16:40, 2 December 2009 [29].

Rebbie Jackson

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 17:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to present this article on one of the lesser known members of the Jackson family: Rebbie. Sadly, the life of Rebbie, a talented singer in her own right, is not as well documented as those of her more famous siblings such as La Toya, Janet and Michael. Nevertheless, I feel that this article is comprehensive and meets all of the FA criteria. Pyrrhus16 17:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The technical aspects look good: no dab links or dead external links, the one image has alt text with no obvious problems, and dates throughout the article and refs are consistent Month Day, Year. --an odd name 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Pyrrhus16 22:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Grammar. One does not usually have a "hiatus from..." something. The expression is usually a "hiatus in " something. Following a 10-year hiatus from the music industry... would be better expressed as Following a 10-year hiatus in her musical career... Amandajm (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Pyrrhus16 14:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Sole image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Source fine. Great little article. Nicely researched and written. RB88 (T) 20:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It should be without question that the article is a biography. Therefore having a second level heading saying biography is rather redundant.
  • The third level sections underneath should become second level sections.
  • I'm against changing them to second level headers unless there is something about it in the MOS; I feel it is a more attractive structuring and is inline with other FA music biographies.
  • Dates in the section line are also unneeded. Each section does a good job of explaining the time period.
  • Like above, I'm against removing the dates. I feel that they are needed to allow a reader to pinpoint information from an exact year from looking solely at the TOC.
  • Weak Oppose - Not quite sure this is ready yet. (1a)
  • It also featured contributions from her children: daughters Yashi and Stacee, and son Austin. - this would be better without the colon
  • Though Jackson had taken clarinet, piano and dance lessons earlier in life, she had no interest in a music career.[4][5] - I think you should put "at that time" in the last clause. Earlier in life should be replaced with childhood.
  • The family's drama-filled home on Jackson Street also served as a motivator for the young woman; she wanted to escape from it. - rewrite this sentence plz
  • Having the last word on the matter, Joseph refused to give his daughter away.[6] - his daughter is not an object...
  • Brown and Jackson would go on to have three children together; daughters Stacee and Yashi, and son Austin.[7] - semicolon inappropriate here
  • Due to ratings success, more episodes were ordered in January 1977. - critical success?
  • I've listed the ones I noticed from a relatively short (10 minutes) readover here. Please resolve them so we can progress with this article's improvement. My main concern is that the prose is not yet there, because it has some issues I've noticed. But since the prose is still pretty good, I've only opposed weakly. Look forward to improvements! ceranthor 02:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done all of the above. Pyrrhus16 09:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Upgraded to oppose because of this. I really think this has potential to be a great article, but there's nothing here really in terms of musical reception. I really hate to oppose but I have to at this time. It's just not comprehensive enough. If you could sift through those sources and add information as you go along, the article will steadily improve and FA status will come. Best, ceranthor 23:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs. I found this an interesting article - I was unfamiliar with Rebbie Jackson. I don't think the article is ready for FA, though. The prose needs a great deal of polishing (a few examples are listed below, but the whole thing needs some work), I am a little concerned with the comprehensiveness, and I think there is too much of an emphasis on details that don't really belong here.

