Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2010: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archive 1
archive 1, no unresolved issues but ignored by reviewers, can come back in about a week
Line 1: Line 1:
== January 2010 ==
== January 2010 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Theoren Fleury/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nashville sit-ins/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nashville sit-ins/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive1}}

Revision as of 20:39, 25 January 2010

January 2010

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 20:39, 25 January 2010 [1].

Theoren Fleury

Nominator(s): Resolute 22:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Theo Fleury is someone whom I consider to be one of the most remarkable stories in hockey history. Perhaps the smallest NHL player of his generation, he played 1000 games, won championships at all levels and was an all-star, all while hiding a history of sexual abuse along with drug and alcohol addictions that eventually caught up to him. He was one of the most popular players to ever play in Calgary, and his comeback attempt this past fall captivated this city. He has gone from underdog to hero to villain to a figure barely worthy of pity to a remarkable story of redemption. Certainly a person whom I wanted to write about for a great deal of time. As such, I present this story to the scrutiny of the masses. Resolute 22:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you explan why you made no effort to respond to the recent WP:PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Theoren Fleury/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although Resolute never responded on the peer review page, it does appear that he implemented many of the suggestions made there. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I failed to notice Finetooth's review until the bot closed the PR. At that point, I left him a message on his talk page thanking him for his review, and implemented both his, and Steve Smith's suggestions today before nominating. I thought about replying to the PR anyway, but as with most everything else, I simply left an archived page alone. Resolute 03:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – I plan on offering a prose review tomorrow, but for now I want to cover some basics to save others time and effort. First, there are no disambiguation links to worry about. I ran the link checker quickly, and a couple small issues were revealed. Reference 19 (CBC archives) appears to be redirecting to a page that isn't the intended target. Also, it should be noted that the link to reference 132 (Globe and Mail) requires a subscription to access. Checked for alt text as well, and it is present in all pictures. The second photo gives Fluery's name, a practice that I've seen discouraged sometimes at FAC (the thinking is that a person's full name wouldn't be verifiable just by looking at an image). I'm not an alt text reviewing expert, so I didn't spot any obvious problems otherwise. 204.210.154.189 (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (P.S.: That's me) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think yo meant reference 22, but yeah, it looks like CBC reorganized its archive links. I've corrected. As far as the alt text goes, I've reworded, though with two people in focus, I initially thought it made sense to identify which is the article target. Looking forward to your full review. Resolute 03:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rant on refs:<rant> This general-specific subsections thing. To the best of my knowledge, some numbskull used the terminology "General-specific" in his documentation for one or more of the reference templates. Then Wikipedia editors dutifully copied the phrasing in his template documentation and actually began including it in metatext of the article. Note that Wikipedia's guidelines do not permit me to Oppose here. But consider this a symbolic Oppose. I would be very happy to see these sections reformatted to the standard "Notes" and "References", with the former above the latter.</rant> • Ling.Nut 03:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not exactly married to the format, so have no issues re-aligning the references, and have done so. That said, there seems to be no real standard amongst FAs on what the subsection headers are titled. Most do put the footnotes above the general references though, so I have realigned to be consistent with that. Resolute 04:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that there is no standard is a good news/bad news thing... It's good news because editors can use a format they're familiar with: sci people can use one well-established format, lit people can use another, etc. It's bad news because anyone can make up their own damn format, so long as it's internally consistent. Which blows goat chunks. Too put it mildly. • Ling.Nut 05:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • General references work well in list articles, where a general reference is often sufficient to verify a table. The terminology doesn't work as well in regular articles, though. It makes me think of the days before I knew what Wikipedia was, when FAs didn't have inlines. WP:LAYOUT gives a bunch of possible headers; the many choices confuse me more than anything. It does seem that Notes/References is the most standard system, if such a thing can be said to exist (I've seen a wide variety in articles). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah. The point is not that the "specific" things should go before the "general" things (although they do, in most cases); it's that the terminology... is strange and misguided. That is, what's a "general" reference, as opposed to a "specific" one? The usage in this case is idiosyncratic. I mean, the default or unmarked meaning of "general reference" is quite different than what this nonstandard system would have us understand. In short, it's just a huge clusterf*ck caused (albeit inadvertently and innocently) by one editor who didn't know how to write clear and appropriate documentation for a template, and then by many editors who didn't know that they shouldn't follow the misguidance of the first..• Ling.Nut 05:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been bold and changed them. Ling.Nut is right - that terminology is definitely "strange and misguided". As a researcher, I've never seen it used before. I've adopted the "Notes" and "References" titles, which is at least clear and familiar. Awadewit (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments – Sorry for the long absence. For me, "tomorrow" roughly equates to "five days from now". Was able to make it up to the end of Fleury's junior career, and will come back, hopefully fewer than five days from now.
    • Early life: "often accompanying his father to the arena in the pre-dawn hours." I assume this is the arena in Russell from earlier in the section? That struck me as not fully clear, unless the phrase is meant to be general; then I could see it.
    • The Andy Murray article here goes to the tennis player, who wasn't alive yet during the time in question. There appears to be an appropriate article at Andrew Murray (ice hockey).
    • Junior: "Fleury learned early that he had to play an unpredictable style of game in order to survive against players much larger than he was." The hardcore prose reviewers don't like seeing phrases like "in order to" unless they are essential. Chopping "in order" from the sentence will help to keep them happy.
    • "nearly 100 more than any other of the top 10 WHL scorers." Move "other" to before "top 10", where it seems to naturally belong.
    • "and joined the Flames IHL affiliate." Apostrophe at end of Flames? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be the correct target. Kinda surprised I missed that, given how common the name is. I've also addressed Giants2008's remaining points, and scanned through the article to ensure that apostrophe's are where they all belong.
  • Support – I went through the remainder of the article and cleaned up where necessary, which was not much work considering how good the page already was (most of it was non-breaking spaces and such). A well-written, well-sourced account of an interesting life. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query On Malcolm: It is a hundreds of pages-long biography and seemingly the only serious one on Fleury. Why did you only use a handful of pages for this article? Did you find the book useless? You used his autobiography far more heavily, which seems dangerous. Things like "This style led to many retaliatory penalties" could be Fleury's POV, and sourcing financial figures and donations of charitable organizations to the autobiography makes me uneasy. How do you know those facts were checked and he wasn't just writing from memory? Shouldn't we limit the autobiography to citing facts about himself? --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malcom's book came out in 1997, before even the Sheldon Kennedy story broke. It was written to be a "hard luck kid grows into superstar" feel-good story, and focused mainly on his playing career, which I was easier able to source via the news stories of the time. I used it mainly to source his early life. I went with Fleury's autobiography more often because I believe it is actually the more serious work. In the citation you are specifically questioning, Fleury literally stated that his style led to those penalties, which led to the arguments with coaches. I will double check these passages later tonight and specify which are Fleury's words. Thanks! Resolute 19:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarified that that statement was Fleury's. I already had made it pretty clear that the contract dollars in his negotiations with the Flames was his own statement. None of my other references to his book are statements that I would consider controversial. Resolute 00:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments Hey this is really good. I just got around to reading the whole thing. I made some changes here and there, and listed things below that I couldn't figure out or didn't want to touch. Close to supporting, though.
    • "He missed nearly a year of contact hockey as a result." I'm not sure everyone will follow. Is there non-contact hockey that he was playing? Leagues that disallow checking? I'm not sure how anyone would avoid contact altogether.
  • He was skating and practicing, I believe, but not able to play games. I will double check the reference tonight and clarify.
    • "Although he felt like somebody was 'stabbing a knife in my gut every five minutes', Fleury had played" Shouldn't the "my" in the quotation be replaced with "[his]" since the rest of the sentence is third person?
  • fixed
    • "Fleury claims that he was offered $16 million over four years by the Flames before the trade, and countered with an offer of $25 million over five years." It seems like it might be better to say "and countered with a request for" but is that not the correct parlance?
  • I think that is less correct myself. Flames made an offer, Fleury made a counteroffer.
    • "Unhappy with how his NHL career ended, and sober for nearly four years" This caught me off guard because you don't really say anywhere when and how he got sober. We leave off with his 2003 suspension, go through senior hockey and Belfast, and then in 2009 he's been sober for four years. Are there sources about how and when he got sober? I remember reading an interview with him in THN when he was in Belfast and he said he'd "like to be sober". If that was 2005-2006, I'm not sure the math adds up.
    • Ah nevermind, I see you talk about it in "Off the ice". I don't know.. can we find some way of letting readers know in the career section that he got sober around that time so they don't have to read all the way down to find out?
  • Clarified this in his comeback section.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! Resolute 14:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:38, 25 January 2010 [3].

Nashville sit-ins

Nominator(s): Kaldari (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Normally, I would put this article through a peer review before bringing it here, but I'm hoping to get it featured for the 50th anniversary of the sit-ins which is on February 13th. It has already been approved as a Good Article and represents over a year of research. Please help me refine it to featured status if possible. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is good. I approve of the research. The PRIMARY is covered by using a RS specifically on the primaries in use, but:
"downtown" is an Americanism. Use an international piece of English at least once (maybe the second use in the lede? "Inner city?" "Inner urban?" "Commercial district?")
Your short cites are Last, ShortTitle, ##. Wynn, Tennessee Historical Quarterly is thus wrong. It should be Wynn, "The Dawning of a New Day" as the title there is the article title.
page numbers with no title versus pp. 1. Firstly pp. 1 means pages 1. I think you mean p. 1. Secondly, either no preface to the page numbers, or prefaces to all.
Quoted in Sumner, The Local Press and the Nashville Student Movement, 1960, 130–131. you actually mean, Quoted in Sumner, The Local Press and the Nashville Student Movement, 1960, 130–131. Theses don't take italics (see the cite thesis template if you're using the cite book style, if by hand, easily fixed)
Inconsistency in date position in newspaper articles, if you're using templates author=[Staff] will fix it. If by hand, fix manually.
Harris, Mac (March 2, 1960). "75 Students Back in Jail". The Tennessean.
"No Place in Nashville for Inciters of Strife". Nashville Banner. March 1, 1960.
I heartily approve of the sources used and source diversity. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the 2nd occurrence of downtown with "central business district" (what a mouthful). All the other suggestions you mentioned have been implemented. Thanks for the feedback. Kaldari (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Would it be possible to make the first picture a bit bigger, and still keep fair use? The Ministry (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I can find a larger version of the image, I'll try to use it. Kaldari (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about using one of the images in the Nashville Public Library website instead? I am thinking of Jimmy Ellis's photo of 4 students at the Walgreen's lunch counter: it's a better image anyway, even if it weren't at higher resolution. Also, has someone contacted the library for permission to republish via the Creative Commons license? That would be better than fair use. Eubulides (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've tried. It's completely hopeless :( The Nashville Public Library is extremely protective of their images (and they actually own most of the copyrights). I've gone ahead and requested a higher resolution version (400px) of the lead image. I had to fill out 2 pages of paperwork, sign away my first-born child, and pay $40. They said they will mail me a CD with the image (complete with a copyright notice plastered across the bottom). Ug. Kaldari (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh, it's not worth $40! Can you take it back? We can't go above 100,000 pixels or so anyway, for fair use. The published Ellis JPEG is 300,000 pixels, so it'd have to be downresed anyway. That's part of why the Ellis photo is better: it'll look better at 100,000 pixels than File:Nashville sit-in.jpg will, because it has just four subjects; File:Nashville sit-in.jpg will require so much detail to be effective, that I worry it'll raise concerns that we're abusing fair-use. Eubulides (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. The other advantage of the Ellis photo is that the copyright isn't owned by the Nashville Library (they own all the Nashville Banner photographs, but not The Tennessean ones), so we won't have to deal with their "vigorous" copyright enforcement. I'll switch out the photos as suggested. And yes, I was able to cancel the $40 order :) Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - “although neither he nor his wife were injured” I am not a native speaker, but wouldn't “however” (or “but”) work better than “although” here? (I consulted the New Oxford American Dictionary and it seems as if although is use more in this sense: “in spite of the fact that.”) But as I said, I'm not a native speaker so I might be completely wrong here. The Ministry (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "however". Kaldari (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments and support - A very well written and researched article. Maybe you should at a legacy section (or something) similar at the end. Note #2 dosen't give sources. Who says they started in '58, and who says '59? Same thing for Note #3, after “most later sources” write something like “see, for example Jon Doe 1999 and Joe Bloggs 1966” The Ministry (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can put together enough information to create a legacy section. I'll also dig up the sources for Notes 2 and 3. Kaldari (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find enough material for a legacy section, but I did add a new section for the fiftieth anniversary, as several events are planned to mark the occasion. Kaldari (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kaldari (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was fast! Thanks. But I'm afraid that the alt text needs work. The alt text for File:Nashville sit-in.jpg contains details ("sit-in", "Woolworths") not obvious by a non-expert (see WP:ALT#Verifiability). The alt text for the map doesn't convey the gist of the map, which should be the general locations of the sitins (see WP:ALT#Maps). Also, please omit the phrase "photograph of", used twice (see WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid). Eubulides (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See if that's better. Kaldari (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks good, and thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I picked one source at sort-of-random, Sumner's 1989 PhD thesis. It appears that it should be replaced by other citations to the work that he published on the same subject, as this work is later and (as it is peer-reviewed) is presumably higher quality. I found the following sources:

  • David E. Sumner (1995). "Nashville, nonviolence, and the newspapers: the convergence of social goals with news values". Howard J Comm. 6 (1–2): 102–13. doi:10.1080/10646179509361687.
  • David E. Sumner. The media's role in a nonviolent movement: the Nashville Student Movement [PDF]. Proceedings of the 76th Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication; 1993 Aug 11–14; Kansas City, MO.

Eubulides (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sumner's PhD thesis is 254 pages long. The articles above are 11 and 17 pages respectively and do not contain the same depth of information. Kaldari (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that's what academic peer review is for, right? It helps authors emphasize or clarify important info, and to omit info that is questionable or less important. It's not clear that an encyclopedia article should be based on material that either Sumner or his reviewers thought was not solid enough, or not important enough, to appear in his peer-reviewed publications on the topic. It'd be helpful to use Sumner's later and more-reliable sources when they support the claims (which I hope and expect they will); if they don't support the claims, that'll be a signal that perhaps the claims need to be reworded or rethought, or a better source found. Eubulides (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thesis is currently cited 6 times in the article. The first 5 times are all secondary citations for basic facts reported by newspaper articles. The original newspaper articles are also cited, but these articles are only available on microfilm (as far as I know), as the Nashville Banner is long defunct and The Tennessean doesn't have archives going back that far. I've personally printed out all of these articles from microfilm, but I wouldn't expect someone wanting to verify the facts of the article to do the same. The thesis citations in these cases are purely to assist in fact checking, as they add nothing otherwise. In all 5 of these cases, my only option would be to remove the thesis citations, as no other citations (besides the original newspaper articles) are available.
In the 6th case, the thesis is cited for the sentence regarding the opposing stances of the two newspapers. In this case, any of the Sumner sources could be used. In fact, virtually any of my sources could be used for that statement as it is widely reported throughout the literature. I chose to use the thesis, however, since it is specifically concerned with that topic, and documents it with 200+ pages of evidence. Whether or not it is peer-reviewed seems a bit nit-picky, as it isn't making any unique or controversial claims in this case.
As surprising as this may be, Sumner's thesis is actually the most comprehensive source on the Nashville sit-ins that exists anywhere in any form. Personally, I would hate to lose it from the references, as it would be the first thing I would recommend to anyone doing further research on the subject. Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Passed doctoral theses are internally and/or externally examined by academics. So they've been through a form of peer review. I wouldn't say its as desirable as the peer review associated with the journal publication process. Additionally, doctoral theses are reliable sources. The uses here look fine to me, but if they're replaceable or can have a second source to a peer reviewed journal publication, then all the better. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and reviewed the thesis regarding the sixth citation. It is definitely a good citation for that paragraph as it breaks down the differences between the two newspaper articles mentioned in the paragraph. Neither of the other Sumner sources even mention the articles. The assertion that the two newspapers had opposing stances on segregation is actually cited to Halberstam, not Sumner. So all 6 Sumner citations are simply to verify factual statements given in local newspaper coverage. Neither of the other Sumner sources offered would be able to do this. Kaldari (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the new Sumner sources, it appears that the 1993 paper isn't a published journal article. It's merely a paper that was presented at a conference. Thus it is unlikely that it was peer-reviewed and in fact is probably of less "quality" than the PhD thesis. I support adding the other Sumner source, however. Although I don't think it should be used to replace the thesis (as explained above). Kaldari (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've successfully integrated the new Sumner source into the article without interrupting the existing flow too much. Let me know if it looks OK. Kaldari (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image concern review:

  • File:Jimmy Ellis Nashville sit-ins.jpg: WP:NFCC requires ten criteria to be fulfilled for copyrighted fair use on Wikipedia. Please explain (elaborate the FUR on the image page) why or how this image would satisfy criteria 1—no free equivalent (text or image)—and 8—contextual significance.

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I elaborated the fair-use rationale on the image page. Eubulides (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Sorry I wasn't able to get to this earlier. Kaldari (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. By the way, is this image public domain? If it was published in 1960, and its copyright wasn't renewed, it's public domain. See Wikipedia:Public domain #Published works for how to find out if the copyright was renewed. You know more about the image than I do; perhaps you know where it was first published? Eubulides (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no. Most photos of the sit-ins were never published or only published recently. Your question has inspired me to try to get a hold of a photo published by the Tennessean in 1960, though. Stay tuned. Kaldari (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tracked down a decent-quality version of a new photo that seems to be public domain (as far as I can tell). If anyone else would like to help verify it's status, it would be appreciated. Kaldari (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that looks nice. The Wikimedia software does a terrible job at reducing that, due to the moire effect; mind if I do a Gaussian blur on it to reduce those artifacts? Your analysis of its public-domainedness seems correct. Eubulides (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I descreened and downsampled the image to remove the half-toning. I also increased the brightness and contrast slightly. Let me know if it looks better to you. Kaldari (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. Eubulides (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hope you can succeed in making your deadline, but I think the article does need some further work.

  • I understand that you face difficulties with the photographs, but it is still disappointing that photos like the one at [4] aren't in the article, and the "whites only" picture comes all the way from Ohio.
    • It's my understanding that using several fair use images showing similar things is generally frowned upon. I think I can safely justify using one, but I'm not sure the guidelines would support me using several. Regarding the sign photo, I wasn't able to find any similar photographs taken in Nashville, free license or otherwise. Kaldari (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The protestors' code is cited to an offline reference, but online references exist [5]. I think that the code is noteworthy enough to quote in full.
  • I don't know why one section heading hyphenates "Pre-cursors", but some proofreading may be in order.
    • Fixed. BTW, I've asked some other editors to help proofread the article, so hopefully any lingering issues will be found. I've probably read the article too many times myself to be able to notice anything wrong at this point :) Kaldari (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article ends with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but I doubt that was really the end of the story.
    • For sit-ins in Nashville (and pretty much all anti-segregation direct action campaigns in the US), that's the end of the story. For individual activists, there is of course more story, but that's outside the scope of this article. I wrote or contributed to many of the articles on the activists if you're interested in learning more about their later lives. Kaldari (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says that a bomb was used, but does not say that it was dynamite.
See [6], ref. 8 from [7] [8] [9] &c. I'd like to see the article mine out all the online sources, and some others. Wnt (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is clearly far more interesting to feature than most of the FACs, but it will need further development. Wnt (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now that File:Paul Laprad Nashville sit-ins 1960.jpg is being used, we can't justify fair use on similar photos. (File:Jimmy Ellis Nashville sit-ins.jpg is sufficiently different and important that it qualifies, but I doubt whether others would.) Perhaps we can find more photos published in The Tennessean or other newspapers, which are now public domain and which we can use? That's not essential, but it would be better than what we have how.
  • "For individual activists, there is of course more story, but that's outside the scope of this article." Yes, but still, it'd be good to have a brief summary of the collective further careers of the activists, to better tie the article into the broader context. The careers themselves may be out of scope, but the influence of the Nashville sit-ins on them, and how the careers affected (or did not affect) the later course of the civil rights movement, are highly relevant. Let's put it this way: the lead is supposed to summarize the body, and right now the lead (rightly) says "Many of the organizers of the Nashville sit-ins went on to become important leaders in the U.S. Civil Rights Movement"—but almost nothing is said about this topic in the article's body; a bit of a discussion in the body would be welcome and relevant.
  • I also like the idea of adding the code; it's pretty short.
Eubulides (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is pretty close to FA quality now. Thanks for working on it! I made a few edits to fix some minor problems and one major one: fair-use of a historical image requires commentary on that image. Aside from the above issues, I have the following notes:

Eubulides (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question I've been doing some checking on comprehensiveness by researching the Nashville sit-ins on JSTOR and I'm wondering if you used that database at all because I'm finding quite a few articles that mention the sit-ins. The general outline of the event presented in the Wikipedia article is what is presented in these articles, but there are some interesting facts and quotations that you might want to consider using. I'm just wondering if you had already read these articles or not. Awadewit (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to JSTOR, so pretty much all of the sources I've used have been from my local library - several books and original newspaper articles on microfilm. There are, of course, lots of facts left out of this narrative for the sake of brevity. The ones I'm aware of include:
  • The story behind why there was no police protection during the 4th sit-in
  • James Stallman's vendetta against James Lawson. (Stallman was the publisher of the Nashville Banner.)
  • Looby's confrontations with Judge John I. Harris
  • Disagreements between the NCLC and the Nashville Student Movement on leadership issues
  • The story of the boycotts (which is only touched on in this article)
  • The conspiracy charges and how they were eventually dropped
  • The roles of Fred Harvey and John Sloan (the two biggest store owners) in the whole story
  • The tentative early desegregation of the Greyhound bus station restaurant
  • The CBS television documentary (which I haven't been able to find much information about)
  • Lawson's reconciliation with Vanderbilt
These were all consciously left out of the article in order to keep it focused and readable. I don't think any facts that are central to the story (or critical to its comprehensiveness) have been left out, however. If you know of any that I should consider adding, feel free to suggest them. Kaldari (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about JSTOR. I just now checked JSTOR and came up with the following possible citations to use:
  • Hogan, Wesley C. (2007). Many Minds, One Heart: SNCC's Dream for a New America. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-3074-1. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |author.= (help) I don't have easy access to this, but it seems quite relevant.
  • Ramsey, Sonya (2005). ""We will be ready whenever they are": African American teachers' responses to the Brown decision and public school integration in Nashville, Tennessee, 1954–1966". The Journal of African American History. 90 (1/2): 29–51. Good coverage of the relationship between the sit-ins (which get several pages of coverage) to educational issues, notably school integration.
  • Sarvis, Will (2003). "Leaders in the court and community: Z. Alexander Looby, Avon N. Williams, Jr., and the legal fight for civil rights in Tennessee, 1940–1970". The Journal of African American History. 88 (1): 42–58. Some choice nuggets about Looby and the sit-ins, including the usually composed Looby breaking down in tears after being given a standing ovation the day after the bombing.
There were a lot of other JSTOR hits but the other sources seemed to be either too dated or not directly relevant. Did you have any other sources in mind? I'm not expert at using JSTOR and could well have missed something. (What's with all these journals that don't have DOIs or decent URLs? Sigh.) I have easy access to read the two journal-article sources but alas cannot make copies due to copyright restrictions. I can try to draft text based on them, if there's interest, but would like to hear about more JSTOR-related sources first (save me some work to do 'em all at once). Eubulides (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in a request for Many Minds, One Heart through my library. If you know of any way I can view the other sources, please let me know. Kaldari (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are 24 JSTOR hits for "Nashville sit-in". I'll finish reading through those articles and send you the ones I feel are most relevant. Awadewit (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent you the articles I felt might be relevant:
  • Reagon - "Let the Church Sing 'Freedom'" - Briefly mentions how "We Shall Overcome" was used in Nashville
  • Sarvis - "Leaders in the Court and Community" - See above
  • Foster - "Choreographies of Protest" - Might have a useful quote from a participant and description of tactics
  • Ramsey - "We will Be Ready Whenver They Are" - See above; also explains how the leaders of the movement were from out of town
  • Morris - "Black Southern Student Sit-in Movement" - Has a nice summary of the movement, plus some good quotations and data
Here are three citations I ran across while reading that looked like might be helpful:
  • Black, White, and in Color: Television and Black Civil Rights by Sasha Torres - Has a section on how important television was to the Nashville sit-ins and its larger impact (this might mention the documentary you reference above and which I saw several references to in the articles I read)
  • The Nashville Sit-In Story - Folkways 5590 - Looks like an interesting primary source to mention
  • Leo Lillard, "Student Sit-Ins in Nashville, 1960". Voices of Freedom: Oral History of the Civil Rights Movement from the 1950s through the 1980s. Ed. Henry Hampton and Steve Gayer. New York, 1990.
I hope this is helpful. Awadewit (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have Henry Hampton's book. Let me know if you need help. --Moni3 (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop a note on my talk page when these sources have been consulted and any necessary new information has been added to the article. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:35, 25 January 2010 [10].

2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it is part of a WP:GT that I hope to bring to WP:FT status. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things are heading in the right direction, yes. At the end of hte season did the pundits do a wrap-up analysis and discuss what trades/changes need to be made to improve next season? Also in football (soccer) season articles, there is a device for mapping in diagrams of formations with players in certain slots and geometries. Is that possible here? It would be a nice addition. Also, can you get links for things like "slasher" and "cutter" in there? And the 1-3-1 type things, if there is a list of terms to link to. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find cutter and slasher in Category:Basketball terminology, but I found 1-3-1 defense/offense and 2-3 Zone Defense. You did not say how much detail you want in the game summary text. I hope to start beefing that up today, but hoped for some guidance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's reasonable yes YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded most game summaries.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:30, 25 January 2010 [11].

The Political Cesspool

Nominator(s): Stonemason89 (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This article has received a second peer-review from User: Brianboulton, and all of Brian's concerns from before have been addressed. I am confident that this article now meets FAC standards. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose, 1a, 1c, 2a. Interesting for sure, but several large problems lurk just in the lead. MoS problems exist such as malformed citations. Potential BLP problems exist; after reviewing the ADL and its criticism, I'm not convinced we should be using them as the sole source when publishing information about living people (such as Buchanan). Random fact checks just in the lead reveal items not reflected in the body text and not sourced at all. Original research issues, again just in the lead, mentioning terms like "far right" and "conspiracy theories" without writing about, defining, or sourcing them in the lead. I'm sorry but such a charged topic needs much more attention to sourcing, a strong lead that reflects the body text, BLP concerns, and so on. Quite a way from ready.
  • Parallel structure problems in the lead: "First broadcast ... from radio station WMQM" and then "currently broadcast ... at radio station WLRM" Surely the former is correct.
  • Several citations are malformed and contain double quotation marks.
  • Per WP:BLP, I would exercise extreme care in how you characterize living people in the article. For example, the only photo in the article is of Pat Buchanan, effectively making him the "poster boy" to people who are just skimming. Are you saying he is representative of their typical pool of guests? Also, the only sources you have for his appearances and quotations is the ADL. Can we find a more mainstream news sources to add to that para? I'm not sure if the reliability or neutrality of the ADL has ever been called into question, but from the looks of their article they've been embroiled in plenty of criticism and I'm thinking it couldn't hurt to beef up the sourcing when we're calling out living people for appearing on extremist radio shows.
  • Just to note, the photo in the article was originally of Jared Taylor. However, another user deleted the Taylor photo, forcing me to switch to Buchanan. If you object to the use of the Buchanan pic, I could replace it with a photo of Nick Griffin, who has also appeared on the show multiple times. He might be more representative of the show's typical pool of guests than Buchanan would be. How does that sound? Stonemason89 (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the guests are mostly from the US, I now think David Duke would be more representative of the show's guest list than either Buchanan or Griffin. I'm going to switch to a photo of David Duke, who, you're right, is probably more representative of the guests the show has had. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It clears up the image problem, but it doesn't clear up the problem of using the ADL exclusively to source information about people like Buchanan appearing on the show. We need to find some mainstream, neutral news sources. I mean, we have a link right in the References section calling Buchanan an "unrepentant bigot". It's not neutral and it's a BLP problem waiting to happen. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'll see what I can do. Would changing the shown title of that article in the References section work? I've done this before. For example, the Jesse Lee Peterson article makes a non-controversial statement (namely, the fact that Peterson is friends with Virginia Abernethy), which is cited to an article whose title, unfortunately, is the potentially-inflammatory "Jesse Lee Peterson: Minister of Minstrelsy". When adding that link as a source to Peterson's article, I made sure to change the title to avoid causing a BLP controversy. I could do the same with the more "controversially-titled" ADL articles, if that would work. I may also remove some of the more sensational Buchanan-related claims from the article. At the same time, though, I don't want people to think I'm "sanitizing" the article or trying to "whitewash" the subject's image. It's a fine line I have to walk. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference titles, and the section of the article related to Buchanan, have been edited, with some of the more potentially-inflammatory material removed. Do you think I went far enough (or possibly too far)? You might want to look at the edit history to see what I changed, and how I changed it. If you don't think I went far enough, please let me know. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Randomly checking a statement in the lead, you write: "It has attracted criticism from The Nation, the Stephen Roth Institute, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Anti-Defamation League for promoting far right, white nationalist, and white supremacist views, as well as related conspiracy theories." What does "far right" mean in this context? The linked article says it is a subjective term that is open to many meanings. I looked down in the Criticism section and I see this sentence roughly repeated, but no mention of the "far right" term or any source calling it "far right". I'm not saying it isn't, but we can't write things like this without sourcing it. Again, "as well as related conspiracy theories" Highly vague and again, unsourced. You don't mention conspiracy theories anywhere else in the article? You can't write things in the lead that aren't expanded and explained in the body text.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see what I can do to address these concerns. Some of these terms ("far right", etc.) were added by other editors than myself. I'll assess the situation and see if anything can be changed. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like User:Slimvirgin edited the lead very recently (less than 1 day ago), changing it quite a bit; you might want to look at the edit history to see which version you prefer; I haven't quite decided yet. First of all, Slimvirgin removed the word "allegedly" which had previously appeared before "promoting". Also, the phrase "as well as related conspiracy theories" was not present in the article before this edit; originally, I used the phrase "and conspiracy theorist views". As far as conspiracy theories go, they've presented the views of quite a few 9/11 Truthers, "New World Order/North American Union" types, and Holocaust deniers (Chuck Baldwin, Michael Collins Piper, Paul Craig Roberts, Jerome Corsi, David Ray Griffin, Willis Carto, David Duke, Mark Weber, etc). Hope that clears up any confusion as far as the labels go. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also believe the term "extreme right-wing" was used at first, and later changed to "far right" by another editor. Do you have a phrase in mind that you think would describe the show more accurately? Personally, I think the show is far right, white nationalist, etc., but I'm also aware that some people might disagree with me. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE: I replaced the mention of "far right" with "anti-Semitic", due to the sourcing concerns you brought up. There are enough RS's to verify that the show has, indeed, been criticized for anti-Semitism quite frequently, whereas the term "far right" has not been used nearly as often to describe the show's ideology. I also removed the "...as well as related conspiracy theories" bit for now; while the evidence is out there that this show promotes conspiracy theories, I want to wait until finding a better source before I add mention of this fact back into the article. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually irrelevant what I think would describe the show; it only matters what is reflected in the body and sources. So if we call it "anti-Semitic", we need to have that backed up in reliable sources (not the ADL, obviously, unless we are writing specifically that the ADL accuses the show of being so). --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the lead more closely. The article does not call the show anti-Semitic, it merely states that the show has been labeled as such by its critics (which is unambiguously true). Mentioning the fact that the show has been called anti-Semitic by its critics is not the same as saying the show is anti-Semitic. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am well aware the the ADL has had some controversies over the years. There are some issues (such as anything having to do with Israel or the United Nations) where it would definitely not be wise to use the ADL as a source, since it clearly has a bias on those particular topics. Their research into the white-nationalist movement, however (which includes The Political Cesspool) is far more respectable and less controversial, and I would venture that even many of the strongest critics of the ADL's stance on Israel and Palestine would not find anything to disagree with in the ADL's articles on David Duke, Richard Barrett, Ted Pike, The Political Cesspool, etc. It's almost as if the ADL is two different organizations; a controversial pro-Israel organization, and also a non-controversial pro-racial-equality organization, wrapped up into one package. The ADL articles that I cited clearly belong to the non-controversial, pro-racial-equality side of the ADL, and so I don't think those citations are an issue here. It's important to think on a case-by-case basis, and to keep in mind that some organizations may be reliable sources for articles pertaining to some issues, but not to other issues. As an analogy, Charlie Sheen is a reliable source for articles about Charlie Sheen movies or the Lee National Denim Day, but he is not a reliable source for articles about 9/11. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we should accept the ADL as a source for anything other than their own opinion, especially where living people are involved. It seems like they are interested in publishing fantastic sources to support their lobby, much like PETA and other similar agencies. I'm not advocating that they be excluded—only that we use mainstream, vetted media sources for overall claims we are making. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've toned down some of the more controversial ADL-and-Buchanan-related material from the article; see my comment above. Perhaps you could take another look at the article to see if you think it's now okay? Stonemason89 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments We've made some strides toward reliable sourcing. However, my confidence remains low in the sourcing overall. I'm not convinced the article is comprehensive; we eschew mainstream news coverage (for example, The Commercial Appeal appears to write stories or blogs about the show in some regularity, but you have nothing from this, the nearest major newspaper.) for apparent trivia (Frith "continues to visit the WLRM studios on occasion"?) sourced to the station's own web site. Overall, the bulk of the sources are the show's web site, the Memphis Sewage article, or the ADL. I think you've got to hit the library for newspapers at the very least—start with Newsbank or Access World News. Additionally, I did some random source-checking and found statements that are not backed up by the sources used, indicating the need for a full source audit. We've still got BLP problems: absolutely no one should be listed as a guest on this show without an independent, reliable source. Needs scouring for that issue.
I haven't come across too many mainstream news articles about the show; I'm sure they exist, but they are likely either offline, or require a subscription to access. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Searching at my library database, I've found several sources you haven't used. For example, writers at The Commercial Appeal apparently blog about the show frequently, get quotes from local officials, and so on. There isn't much in the article on local reactions to the show being hosted near Memphis.
I live in Minnesota, so I don't have access to The Commercial Appeal's articles, except for those they have posted online. A search for online Commercial Appeal articles referencing the show comes up with no results, see: [12]. You seem to have access to a Memphis-area library, perhaps you could help out sometime? Stonemason89 (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's confusing to me that we have some sources of criticism with citations in the lead, and some without. Generally, citations are only needed in the lead if the item is controversial or likely to be challenged. Are those either? I'd rather we cite all or none of them, and I don't have a preference which.
Okay, I'll go with "none". Stonemason89 (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • " as a paleoconservative alternative to GOP radio hosts such as Sean Hannity." Parallelism missing here. You wrote that they started a (show) as an alternative to a (host); really, it should be show–show.
I didn't write that paragraph; it was added by another user (namely, User: The Squicks). I'll try to tidy it up, though. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not confident in the Sonny Landham item. I'd like an independent source backing up his involvement with the show. Again, a potential BLP problem—we can't have only the show's own web site backing it up.
Okay, I'll just remove it then for now; I haven't been able to find any independent sources for it yet. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Austin Farley left the program in November 2005 to spend more time with his wife and four children; he was replaced by Winston Smith. Farley remains on good terms with Edwards and the show's other staff members." Problematic. First, the source gives a different reason for his leaving (to run for office). Second, it says nothing about his remaining on "good terms"; how would they know, anyway? Only Farley or the show's staff could make such a claim.
There's a conflict there, between Memphis Sewage and the show's official website; one source says he left to spend time with his wife and kids, the other source says he left to run for office. Because of this, I'm going to simply state that Farley left in 2006, without stating a reason. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "James Edwards is active in the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC), and the show has hosted several leaders from the CofCC and publications affiliated with it as guests." Again, uncomfortable with pegging anyone as a guest on this show without an independent, reliable source.
There's always the show's own guest list to back up that claim, but it's not an independent source per se. I'm probably just going to remove that statement then. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks for the quick replies. I think we'll want to find the sources rather than just removing the information in these cases (unless you are just removing it as an intermediate step) because that brings us further away from comprehensive. We really do need information on guests and keynote speakers and what-not, but we've got to have the independent sources. Re: library access, I only use what's available at any public or university library (I live in Arizona). You'll have to go to a library that subscribes to major news databases and start digging. Librarians can help. I am certainly willing to help, but it is not something to be done within the short time frame of an FAC nomination. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will need to visit a library sometime, then (though it won't be very soon because in the upcoming months I will be busy with college classes, etc). Looks like this article probably won't make FAC this time around; but maybe the 3rd time will be the charm. Again, thanks for all your feedback! Stonemason89 (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2010 (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 23:10, 23 January 2010 [13].

On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away

Nominator(s): —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because after significant research, several copy edits, and a successful GA review, I feel this article now meets the FA criteria. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Brianboulton (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 03:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 02:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question I was doing some research on JSTOR to check the comprehensiveness of this article and I came across about 20 articles that mention this song. Have you read these? One looked quite interesting - it had a lot more details about copyright than are contained in the Wikipedia article. Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I have not read those articles, but would be interested in doing so. The majority of the article is based off two book , one with a whole chapter dedicated to the song, and information available from the Indiana historical society and Indiana historical bureau. There was a significant fight over the plagerism, but it fizzled out and never really got anywhere. I made a search of JSTOR but didn't find anything that looked promising or as useful as the sources I already had. Could you give me a link? —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 02:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've skimmed the 23 hits. Here are ones that I thought would be the most relevant. Let me know if you would like me to send them to you:
  • Danish Emigrant Ballads and Songs. By Rochelle Wright and Robert L. Wright. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1983. - Explains that Danish songs were influenced by "On the Banks of the Wabash"
  • Lisa Gitelman, "Reading Music, Reading Records, Reading Race: Musical Copyright and the U. S. Copyright Act of 1909", The Musical Quarterly Vol. 81, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 265-290 - Copyright of the song
  • Barry Maine, "U.S.A.: Dos Passos and the Rhetoric of History" South Atlantic Review Vol. 50, No. 1 (Jan., 1985), pp. 75-86 - How the song was used in newsreels
  • Gayle Sherwood, "Questions and Veracities: Reassessing the Chronology of Ives's Choral Works" The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 78, No. 3 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 429-447 - This indicates that Ives wrote a parody of the song, but says nothing about it. Have you found any other information about the parody?
I hope this is helpful. Awadewit (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first one looks like it would be useful for expanding the adaptations section. The others sound only marginally so. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've read them? The one on copyright has some interesting information not in the article and the one which mentions its use in newsreels is a good example of how the song was used and contains an explication of the song's lyrics. Awadewit (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I haven't yet. I am sorry, I was just judging by the titles you gave me. I will try to read over them all this evening and see what I can glean. Thanks for the info though! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 22:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I should have been clearer when I posted the list - I've actually read these, so I know there's useful info there. :) Awadewit (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked them out, but unfortunately I do not have a JSTOR account, so all I can read is the first pages. I've also checked my library catalog and these books are not available there either. I have checked out a few other places, like google scholar, but and finding the same situation where I can only view the first page. The sources I have go into more detail on the copyright fight between Dresser's estate at the plagiarizers, I could expand it if you feel the article is lacking in that area. 02:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I do have access to JSTOR, so I can send them to you, if you want. Let me know. Awadewit (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can, I would appreciate it. Can you do it by email? —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 05:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, just email first. I can't attach documents to Wikipedia emails, but once you email, I can reply with the attachments. Awadewit (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2010 (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 22:29, 23 January 2010 [14].

2009 World Series

Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It's been quite a while since I ventured into the FAC process with my own nomination (Wesley Clark and Alison Kraus), but I've worked on this article for quite a while and I believe it is up to snuff. It went through a peer review and has been built in the style of already-FA 2004 World Series (and, to a lesser degree, 1926 World Series). One issue that came up at 2004 World Series was the use of the logo as the lead image. I was on the side of using the logo, as this article does, but I'll happily change it if a free alternative is presented. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Except for the logo, all other images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. The copyrighted logo qualifies for free use as an identification of the article's subject, as agreed across the project, with appropriate rationale. Jappalang (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I'm COI-ed out of offering support for this article as a Yankees fan, and I've already promised copy-editing for another FAC, so I may unfortunately have little to offer here. I do, however, have a few source comments and queries:

  • Content in the lead doesn't usually require a reference if it is included in the body (and it should be).
  • What makes Fanhouse (reference 14) a reliable source? I've read a few pages from there at various times, and it's basically a blog. FAs should have stronger sources than blogs, unless they are written by an expert in the field or are so-called by news outlets.
  • Typo in ref 36: "philadelpihaflyers.com."
  • Italics should be used for printed ref publishers. I see the Seattle Times and New York Times as needed italics in places, and there may be others.
  • Spell out NESN in ref 46.
  • What makes Bleacher Report (ref 65) reliable? Again, their content strikes me as bloggish.
  • Ref 72 needs a publisher (ESPN).
  • What makes tvbythenumbers.com (ref 81) reliable? Incidentally, this incorrectly says that the reference is from Fox Sports (I hope not; their links go down in rapid fashion).
  • Another typo in ref 100: Huffinton needs a g.
  • Taking a brief glance at the game summaries, there is a lot of uncited content in the game 5 summary. This should be cited during the course of this FAC.

Best of luck with this article. This is my favorite topic ever at FAC, and brings back some warm memories of last fall. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object I'm surprised nobody has complained about the content yet. Normally in the lead-up to finals, tournaments etc, the pundits will discuss the various strengths and weaknesses of the teams, and what the key match-ups may be, or how the teams should play to target the weaknesses of their opponents. In the background section of the article, there are only parts about the winning statistics of the two teams, and some personal milestones by some players. eg strong/weak fielding, fast running, big hitting, which pitchers are effective against which types of batsmen etc (eg in cricket, some bowlers do well against left-handers but not right-handers etc so a team may choose to select lots of right-handers if the opposition bowlers don't like them, etc) I think this is important, but this is the second sports article I checked today about a sports team or their campaign and neither had any discussion on strengths and weaknesses. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I found an example on a google search. [15] The first two entries are blacklisted by wiki, and may or may not be RS, in which case respectable outlets can be found. Before finals matches, the analysts always go through the strengths and weaknesses of each team and speculate on how they might play to exploit these, or which key pitcher can nullify a bighitter from the other team. In those two examples they speculate that certain pitchers will be more effective against left-handers, so they can do well against Philly, and that NYY's relief pitchers are weak, so Philly may play it safe counter-attack with the bat later in the game once the frontliner pitchers have to rest. Those sorts of things. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article also doesn't summarise the series as to why one team won and the other lost. It just gives a bunch of sequential plays but doesn't explain which pitcher from the winning team nullified the opposition batsman, or whether the NYY won because of a batter slogging the other guys. It just says, this guy hit a ball here, then there was no run, etc. There isn't even a table or anything at the bottom to show which players were most effective with the bat or ball, it only has who scored a run in an individual match. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would you like added? I suppose a series stats box could be added (although that would bump up against and probably violate WP:NOT#STATS in my opinion), but fundamentally this article does describe how the teams won the games. Each game summary describes precisely every single run-scoring event in the series, every pitching and defensive substitution, what else is out there to put in? Staxringold talkcontribs 06:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1b/1c. I must concur with YellowMonkey that an entire section of detailed analysis of the matchup is missing. In the American press, there are usually lots of newspaper and magazine special sections dedicated to this content area. You'll have to hit the library and/or access databases like Access World News to get those back issues. Virtually all of your references are online, indicating you probably haven't explored this level of research. With regard to the comment about the 2004 World Series article, we want to be careful not to have an "template" for creating these articles at the expense of eschewing their individual needs. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can add this stuff, but my question is what precisely you want. I ask this because about 90% of those articles are "THE YANKEES ARE AWESOME. CC WILL DESTROY THE EARTH AND JETER'S RBI TOTAL WILL BLOT OUT THE SUN." in the NY press and vice versa for Philly. It strikes me as something like "Critical reception" sections for TV and film, you have to pick and choose which always worries me that I'm introducing OR into something. I've got no classes tommorrow though, I'll dig around. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:22, 19 January 2010 (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 22:29, 23 January 2010 [16].