  • Why is her faith highlighted in the second sentence of the lead? The fact that she was raised as a Jehovah's Witness seems much, much less important than the fact that she is a member of the Jackson family.
  • Removed from the lead.
  • It's going to be tricky in this article to make sure that readers understand which "Jackson" we are referring to. In the sentence The album featured songs written by Smokey Robinson, Prince and her younger brother Michael, whose contribution (the title track "Centipede") became Jackson's most successful single release it's not clear whether Jackson is Rebbie or Michael, and if this is referring to Rebbie's most successful single as an artist or Michaels' most successful as a songwriter. There are other potentially confusing instances like this.
  • Clarified by changing "Jackson" to "Rebbie", here and in several other places in the article.
  • Why does the lead mention her children and husband? They aren't notable in their own right and thus probably don't need to be mentioned here.
  • Removed the names of her children, but kept her husband as a large section is about their marriage.
  • I don't think Life and career should be a separate section; I'd move all of those subsections out to be main sections.
  • The structure of the article is inline with most other FA music biographies. I would be against changing the structure if it's just a matter of preference.
  • Early life - it is not necessary to mention which siblings are libing and which are deceased. This may end up out of sync if editors don't know to come here and change it here as well.
  • Altered the sentence.
  • Are the details of the Jehovah's Witness faith necessary here? I don't think we need to mention about not celebrating some occasions.
  • Removed the part about not celebrating certain occasions.
  • Why do we need to know that her husband is also a Jehovah's Witness? Their faith is not really mentioned in any way as having impacted her career or other aspects of her family life.
  • Removed mention of him being a JW.
  • There are punctuation issues in the article. For example, three children together daughters Stacee and Yashi, and son Austin. is missing something - either a comma, colon, or dash
  • Added a colon.
  • The prose needs a bit of work. There is some passive voice that should be fixed to active. For example "family's drama-filled home on Jackson Street also served as a motivator for the young woman, who wanted leave it" (note that this sentence is also missing a word)
  • Changed the sentence.
  • Some of the prose is a bit sensational - "Jackson's family faced a crisis when " she decided to get married. That doesn't seem like much of a crisis. An argument, yes, but not a crisis.
  • Changed the sentence.
  • The section 1968-1973 seems to focus almost entirely on 1968. Were the three children born in the next few years? Did anything else happen?
  • There is no further information on anything else happening during this period, and there are no sourcable dates of birth for the children.
  • Is there any information on what changed Rebbie's mind about pursuing a music career?
  • I couldn't find any published information on what caused her to change her mind.
  • What are " residency performances"? Was Rebbie considered filler too? If so, specify this.
  • Removed "residency" and specified that Rebbie was filler as well.
  • The initial run of the 30-minute program was four weeks -- this sentence doesn't make sense. A "30-minute program" can't run for "four weeks"; A series is more than a single 30-minute episode. Please be more specific.
  • Changed to The initial series run of the 30-minute programs was four weeks. Not sure if this is any better or not.
  • Are there any details about Rebbie's particular contribution to the TV show?
  • There are no sources that explicitly state her activities on the show.
  • If there was critical success of the TV show, can we get some quotes or more information? How was Rebbie in particular received?
  • Changed to "ratings success", which is what the source states. I don't believe there are any comments on how Rebbie was received - very little information has been published about her.
  • "The Jacksons motivated her to become a professional recording artist, and the show's producer encouraged her to sing" - Is this referring to the TV show (in that case need italics) or the band by the same name?
  • Italicised.
  • There is a disconnect between the last paragraph of 1974-1983 ("stalled her music career") and the first paragraph of 1984-1985 ("following years of preparation")
  • Added "for a short time" to the end of "stalled her music carrer".
  • I don't think that the callout quote in 1984-1985 should be formatted in quite that way. Because this is an encyclopedia and not a magazine article, this probably ought to be better tied into the text.
  • Integrated the quote into the text.
  • Her brother produced Reaction - which brother?
  • Noted that it was Tito.
  • Did she do anything noteworthy during her hiatus from music? Do we know why she took a hiatus?
  • Added a note that she performed during the break from releasing music.
  • There should likely not be a separate section for Michael's death in this article. While some of the information may be useful to include, overall to me it reads more like trivia.
  • Removed the section.
  • Many FAs of artists have an "artistry" section which lists the influences, themes/genre, and style of the recordings. This article covers the technical aspects of the albums (who produced it, when was it released), but does not really delve into any of the more interpretive stuff. Are their reviews or other analyses of her albums that could be made into an artistry section?

Karanacs (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is very little published on Rebbie at all, and I have found nothing on her themes or styles of recordings. Quite sad, considering that one can write novels on the artistry of Janet and Michael. Thank you for your comments. Pyrrhus16 22:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:18, 2 December 2009 [30].

The Shining (film)

Nominator(s): Tinton5 (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because this article is well written and provides many sources to support its content. It's a good length, not entirely wordy but just the right amount of information without any redundancy. Tinton5 (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

With a quick glance, a few things that jump out:

  • "Alternate cuts" and "Production" sections are unsourced.
  • Spacing issues with citations throughout the article.
  • Prose needs some work (ex. "The film had a slow start at the box office, but gained momentum and steam...")
  • The references need to be consistent and include more parameters (see other recent film FAs). In addition, there are several unreliable sources such as blogs and IMDB.

These points alone need to be addressed first before looking at other issues. It looks like this should have went through peer review first, and it may be best to remove the nomination. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 05:14, 1 December 2009 [31].