River Parrett

Nominator(s): — Rod talk, Pyrotec


I am nominating this article for featured status because it has been a stable GA for nearly a year. Recent collaborative editing has made it the most comprehensive article on the river which, I believe, complies with MOS issues. Issues raised in the extensive discussion on the talk page and in a peer review have been addressed. Comments are of course welcome and issues identified will be addressed as quickly as possible.— Rod talk 18:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC) This is a co-nom with User:Pyrotec.— Rod talk 09:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So, how big is its drainage basin? Is it 1,690 mi²? Or is it 1,690 km²? It tells us both figures, but converts the latter backwards if that's what it is, from then-overprecise square miles back to km² rather than from the original. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I have taken "The Parrett Catchment Water Management Strategy Action Plan" (PDF). Environment Agency. 2002. p. 13. Retrieved 2 January 2010. as being the definitive answer because it is from the government agency with responsibility. It says "The total catchment of the River Parrett and its tributaries covers some 1,665 sq km". I have converted this to 643 Sq mi as the geobox is in imperial measurements & lost the fake accuracy in the lead.— Rod talk 10:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Though I don't like the idea changing an original measurement first by doing your own calculations, then using some black-box templates ({{convert}} and {{Geobox}}) to convert it back again hoping you'll get back to the original. A vain hope in the case of the number in the text, where you got back to 1,670 km² Better to put the original measurement first, and that could be done with this Geobox infobox template, couldn't it? Just replace the part after the underscore for that parameter. It certainly could be done in the text itself. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what's with the "over" in the text? Did it originally say something like "over 650 square miles" (based on the 1,690 km² figure), or something like that? It probably doesn't belong there if you use the most precise figure you have. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand what you are suggesting in relation to the geobox? Also if we put in the original figure from the Environment Agency ie 1,665 sq km we will then have some measurements in the article in metric first & the rest in imperial first - I believe the MOS says that imperial first is OK for UK topics but should consistent within the article. Guidance appreciated.— Rod talk 12:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "A foolish consistency is a hobgoblin of little minds."
The only sensible way to do it is to place the original measurements first. That provides, for example, the best clues we have as to the accuracy of the original measurement.
But let's say that we do want to insist on a monolithic method. This isn't a historical article, as you might have with a ship built in the 1800s, for example. This is an article about a present-day geographic feature. It's in the UK, a place which is supposed to have been metricized many decades ago. And your originals were indeed in metric units, not in the least bit surprisingly. So if we want to be foolishly consistent, then it ought to be metric-units-first consistency and not English-units-first consistency. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been debated in many places on several occasions & although the UK is supposed to have been metricated many decades ago, common usage and some "official" documents are still in imperial. If I did convert them all in the article it would lead to the same problem where other source documents are imperial first. I wish there was a simple answer to this tension between consistency and using the original sources, but I am not aware of one and would go with whatever consensus is arrived at here.— Rod talk 19:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The UK is a metric country, in the majority but not in full. Miles are still legal units and our legal speed limits (maximum limits) are defined in miles per hour. In this particular problem, I would suggest that square miles or square kilometres are equally acceptable as units of measurment of catchment area. I would however like to state that in the UK we use metric and Imperial units; the USA, in contrast, uses English units and some metric units. Imperial and English units are not necessary indentical: the US and the UK pound and gallon, for instance, are different. Pyrotec (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Pyrotec says, in the UK various units are used. Metrification never was fully completed. I think some government bodies produce figures in SI units because they probably have to submit them to the EU, other authorities use imperial units. But I do see the sense in using the units from the source, the only problem being that it may introduce confusions for the reader. Also, I did the same sort of conversion for the discharge figures so they can revert to the SI original if the is the consensus here. I guess it it just a question of consistency v using the sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox uses current information, likely available from some government source, and likely presented in metric units (or both). In the text of the article it may be different. For example, when water flow is measured in archaic units such as long tons per minute, something I've never noticed in contemporary usage, those measurements should appear first. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So may I just clarify - you want the units in the infobox to be metric, but are not worried if the rest of the article is imperial? If so and other reviewers will not object I would be happy to do this.— Rod talk 17:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1 Enviromental Agency of WHAT?
  • Sorry, I meant more that you should say more of what it is in the ref... so "Welsh Enviromental Agency" or similar. Just to give some idea of what governmental body is being used in the ref. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced with another ref - I could ref the Ordance Survey map if that would be helpful?
  • OS map ref added
  • Site by David Nash Ford who according to EBK General Info has a joint Bachelor of Arts Honours Degree in History & Archaeology from the University of Reading.
  • BAs are a dime a dozen, they don't make it a reliable source. Nor does this site cite its own sources. Even if the site itself is reliable by WP:RS, it's not a "high quality" source by FA criteria. If you need help finding sources for this information, drop me a note on my talk page with what you need sourced, and I bet I can find it in my library. (This is one of my main areas that I contribute to Wikipedia on, Medieval England, so I've got the sources.) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That ref is used to support the claim that "The River Parrett was established as the border between Wessex and Dumnonia in 658 AD, following the defeat of the West Welsh (Dumnonia) in the Battle of Peonnum, at Penselwood that year." It is on Britannia.com & historyfiles.co.uk as well - would either of those be acceptable or do you have something better? (Just checking Dunning & Hawkins as well)
  • Its in the Hawkins book so I've added that as a ref.
  • (ec) Stenton, Frank Anglo-Saxon England Third Edition. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK 1971 ISBN 978-0-19-280139-5 p. 63. It also says that "Under the year 658 the Chronicle [he means the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle here] states that Cenwalh, king of Wessex, fought with the Britons a æt Peonnum and drove them in flight as far as the river Parret." if you wanna add that tidbit also. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced with another ref
  • The Hadfield ref needs page numbers, World Cat lists it as 206 pages.
  • The Robinson ref needs page numbers.
  • Done
  • The Waite ref needs page numbers
  • Done
  • The Hawkins ref needs page numbers
  • Done
  • Ref 28 is borked somehow.
  • Now fixed
  • The Dunning ref needs page numbers
  • Done
  • The Hadfield ref needs page numbers (and the author should be Hadfield, Charles to be consistent with the rest of hte article.
  • Made the same as other Hadfield refs but I don't have the pages nos yet
  • The Nicholson Water Guides needs a page number
  • The cumberlidge ref needs a page number
  • I've replaced this one with the Nicholson ref (p25) which makes the same point
  • The BUsh ref needs a page number
  • Done
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - some done, some may have to wait a few days until I can get back to the library - unless anyone else has personal copies of the relevant books.— Rod talk 19:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images. This is my first image review, which the delegates may want to take into account. But here goes:

To be continued. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 05:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all the images. There's also a template, Template:River Parrett map, which contains a diagram, and I can't see how that was created. Could the nominator explain, please? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 06:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Thanks for the image review. geograph.co.uk is a very useful site for UK geography articles and specifically designed to release images under CC Attribution-Share Alike licence & my thanks to the many different photographers who submit their photographs there. The template, Template:River Parrett map was created by User:Bob1960evens who has done similar template for hundreds of UK waterways using symbols etc from Template:Waterways legend. He has contributed these to wp in the same way anyone does with text so I don't think this should be any problem but I will put a note on the editors talk page, pointing to this discussion.— Rod talk 09:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fully understand what the question is. Click on Template:River Parrett map and then click on "edit this page" (same as editing an article or a talkpage, such as this one).Pyrotec (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pyrotec, it was the symbols on the template I was talking about; I was thinking it was one image, rather than lots of little symbols. Rod, thanks, I see where they come from now. Okay, that's fine, then, all the images seem to be in order. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 14:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The photos are fine. The canal map icons seem pretty fine on their own: most are {{PD-ineligible}}, but there is a prevalent opinion on Commons (pointed out by Carl Lindberg, I think) that as long as the uploaders declare the images as PD and do not claim copyright, it is okay. I note that the ones by T.h state "Icons von Berhina (Icons of Berhina)": possibly pointing out these are derivative works, but possibly not an issue due to the simple shapes involved. Jappalang (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia mapping project was started by German wikipedia for the mapping of railways, and Berhina created a number of the initial icons for that project. It has since spread around the world. For those of us without sophisticated SVG editors, it is often easier to take an existing icon and alter the contents without altering the basic structure of the svg. Many simple editors will not bother to alter the header information, and so Berhina's name gets retained, although the icon is quite different to look at. If you are prepared to hack the svg, the size of files can be reduced by about 80%, and at that level you notice the guff in the top of the file, and may remove or alter it. I think you would find it difficult to establish them as derivative, in view of the fact that most icons consist of just a few lines, and maybe a circle. Once I knew what I was doing, subsequent icons had the headers altered and were uploaded to Commons with a PD tag. I hope that helps. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this and have been involved in a number of PRs and FACs for stream articles that are now FAs. I think it is generally well done (and someone desrves a barnstar for the alt text in the diagram), but I think there are some areas that need improvement before it meets all the FAC requirements. I will start now and have more comments later.

  • Organization - I commented on this in the PR, but I think that there is a mix of things in the Course section that should probably be elsewhere. All but one of the current Wikiproject Rivers FAs starts with a Course section, often with the Discharge as a subsection. These mention pretty much all the places that will be touched on later in the article, but does not generally go into history. Here discharge is mixed in with course, and the Tidal bore is its own very short section at the end of the article. There is also some history mixed in with the course, such as a brief description of Bridgewater Castle or the contents of museums. I think it is OK to have history in the course section if it is history of how the course / flow has changed over time. So the material on the peninsula and islands is OK. I would move the rest of the history into the history section, and put the discharge and tidal bore into its own subsection at the bottom of the Course section. If desired, the Course section could then be called something like "Course and flow" and the subsection "Discharge and tidal bore".
  • I note that Bridgwater Castle is not mentioned elsewhere in the article - if it is important enough to be in the Course section, shouldn't it be in the history as well?
  • Do we know how far up the river the tidal bore travels? If so, that should be included.
  • I also note that there are not many distances given in the course section - would it be possible to indicate rough distances along the river there? We are told how far its source is from that of the River Axe, then nothing else on distances.
  • I also note that there are three images in the Course section, which partially sandwich text between them (which WP:MOSIMAGE says not to do), but no images in the Landscape subsection of History. Could an image be moved there?
  • There are places that need to provide more context to the reader - for example what was the approximate time period for the Romans in the area?
  • Minor MOS issues - for example in the lead a % is used, but the MOS says spelling it our (per cent) is preferred, or circa is not italicized (but is Latin, so I think it is just abbreviated c.)
  • Language could be tightened / polished in several places - here are two examples:
    • The village of Combwich lies on Combwich Reach, where the River Parrett flows to the sea past [the] The Steart Peninsula. do not capitalize "the"
    • A "neck" started to form in the peninsula and by 1802 AD the tip had broken off to form an island: Stert Island.[19] already made it clear this is AD in preceding sentence (18th century), avoid needless repetition of island, and this is just an observation, but it is spelled "Steart" in two other places in the article, so is "Stert" here correct or a typo?