USS Congress (1799)

Nominator(s): Brad (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Self nomination. Article has passed GA and A reviews within the last two months. Information on this ship has been very difficult to find. Apparently the ship was not deemed worthy enough by historians resulting in the small size of the article. Nevertheless, throughout the GA and A reviews I was able to find further information to add which has expanded the article to some extent but there are still gaps. This article is part of my larger plan for a featured topic on the Original six frigates of the United States Navy. Brad (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images, alt-text, dabs and sources clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support on 1c, 2c. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Decline: 2c.Fifelfoo (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because this page is so long, resolved comments moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Kirk on 3, 1(a,b,c)

  • Regarding the image in the lead, I'm not sure the USS Chesapeake is a 'sister ship' since it was built differently (the whole 44 to 36 to 38, plus it had slightly different dimensions) so I think the better choice here is a picture of the USS Constellation.
Just prior to this nomination for FA I removed File:USS Constellation.jpg from this article because it is of questionable origins. The original link it was downloaded from is no longer resolving therefore not allowing a verification. If you compare that file with File:USSChesapeake.jpg there is an eerie similarity between the both of them. The only file in this case that I can verify as being true and valid is the Chesapeake one. The use of "sister ship" is in regard to Congress being one of the original six. None of these ships were exactly the same as any other. --Brad (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm almost positive I've seen a painting of the USS Congress (1799), but its so historically less significant than the other original frigates they probably haven't digitized it yet; have you attempted to call the Historical center to find out? I think with a little leg work you can get the actual photo of the painting.
There are plenty of photos of USS Congress (1841) because of her notoriety as being sunk at Hampton Roads by CSS Virginia. I have thoroughly searched several times for pics of the 1799 Congress and have turned up nothing. Calling the NHHC asking for pics of this ship is more than I'm willing to do. It smells of original research and I am not willing to expend any funds to cover the costs of obtaining a photo. --Brad (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen this one before and neither source specifically states that the photo is of Congress I could certainly use the photo as it's public domain but the best caption I could use for the photo would be something like A representative illustration of an 19th century frigate.--Brad (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google is not allowing me to see page 35. --Brad (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing that I mention the original armament in addition to the 1812 setup? What a ship was rated at is different from what amount of guns it actually carried. The author is not claiming that Congress and Constellation's ratings were changed to 44 gun ships but that they "carried" 44 or more guns. The article here on Congress clearly states in the lead and in the infobox that she was rated at 38; and mention is made that she was originally designated a 36 by the Naval Act but was re-rated to a 38. I don't see what the trouble is with that. --Brad (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.. I just realized that I have the armament referenced to DANFS and the DANFS article doesn't agree. I've no idea where I got those figures from but I will work on fixing this. This might have caused some misunderstandings here. My apologies. --Brad (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The armament discrepancies have been straightened out using Canney as a reference. --Brad (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, thanks! I have one question regarding the 38 gun rating (footnote #4) - does that source actually have a footnote which explains why it was re-rated? (The sentence "...re-rated as 38s while under construction" on page 128?). Never mind, Chapelle didn't cite his sources...how annoying. Kirk (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Construction section is missing some important details. For example, I want more information about the transition from 36 to 38 guns - we have a sentence and as source, but I think this should be expanded to explain what ship rating meant in the US Navy at the time. I looked in some other sources and they usually discuss why carronades were used and the difference betweeen 18 and 24 pound guns. I'm curious why they didn't use 24 pound guns during the War of 1812 like the other frigates. Also, USS Constitution has a slightly different take on the construction methods you might consider researching, because a historically interesting thing about the Congress was it fell apart quickly. Kirk (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to know more about the change from 36 to 38 guns but have not been able to find anything further. It would be apparent and necessary to explain why the Naval Act called for 36 gun ships and later on they've all been referred to as 38s. Chapelle and Beach are the only sources to mention the rating was even changed but the only reason given is because of their size.
"Rating" may be the wrong term to use in describing the ships. Unlike the rating system of the Royal Navy the US never had one to my knowledge. "Classed" might be more of an appropriate term to use but I am not sure.
I really believe the hows and whys of what armament was used and when belongs in another article. I don't see the value in introducing the explanation to an article on a particular ship when the issue would involve all ships of the Navy during that period.
Since I brought Constitution to FA last year I can most definitely tell you that all of the extra information given in the construction section is only citable to Constitution. As a blanket statement to any sparse descriptions in this article I can answer that there just aren't any. This article was very difficult to find information for. Two years prior to Congress being scrapped, Constitution was in the same condition but funds were approved to make the repairs. Apparently there was no funds or public outcry to save Congress. --Brad (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked in a couple of other sources & all the original frigates were ordered to be built the same way, so you should be able to add that to the article. Toll should have something you can use. Kirk (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment about another article, maybe there should be a Rating System of the US Navy article, but the problem for this FAC is that this rating system stuff is not common knowledge, so a reader who finds out its rated as a 38 gun frigate in the infobox but was authorized as a 36 gun frigate is going to be confused. I can't actually check the source you cited for 38 guns, but DANFS lists 24 18-pdr., 12 12-pdr long guns (which you can see in the woodcut) & as opposed to Constellation, with 38 24-pdr long guns; Chesapeake, 30 18-pdr with 12 carronades. 12-pdr long guns would have been almost useless in the war of 1812; must have been replaced by carronades which would probably have resulted in the re-rating to 38 guns. I'll see if I can help.
  • Summary
  • Re: 1c, I have requested a copy edit.
  • Since there are no further comments regarding the infobox pic I'm going to leave it as is. I have changed the caption and believe that while the current pic isn't exactly accurate, it is more visually appealing than any alternative. --Brad (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the woodcut in the infobox & the sail plan in the construction section would be my preference; both are in the public domain but you'll just have to upload them. Also, the book Constellation has the design diagram for the Congress (which shared it with the Constellation) toward the beginning (i'll send you the page tomorrow), also PD, which really supports my original objection (that one you may need to scan in). I'll also ping one of the MilHist ship admins to look at this issue, kind of 1b&3 but maybe I'm being too picky! Kirk (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're making assumptions that I need to clarify. I am a total dolt when it comes to working with photo programs and I've been that way for years. I do not own a scanner and my computer is an aging 7 year old relic. It cannot even handle photos through MS Paint or gimp. With that said, I believe the article meets the C3 criteria. The pics are not perfect but neither are the alternatives you've suggested. The current pics do not misrepresent the subject or make claims of any similarity to Congress at all. Both photos have solid public domain status with applicable licenses. --Brad (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will help with the technical doltness - Ed agreed the sailplan should be in the article, so I'll see what I can do today. I'll also start scanning some Constellation images since you'll need those eventually. However, I'm not sure I can get that done in the timeframe of a FA review. Clarifying my objection: the article barely meets the MilHist B5 standard for appropriate supporting materials...the closest I could see in the FA was 3, but maybe its 1b & if I was your GA reviwer I wouldn't have promoted it until we had more supporting materials in the article. I'll do what I can to help - I've enjoyed learning about this part of US Naval History. Kirk (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I checked some congressional documents via Lexis-nexus congressional, and they always refer to the three smaller frigates in text and tables rated at 36-guns. I think what happened here is either the builders (or Chapelle!) equated them to the 38-gun frigates of the Royal Navy, but officially, the US Navy had three ratings of frigates during this time period: 44 (United States), 36 (Constellation), 32 (Essex). I'll add a note and write up this with some of the sources that describes some of this in detail. I think as long as the rating is consistent for Constellation, Congress and Chesapeake in the info boxes/prose and has a footnote to Chapelle that's fine with me. Kirk (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have not read beyond the introduction. I want to congratulate the writers in putting all the significant information- what was it/where was it/what date was it... into the first three sentences. It is amazing how many articles are put up for promotion without this basic content in the first paragraph. Amandajm (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I went through the article and performed some copy edits. Some items I noted:
    • In "Construction" section was there a single event that began attacks on American ships? Or was there just an uptick in attacks that prompted the ship construction? The way it's worded now suggests that no American ships were attacked prior to the 1790s, which may or may not be the case.
I've hopefully clarified this section. The real gritty details in the main article. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of compound adjectives that incorrectly have en dashes. It should be "36-gun frigate" rather than "36–gun frigate", for example. (I've attempted to change ones that I've seen, but it wouldn't hurt to check that all have been corrected.)
Found one more and removed. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "Armament" section: In order to reduce the strings of numbers and ×s, I've violated the MOS guidelines regarding numerals/numbers so that each enumeration of guns is listed as twenty-eight 18 pounders (8 kg), for example
Agree. The 28 x 18 starts to look like a circus of numbers when closely used together. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the same section: why the comparison to British ships-of-the-line rather than to comparably sized ships? One wouldn't (or shouldn't, at least) discuss the armament of a destroyer, for example, and say that it has fewer guns than a cruiser.
Removed. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "War of 1812" section: Did the Commodore Rodgers-led squadron consist of the list of ships that follows? Right now it reads as if the squadron as a unit sailed alongside these other ships.
Should be clarified now. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the same section: Diversion of men and materials created a shortage of only materials? Maybe, depending on what the source says, it should read something like By this time of the war, materials and personnel were being diverted to the Great Lakes, which creating a shortage of resources necessary to repair Congress
I added your suggestion. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In section "Second Barbary War": The sentence beginning Peace having already been secured by Decatur with Algiers and several other Barbary States… is confusing. If it means that by the time Congress and her group arrived that the war was already over?