More later, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Firstly the name Steart/Stert. I checked various sources, including the Ordnance Survey maps and the Victoria County History. There is a settlement (more of a farm) which is called Steart; but the island (Sert Island), the drove (Stert drove), the flats (Stert flats) and the point are called Stert (Stert Point). Ref 19 uses Stert for all of them. There is a certain amount of ambiguity over the spelling of the peninsula - both names are in use and wikipedia has an article Steart Peninsula which wrongly spells the island: but the OS does not name the peninsula. Pyrotec (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bridgwater castle and its market, but not its mote, is mentioned in History, in the penultimate paragraph of Landscape. I more than happy to expand that subsection, if that is required. Pyrotec (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image moved and suggested grammar improvments carried out. Pyrotec (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you clarify what you are asking for in repect of Course and History? You seem fairly content for Bridgwater castle to remain in Course but you also seem to want it added (but its already there) in to History. The History subsection, Landscape, already covers changes to the course of the river and embankement, etc. Are you asking for this to be moved into Course and some of the history in Course to be moved out? Pyrotec (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you also clariy the distinction between course and discharge? Presummably almost everything in Course except the last paragraphh is course; and the last paragraph of Course is Discharge? Pyrotec (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Columbia River is the most recent FA to follow the model Course section I am advocating, basically look at everything in there and see if it directly pertains to the course of the river - the only history in there is on the glacial floods which changed the river's course for a while. That said, I think it is fine and helpful to mention any place mentioned later in the rest of the article, but I think it is distracting to go into detail on historical or other details. For one example where the article does this well already, see this brief mention of Muchelney Abbey in the Course section now ...through Thorney and Muchelney, passing the remains of Muchelney Abbey before entering Langport.... Later there is much on the history of Muchelney Abbey. All this said, here is what I would move out or change:
  • I would move this to the flow or discharge subsection at the end - it is not about the Course: The Parrett has a mean flow, as measured by the Environment Agency at a gauging station at Chiselborough, of 67.45 cubic feet per second (1.910 m3/s), with a peak of 6,109 cubic feet per second (173.0 m3/s) on 30 May 1979 and a minimum of 2.5 cubic feet per second (0.071 m3/s) on 22 August 1976.[8]
  • I would also move the whole "Tidal bore" section to this new flow or discharge section.
  • This is problematic: The lock at the deserted medieval village of Oath marks the river's tidal limit.[9] It was built when it was realised that those at Stanmoor and Langport would not provide the depth of water specified in the Act of Parliament of 4 July 1836 authorising the construction of the River Parrett Navigation.[10][11] It has since been replaced by a sluice gate to control flooding.[12] The last two sentences are not really pertinent to the Course and should probably be moved to the History section somewhere. I also think that years should be added (if known) when the lock was built and when the sluice gate replaced it. The first sentence could then be something like The sluice gate (formerly a lock) at the deserted medieval village of Oath marks the river's tidal limit.[9] I also guess this may be the limit of the tidal bore too?
  • I think this is OK (brief description plus Burrow Mump just sounds cool) The next major landmark along the river's course is Burrow Mump, an ancient earthwork owned by the National Trust.[13]
  • The stuff I strike here seems to belong elsewhere (history or ecology): Flowing north, it passes Langmead and Weston Level SSSI, where four nationally rare species of terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates have been recorded,[14] and on past the pumping station at Westonzoyland, which is now an Industrial Heritage museum of steam powered machinery and land drainage, and houses most of the equipment from the Burrowbridge pumping station.[15] Identify, yes, but leave the details for later (I am following the example of the earlier SSSI, just the name, here)
  • If the river flows into the tidal moat (assume it does, as it is tidal) then that is OK to keep in the course section, but what does an undercroft have to do with the course? Again strikes here are to be moved elsewhere, not deleted, stuff in [brackets] are suggested additions As it enters Bridgwater it passes under Somerset and Hamp Bridges. [and by] Bridgwater Castle[, which] had a tidal moat up to 65 feet (20 m) wide in places, fed by water from the river.[16] Parts of the castle wall, water gate and undercroft still survive.[17] not sure the width has to stay here - could it be moved to the part about the castle later?
  • I think the whole moved sluice / clyse is a judgment call - if it is vital to understanding the course of the river (or parts of it are) keep it here, otherwise can it be moved to history?
  • The meaning of "it" is unclear here, assume it is the river, but it has no clear antecedent in the sentence The mouth at Burnham-on-Sea is a nature reserve where it flows into Bridgwater Bay on the Bristol Channel. mouths and nature reserves do not flow ;-)
  • At the end of the current Course section I would add a subsection with the discharge / flow data from above and the tidal bore section.

OK, calling it a night. Will address concerns after the Course section tomorrow. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks again for your comments. I was slightly confused about what had been resolved and what hadn't but I believe within the course section I have revised: the period of Roman rule, SSSI details, Bridgwater Castle, pumping station information, the unclear "it", Oath lock & I've added approximate distances. I have not done anything in relation to the flow rate measurements, as these are not discharge measurements. Chiselborough is nearer to the source than the mouth & I can't find flow rates etc at the mouth.— Rod talk 12:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the ref for the flow rate here and see it has some information not mentioned in the article. What if the subsection were called "Flow and tidal bore"? Then the text could be something like "The Parrett has only one gauging station, at Chiselborough, fairly close to the source. It measures flow from the first 29 square miles (75 km2) 74.8 of the drainage basin, or about 4.3 per cent of the total. The mean flow measured by the Environment Agency at Chiselborough was 67.45 cubic feet per second (1.910 m3/s), with a peak of 6,109 cubic feet per second (173.0 m3/s) on 30 May 1979 and a minimum of 2.5 cubic feet per second (0.071 m3/s) on 22 August 1976. Tributaries of the Parrett with gauging stations include the Yeo, Isle, Cary, and Tone.[8]" followed by the second pargraph from the current tidal bore section.
  • I looked at the tidal bore ref and it lists an author at the bottom - his name should be added to the ref here.
  • I am going to move on to the History section next, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments: I've moved the tidal bore section, as per your comments above. Pyrotec (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(out) I am making some copyedits now, please revert if I make things worse or introduce errors. I see a few things I want to raise here.

  • This may be American English vs. British English, but "near to" is used twice where I would just use "near"
  • There is some WP:OVERLINKing - the rule of thumb is usually to have a link once in the lead and then at the first mention in the body of the article (plus captions or tables). Look at Bridgwater or the Abbey links, for example.
  • Unclear if the crossing and ferry mentioned here It is thought a ford, usable only at low tide, and later a ferry crossed the river near to its mouth, between Combwich and Pawlett (east bank), since Roman times. are the same ones mentioned later in the same paragraph The river crossing at the western end of the Polden Hills lay on the route of a Saxon herepath.[30] A ferry was in operation from the 13th century.[30] If they are the same, I think I would remove mention of the ferry from the first sentence to make it flow more smoothly. If these are not the same location, this needs to be made clearer.
  • The paragraph starting with Continuing land reclamation and control of the Parrett ... is fairly long and could be split into two.
  • There is also a one sentence paragraph later that sould be combined with another if at all possible In the medieval era the river was used to transport Hamstone...
  • Needs a ref Under an 1845 Act of Parliament the Port of Bridgwater extends from Brean Down to Hinkley Point in Bridgwater Bay, and includes parts of the River Parrett (to Bridgwater), River Brue and the River Axe.
  • Needs conversion to other units too The river was navigable, with care, to Bridgwater Town Bridge by 400–500 tonne vessels.[6] and other places throughout the Port of Bridwater section.

I have copyedited / read closely to the end of Port of Bridgwater. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 06:22, 23 January 2010 (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 22:29, 23 January 2010 [17].

Murder of Teresa de Simone

Nominator(s): Sanguis Sanies (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... this was one of my first extensive works on wikipedia as an anon. and it became my first Good Article. Going over the article, and with the help of the peer review, I believe the article meets the criteria as one of the best articles. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • All three images have fair-use rationales and alt texts. The fair-use rationale for [18] and [19] would IMO benefit from a more explicit explanation of "purpose of use", similar to that given for the image of the victim. --JN466 15:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No dab links or dead external links—good.
  • Alt text looks good to me after some edits.
  • Ref dates are consistent ISO style (not sure about the en dashes in place of the usual hyphens, but at least they're consistent). I see e.g. "December 12 and December 27", but they should probably be "12 December" etc. to match the rest of the Day Month Year prose dates. and prose dates are Day Month Year. 07:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

--an odd name 23:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead review:

  • The murder of Teresa de Simone was an English homicide committed in 1979 which led to one of the longest proven cases of a miscarriage of justice in British legal history. The way English is ussed in this sentance, it seems like English homicide is a special type of homicide.
  • Looking at the lead, it's too short. It doesn't say how the murder was commited, where, the criminal trial, etc. It skips from him being released to the consequences.
  • The last para of the lead doesn't give a clear idea where it is going. Reading the first 2/3 lines of it, I think, so what? How is this related? It is, but the connection of the case, ae. its signifigance, should be placed at the beginning not the end.
  • As a result of Hodgson's appeal and the use of archived forensic evidence to solve the crime, announced that 240 other convictions were to be reviewed. Who announced this?
  • The CCRC also wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions requesting that the Crown Prosecution Service identify and review similar murder cases from the time before DNA testing was available. to identify.
I'll be massaging the prose as I go along. As a favor for this review, can you please please please review mine? Thank you, ResMar 14:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at making the lead a bit larger, point 5 is incorrect; to add a "to" is incorrect. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • The pub was located centrally in the city What city?
What city? Southhampton, as mentioned once in the lead, once in the infobox and once in the same paragraph two sentences before. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You talk about blood type A vs. blood type O, how he had the right blood type for the crime scene, but never say what this means, exactly. ResMar 17:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments It's seemingly well-written, but there are several detail items needing attention.
    • "The murder ... was a homicide" You don't say.
    • You've used en dashes all over the place where hyphens should be used. I fixed one but you need to go through and fix all of them. Ex. "pre-1990", "22-year-old", "full-time" and so on. Please review WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH.
    • Why is the name of the pub in italics all over the place? This and other items indicates this has not been carefully prepared with regard to WP:MOS.
    • It's somewhat overlinked. Please avoid linking simple definition items and common nouns. This needs some attention.
Great job, just needs some fit and finish. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better? Thanks for the comments. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, all my issues have been addressed and I've combed through it again to do some fine-tuning. Thanks for all your hard work and for giving us the opportunity to read about this fascinating case. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until the following are resolved: Change to support.

  • Overlinking British, part-time, barmaid, postmarked: any term that is obvious to an English reader (British), or does not add to the understanding of the article, should not be linked.
  • The beginning of a sentence cannot start with a number (240, £250,000)
  • Why is Southern Daily Echo in bold?
  • Is there a reason for this odd capitalization mid-sentence: located As of December 2009?
  • Again, this seems like a disruption in sentence punctuation: appeal being refused.[Appeal 20] "in 1998 an inquiry...
  • Hodgsons is Britain’s longest Isn't his name Sean Hodgson?
  • While I appreciate the background of someone who apparently was a murderer, I am just as mystified why someone would inappropriately confess to a murder or 200 crimes he did not commit. What information is there on Hodgson's obviously very bad judgment to confess?
  • External link to Googlemaps for Copnor Bridge in the prose should be removed
  • Please make sure to follow logical quotations, per the MOS. I found at least three instances of punctuation in the quotations.

I found the amount of detail impressive, and the article led me to understanding an interesting case. But in places the writing seemed choppy and per the above examples, seemed as if the article had been ravaged by edits or vandalism, leaving sentences incomplete.

Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) "wikipedia is for everyone", just because the article is written in British English about a British murder using British sources does not mean that the article is "British", an American, Peruvian, Singaporian, or anyone else might not know what these terms mean; particularly "barmaid" and "postmarked" as they may not be a directly translatable word in their culture. Additionally each work is only linked once. 2) Since when? I can certainly change it, but I would like to know your reasoning. 3) fixed. 4) fixed. 5) changed the full stop to a colon. 6) fixed. 7) It's mentioned in the pull quote (and in the article) that Hodgson is a pathological liar (wikilinked in the pull quote); this is the reason that he confessed to all of the crimes. In prison it became apparent he was also schizophrenic and this may have had a bearing on his "obviously very bad judgement." 8) Fixed. 9) Fixed all that I could find (which I think was three), did I miss any? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:Overlinking. I agree with it. Actually, Wikipedia is not for everyone. Arbitration Committee exists to prove that. But the point here is that links should direct the reader to things that are strongly associated with the topic or that need further explanation. I would be dumbfounded to meet a reader of English proficient enough to comprehend the level of writing in this article who did not know what Britain was and thus required a link to figure it out. Consider this a whisper to keep you from winning this award.
  • See Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words: Numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out, since using figures risks the period being read as a decimal point or abbreviation mark; it is often better to recast the sentence than to simply change format, which may produce other problems. Both sentences appear to be able to be reconstructed. I did not do it myself because I did not want to compromise accuracy in the article.
  • In my experience and observation, half the people on Wikipedia (let's broaden that to the Internet) are pathological liars, but they don't all confess to horrific murders much less 200 crimes they did not commit. Is there nothing really about Hodgon's background that would explain why he would make these confessions? Did he not realize he may be put in prison for life? What made him finally realize that prison was not an ideal place to spend his waning years? What was the impetus for him to consult an attorney to prove his innocence (i.e., what woke him up)? Schizophrenia does not explain these actions.
It may seem like these details are overly picky and if I came off as being a complete bitch I apologize, but FAs appear on the main page, and are examples of Wikipedia's finest work. The FA project has its detractors on Wikipedia and off, and the merest detail of atypical sentence structure, grammar or syntax blip causes a fresh round of criticism. Should your article appear on the main page you may get much harsher criticism on that day on the talk page than you ever get here. Better to catch it now than be caught in a vortex of bad-mannered anonymous commentary amid the regular storm of vandalism. Not that I'm cynical or anything... --Moni3 (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point one and two should be taken care of.
  • Not to sound flippant but there is a massive difference between two 13-year-olds having an E-Peen contest and Pseudologia fantastica, so yes, a severe pathological liar will confess to murder - It's a mental illness akin to Münchausen syndrome. Additionally all the reliable sources (including the judge on the appeal) put it down to pathological lying. As for what "woke him up" the second paragraph of "appeals" covers this (briefly); essentially he always maintained his innocence (which to be fair: he was!) and always seemed to be contacting lawyers to take his case. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to support with most of the issues resolved. I think there is more room to discuss Hodgson's background, but you have the sources, and even when FAs are promoted, they are never finished, so I'm suggesting, bordering on urging, you to see what you can add that might better explain why Hodgson the individual--as opposed to a pathological liar or a schizophrenic--might have confessed. Otherwise, I thought the article was well-written and explained the case and its implications admirably. Well done on the whole. --Moni3 (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on image concerns:

  • File:Teresa de Simone.png: Although now we cannot obtain a "free" photo of her unless someone surrenders his or her copyright or licenses it out, I am not really sure if seeing the victim of this crime is significant (my tendency is that the perpetrator is of more significance here). Furthermore, I doubt her visage is representative of "DNA profiling" in British law history.
  • File:Sean Hodgson (old).jpg: Sean Hodgson is still alive, hence a free photo is still possible (per WP:NFCC 1).
  • File:Sean-Hodgson-L-celebrates-001.jpg: Again, Sean Hodgson is alive, and so is his brother Peter. The event was such publicised that many photographers (professional and amateur) are on hand to capture the moment. Try asking the author of this and this photo if he or she is willing to release them under Creative Commons 3.0 (with or without Share-alike) license.

Simone's photo is a lesser concern than those of Hodgson's. Jappalang (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Very interesting article. I'm willing to support, but there are some prose and logic issues to deal with (sorry!) Lead: and why are we using footnotes and citations here? I thought the lead didn't need them if you go over it in the body? I'd rather see you say, on First Appeal, ya-di dah, on Second Appeal, ya de da do...instead of actually citing.

What is a proven case of miscarriage of justice? Is miscarriage of justice a prosecutable crime in Britain? Or is this the longest documented case? Or the longest successfully adjudicated case of the miscarriage of justice? What does longest mean? Most appeals? Most retrials (here in the US we get retrials, sometimes). Longest over time?
Over the course of his 15-day trial it was revealed that Hodgson was a pathological liar and had confessed to numerous crimes, including crimes that he could not have committed and crimes that didn’t appear to have happened. Over the course of his 15-day trial, it was revealed? Is this like God and Moses and the 10 Commandments, it was revealed? Or is this a lesser revelation. Perhaps In the course of the 15-day trial, the defense(?) painted Hodgson as a path. liar who not only had confessed to more than 200 crimes, but who also had confessed to crimes that had not happened.
didn't? did not.

In March 2009, after serving 27 years in prison, Hodgson was exonerated and released when a DNA analysis of semen samples which had been preserved from the original crime scene showed that they could not have come from him.[2][Appeal 2] There is too much in the sentence. In?, On appeal, DNA analysis of semen samples preserved from the original crime scene proved that Hodgson had not committed the rape. Exonerated, Hodgson was released in March 2009, after serving 27 years of his life sentence. As a result of Hodgson's appeal and the use of archived forensic evidence to solve the crime Operation Iceberg was created by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) with the aim of using DNA evidence in pre-1990 rape or murder cases. Again, too much info in one sentence. The use of archived forensic evidence in Hodegson's successful appeal suggested the possibility of other miscarriages of justice. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) created Operation iceberg to review use of DNA evidence in pre-1990 rape or murder cases.

This led?
The CCRC also wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions requesting that the Crown Prosecution Service identify and review similar murder cases from the time before DNA testing was available. Too many steps. You can explain this later. The CCRC also requested that the Crown Prosecution Service identify and review similar murder cases pre-dating DNA testing. (automatic DNA testing?)
Lace, who was 17 at the time of the murder, confessed to police in 1983 that he had raped and killed de Simone but officers refused to believe him. He committed suicide in December 1988. Lace, who had been 17 at the time of the crimes, had already confessed to rape and murder of de Simone in 1983, but officers had refused to believe him. Lace had committed suicide in December 1988.
On the evening of 4 December 1979, 22-year-old Teresa Elena de Simone had been working as a part-time barmaid in the Tom Tackle public house in Commercial Road, Southampton (now called The Encore public house) I'd move now called The Encore) to nearer to Tom Tackle (and Tom Tackle needs italics, like Encore has)
I would really like to see subsections in the murder section. A description of the victim, a description of the search, and then the discover. This might make it easier for you to keep like things together. Just an idea.
As de Simone's movements for the entire evening previous to her death were known and documented, the semen could only have come from her assailant Hmmmm, if her movements were known, then don't they know who the assailant was? I guess I'm not following the logic of this. Looks instead like the police assumed that the semen could only have come from her assailant.

I have to run for the moment, but I'll get back to this later....Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the above should be taken care of. The sentences have been broken up. The Murder section could be broken up (maybe Movements before the murder, Murder, Discovery and forensics or something similar. Most of the information on the murder would have been recorded in the newspapers of the day which occurred 31 years ago, The Times is making efforts to put it's old papers on the web but it will still take a long time (not mentioning all the newspapers that may have recorded the murder that might have gone under). Sanguis Sanies (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do think breaking up the sections would make it more readable.
There are still readability/smooth prose issues. The cause of death was determined to be strangulation,[Appeal 5] and the presence of "white frothy mucous" in the victim's mouth led the pathologist to conclude that death had followed a "long, slow strangulation".[Appeal 5] The pattern of injury to the neck, and the absence of finger-mark bruising were consistent with ligature strangulation, possibly by clothing having been gripped and twisted against the neck. Also visible were "a series of multiple, roughly horizontal, linear, bruised abrasions on the front of the neck [which] matched the description of a [gold chain and crucifix] which the deceased had been said to be wearing that evening" indicating the possibility that this was used as the ligature[Appeal 5][10][14] and leading to the tabloid press dubbing the murderer the "Crucifix Killer".[15][16] The chain was not present when the body was discovered and has never been recovered. The (Court/City/?) pathologist identified strangulation as the cause of death, and the presence of white frothy mucous in the victim's mouth led to the further conclusion that death had followed a "long, slow strangulation". ....[gold chain and crucifix], which the deceased... This led to the conclusion that the crucifix chain had been the murder weapon and to the tabloid press dubbing the murderer as the "Crucifix Killer".
Your description of the circumstances leading to the murder is choppy. Teresa de Simone, a 22 year old clerk at the XXX gas board, lived at home with her mother, name, and stepfather, name. To widen her social circle and help pay for a recently purchased vehicle, a Ford Escort, she had taken an evening job at the Tom Tackle Public House, on Commercial Road, Southampton. The pub, located centrally in the city, stood within 50 yards of etc. In the middle of the second paragraph, you start to talk about Savage's testimony, which seems out of place to me: I think stick to the description of the discovery. The statement that Savage was the last witness to see de Simone before she was killed is misleading: wouldn't that make her the killer?
This text... "Savage testified that she drove into the covered parking area and that they sat chatting for a while before de Simone made the short walk to her car, at which point Savage reversed out and drove away from the scene.[9][11] Savage was the last witness to see de Simone before she was killed.[11] In a statement issued at the time, Detective Superintendent John Porter said: "It is 99% certain that the girl was murdered, attacked, chatted to or met by her killer in a matter of seconds after Jenni Savage left her. He could have been waiting, and seen Jenni leave. It is possible that he was actually sitting in Teresa's car, as we found the nearside [passenger] door unlocked."[9] ... actually belongs in the investigation section, not in the murder section. This is part of the picture that the police assembled. Or at least put it after the Pathologist's assessment of when she died. This was confirmed by Jenna Savage's statement, ya da. The mother's discovery that her daughter had not returned home should come before what Jenna says. Then all your "preliminaries": victim, discovery of the crime, collection of forensics, etc. is in a logical sequence.
Numbers <10 should be written out. Legal slang should be clarified (such as care order). Jumper is a sweater? A pullover? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article should be reorganised, Care order doesn't have a wikipedia or wikitionary page, a jumper is a sweater. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bosnian Royal Family/archive1

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 Laser brain 00:15, 23 January 2010 [20].