Clarified. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the "Bibliography" section: there's one entry that is formatted with {{citation}}, giving it a slightly different format than the rest, all formatted with {{cite book}}
Fixed. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your copy edit; replies above. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have given this a quick copyedit; few changes, as Bellhalla had been through before me. One quibble: the Citation template used inside the one Note is not displaying properly. I'm not fond of two-sentence paragraphs, but recognize that sometimes they're better than smashing unrelated events/information together. Otherwise, looking good. Maralia (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your corrections. You bring up a point I've been trying to figure out myself. The note currently uses a Harvard style reference which is not inline with the rest of the article. I'm not sure how to use a ref within a note to produce the [#] citation and have it match the others. --Brad (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to solve that directly. Given that it's just a single citation, I've rewritten it in plaintext, to display inside the footnote itself. Maralia (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kirk - Striking objections; I tried finding an image of Captain Sever for the Quasi-war section but failed; I'll see if I can find/scan the sheer plan. The placement of the body plan image is in a bad spot; it could be closer to the construction section where I originally put it, but if you don't like the text sandwich, I think that can be accomplished by expanding the lead. Kirk (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Well-written, and well-structured - which makes for a very good flow whilst reading throughout. After reading about the successful operations of the ship, one wishes she were still around to help combat incidents of modern-day piracy today. I noted a few Captains that could possibly be independently notable, but that would be work for another time, not required here as part of this process. Great job on the research and writing. Cirt (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I generally like this article. However I found a few problems.
    1. and the third ship to carry the name. The information that she was the third ship to carry that name is not mentioned in the main text. Some information about ships with the same name is, in my opinion, necessary as well (as a footnote).
      That passage was another bit of cruft left over from a change in the article text and I have removed it. The otherships link would allow those interested in other ships named Congress. --Brad (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    2. She arrived at Gibraltar on 11 August joining the ships of the Mediterranean Squadron, among them her sister ships Constellation, Constitution and President. There is no explanation of what Mediterranean Squadron is. (It is not mentioned before.) I think some context should be provided. Currently this name appears suddenly without any explanation, which is confusing.
      The wikilink to Mediterranean Squadron doesn't help explain the concept? --Brad (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I of course saw the wikilink. I think a sentence or two are still necessary. Ruslik_Zero 09:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I certainly could explain the concept of squadrons on a station but the trouble I'm running into is having citations to back it up with. None of the sources at hand are going to help explain this. Even going to US Navy sources have turned up nothing. The only alternative I can see for the moment is to remove the mention. --Brad (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Ruslik0, I did some checking of FA Ship articles and its not common to provide context for ship formations; look at USS Iowa & Atlantic Fleet and Pacific Fleet, HMS Royal Oak (08) and Atlantic, Home and Mediterranean fleet, Brazilian cruiser Bahia and its various squadrons. I think a wikilink is sufficient. -- Kirk (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed myself (added a sentence). Ruslik_Zero 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The passage you added cannot be backed up with a source. This is what I was explaining to you above. Most of us know that squadrons were formed and operated that way but if it cannot be cited it cannot be in the article. It should be removed. --Brad (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    3. proceeded towards the Virginia capes, and arrived back in Boston on 31 December. During their time at sea, the two frigates captured nine prizes. However the previous sentence says that Congress and President remained together during November but they did not find a single ship to capture. Please, clarify.
      Hopefully I have done so. --Brad (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ruslik_Zero 20:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, however, found another problem. The article says Rodgers succeeded Samuel Barron as Commodore in November [of 1804], subsequently taking command of Constitution. However the article about Rogers says His brilliant record fighting the corsairs won him appointment as Commodore of the Mediterranean Squadron in May 1805. This needs a clarification. Ruslik_Zero 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into this. --Brad (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting to withdraw I have lost confidence in this article being as complete as it should be. Likely this was caused by writing two other frigate articles at the same time. I need to go over this article from beginning to end without the pressure of an ongoing review. Right now it feels like I'm just throwing patches at it to get it passed. --Brad (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • A couple more patches:
      • naval constructor is not a title, and should not be capitalized; idiom would be to recast: James Hackett, the shipwright,. Hackett should be linked; he may be a redlink now, but if there is a biography of him in some obscure historical society newsletter, the link should be available.
      • The building of Congress and her sisters was a matter of high political controversy in the United States. I'm sure the nom knows this; but the reader should be told too. In this connection, the date of the authorization is important. (This is the second-best choice; silence is better than partisanship; but do second-best choices make FAs?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per nominator request. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/December_2009&oldid=329891630"