Hurricane Able (1951)

Nominator(s): Viennaiswaiting (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... its a really good article about a fascinating storm. It was the strongest hurricane outside of the normal season. I think it meets all of the criteria. IDK, I got a little help from the Hurricane Rick (2009) article, which is also on FAC. I didn't do too much to it, but since the main writer is retired, I didn't think it'd be a big deal nomming it. Oh, and it's for an eventual featured topic I'm workin on. Hope you like it! Viennaiswaiting (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Alt text is present (thanks) but contains a few details that cannot be verified by a non-expert who's looking only at the images, and which therefore need to be reworded or moved to the caption as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. The problematic phrases are "on May 18", "major hurricane", and "peak intensity". Eubulides (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a, possibly 1b, 2b. It's not bad, but not up to par with other storm FAs. The prose needs a good deal of work for precision, accessibility, organization, and plain grammar. I'm not convinced all information is present, since I'm aware of good printed sources of hurricane history around Florida. The body is not well-organized.
  • The lead lost me right away. You write that it was "outside of the typical Atlantic hurricane season" and then the next sentence reads "The first tropical cyclone of the 1951 Atlantic hurricane season"?
  • Strange turns of phrase, such as "Able became more tropical" and "Hurricane Able caused minor effects"
  • Language lacking precision, such as: "drifted eastward near the Bahamas" It was near the Bahamas when it drifted eastward, or it drifted eastward toward the Bahamas?
  • The lead overall leaves me flat; the opening line got me interested ("strongest recorded hurricane" Oh!) but the rest of it is ho-hum. It turned this way and that, it rained, and then it was over. We need to tell the reader why they should care.
  • "The polar trough gradually weakened as the low organized" When did it become a "polar" trough and what does that mean?
  • More oddities: "provided favorable conditions towards"
  • "Receiving the name Able, the small hurricane turned to the southeast" From, and how?
  • Confusing terminology will confound non-specialists: In the meteorological history, you write that Able "transitioned into a tropical storm" and that it was a "storm of full hurricane strength". As such, we've got the impression these are synonymous. However later you write that some stuff happened and then "it deteriorated into a tropical storm". See the disconnect?
  • More oddities: "resulted in a construction crew to evacuate"
  • Grossly overlinked; "Bahamas" and "Bermuda" are repeat offenders, but the whole thing needs auditing.
  • The organization is problematic. In relation to the lead, you state up front what is probably the only interesting thing about the storm, but you wait until the very end of the article to discuss it. You seem to have the "preparation" material all muddled in with "impact".
  • The article seems lightly researched; are there no more details available in Barnes' Florida's Hurricane History? Ask Juliancolton maybe?
Good work! --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
    • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes (NOAA). I think I say this on most hurricane FACs, can we please get it taken care of before FAC?
    • Two deadlinks with the link checker tool.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been doing some thinking, and I don't really think I'm up to all this work, after going through a big GA review.. Sorry for wasting all of your time, but I don't really want to go through with this anymore. Hope that's cool!! --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all—at least now you have a record of feedback you can act on at a later time. I will archive this page; please make sure to leave the FAC template on the article talk page until the bot goes through and records the archive. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2010 (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 Maralia 19:29, 22 January 2010 [21].

Peter Canavan

Nominator(s): Macca7174talk 23:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is an exhaustive study of Canavan's career, and the copy and prose have been significantly improved since the last nomination. Macca7174talk 23:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Sorry, but I notice quite a few significant issues.
  • The first sentence isn't particularly concise or engaging; instead, it overwhelms the reader with information before they've even established who the subject is.
  • He is considered one of the great players of the last twenty years by commentators such as John Haughey of the BBC.[8][9] and in 2009 - Obvious grammatical error, which is present throughout the article.
  • The lead doesn't provide much biographical information.
  • The final sentence of the lead took me a couple tries to understand, and while it seems a notable fact, it isn't presented well. Perhaps this could be condensed into more accessible text?
  • He is married to Finola (sister of former Tyrone team-mate Ronan McGarrity[14]), and has four children, Áine, Claire, Darragh and Ruairi, and has been a Physical Education teacher in Holy Trinity College, Cookstown, throughout most of his career (Gaelic games are amateur sports). - This is rather unwieldy; I'd suggest splitting it into three individual sentences. Also, who is "Finola"?
  • A spot-check through the rest of the article reveals poor formatting, an unreasonably small image in the 2005: Championship swan song section, and inconsistent sourcing. For example, "BBC Sport" is sometimes linked, sometimes italicized, and sometimes left plain in the references. Further, {{citation}} and {{cite web}} shouldn't be mixed.
  • Finally, the Disciplinary problems probably shouldn't be its own section at all. It seems needlessly negative, possibly presenting WP:BLP issues. If possible, I'd like to see this info condensed into a single line or so and incorporated into another section.

–Juliancolton | Talk 20:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, 1a. Good work so far, but the prose is not up to FA quality. Recommend withdrawing, getting a strong independent copyedit, and then going through Peer Review for some fit and finish as preliminary steps. Example issues from a small parcel of text:
    • "Two clubs claimed to represent the parish, the established Ballygawley St. Ciaran's club and the newly-formed club, then called Errigal Ciaran Naomh Malachai." Plain punctuation problem.
    • "Players from the Errigal team were not recognised as being GAA members" What is "being" doing?
    • "Canavan registered as a member of the Killyclogher hurling club, even though he didn't play the sport, just so he would be eligible for selection for the Tyrone minors." More detail needed; this cannot pass common readers without explanation.
    • "Prior to that, he had not played legitimate club football, but had forged his way onto the Tyrone under-age teams with his performances at school level." Same comment. This lost me completely.
    • "He was the top scorer in Ulster, earning him his first All Star, at the age of 23." Plain grammar.
    • "Throughout the 1995 championship, Canavan had spearheaded Tyrone's march to the final, with round after round of massive scoring exploits." This and other sports-page sentences need toning down. WP:PEACOCK.
    • "The game was remembered as contentious for Tyrone fans" By Tyrone fans, surely?
--Andy Walsh (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am going to withdraw this (at least temporarily), because I am struggling to find the time to address the above issues adequately. Thanks to the contributors for their feedback.--Macca7174talk 16:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 21:47, 19 January 2010 [22].

Provinces of Sri Lanka

Nominator(s): Blackknight12 (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it seems to fit the criteria and would be a good addition to WikiProject Sri Lanka. Blackknight12 (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Add accessdates and bibliographic info (publisher, author, date, ...) for refs 1, 2, and 12. Format all the refs consistently—do you want to link dates and publishers to the source URL, or not?

More to come. --an odd name 22:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it looks more like a list as well, but some comments either way:
    • Are there really no dates for when the latter four provinces were created, only years?
    • Sorting is broken for inland water area, total area, and population density.
    • It looks like the provinces contain multiple districts, and not too many of each; perhaps a list of them can go in the table?
    • The historical table is clearly way too undeveloped for this to even be considered for FLC or FAC. --Golbez (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There is a number of problems, outside of the fact that this belongs for FLC.
  1. "In 1845 the North Western Province was created from northern Western Province (districts of Chilaw, Puttalam and Seven Korales)." - Citation?
  2. "In 1873 the North Central Province was created from southern Northern Province (district of Nuwara Kalawiya) and north-western Eastern Province (district of Tamankaduwa)." - Citation?
  3. "In 1886 the Uva Province was created from parts of Central Province, Eastern Province (district of Bintenna) and Southern Province (district of Wellassa)." - Citation?
  4. "In 1889 the Sabaragamuwa Province was created." - Vague as hell - What did it get formed from? Land doesn't just appear (unless it comes from molten rock, but that takes years. Also citation?
  5. "Central Province - composed of the central Kandyan provinces." - Vague again. What central provinces?
  6. "The North-East Province was formally demerged into the Northern and Eastern provinces on 1 January 2007." - Citation?
  7. The history section is very underdeveloped. There should be a lot more into why these merges were proposed and such. That's the major problem.
  8. "the JVP filed three separate petitions" - Spell out please and add (JVP) to the end.
  9. "Sri Lanka currently has nine provinces, seven of which have had provincial councils from the start." - This needs its own paragraph? This also could use expanding on.
  10. The charts lack good citations for everything.
  11. Echoing Golbez, the Historical one is underdeveloped, which is not a good thing for a Featured Article.
  12. Why are provincial councils below the list? They'd be better off atop.
  13. "Elections for a provincial council for the demerged Eastern Province were held on 10 May 2008. The Northern Province continues to be governed from Colombo." - Citation?
  14. "President Premadasa reacted to Permual's UDI by dissolving the provincial council and imposing direct rule on the province. The province was ruled directly from Colombo until it was dissolved on 31 December 2006." - Citation?
  15. "The North Eastern Province was formally demerged into the Eastern and Northern provinces on 1 January 2007." - Citation again? Also why does it exist twice in here?
  16. Provinces of Sri Lanka". statoids.com. http://www.statoids.com/ulk.html. Retrieved 16 January 2010. - This is poorly formatted.
    This bit is done by me. I'm afraid that's all I could extract from that page. So grateful I you could provide a better citation. Regards--Chanaka L (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Check the site, I saw a law office at the bottom of the page :| - add the name of that law office & a year (2010).Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 14:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Thanks--Chanaka L (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. 4.^ Mills, Lenox A.. Ceylon Under British Rule, 1795-1932. p. 68. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YyHG9ZKl3bwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ceylon+Under+British+Rule#v=onepage&q=&f=false. Retrieved 16 August 2009. - Publisher?
  18. 5.^ Mendis, G. C.. Ceylon under the British. p. 58. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ppHNLqowf1cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ceylon+under+the+British#v=onepage&q=&f=false. Retrieved 16 August 2009. - Publisher?
  19. Sri Lanka's North-East to remain united for another year, The Hindu 14 November 2003 - Really poorly cited.
  20. North-East merger illegal: SC, LankaNewspapers.com 17 October 2006 - And again.
  21. Section 7 (Maps) ain't necessary, merge it with 8 (External links).
  22. Overall, the lead is too short and doesn't fully summarize the article.

I would suggest withdrawing this, because this is a major list of problems. Good luck.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 00:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 21:47, 19 January 2010 [23].

Canadian National Vimy Memorial

Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The article has already passed GA and MILHIST A level assessments. The MILHIST memorials task force could use a couple more FAs.Labattblueboy (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which ref are you talking about? 51 is "Design and Construction of the Vimy Ridge Memorial" and it has full dates and publisher.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Maybe next time I should look at the second line. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks) but has some problems. It contains details that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and therefore needs to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Problematic phrases include "springtime", "the front of the Vimy Memorial after the completion of the restoration project", "cigarette box card", "Victoria Cross recipient Lieutenant Richard Jones", "the Victoria Cross", "the dedication ceremony for the Vimy Memorial". Another bit of advice: generally speaking, alt text should not contain proper names unless they're obvious to a non-expert (see WP:ALT #Proper names). The alt text for File:Plan of Attack Vimy Ridge.jpg needs to be rewritten to convey the gist of the map (see WP:ALT#Maps for advice). The phrase "A name panel on the memorial damaged by mineral deposits." duplicates the caption and should be rewritten or removed as per WP:ALT#Repetition. Also, please remove the phrase "photo of" as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid. I got about halfway through the alt text, but I hope this list of issues gives you an idea of the problems that need to be fixed. Eubulides (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a number of edits. Please review and provide feedback on which may still require work.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new version looks good. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. The ref. has been added.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Overall, this looks like a very good piece and I have made a few trifling fixes. The one area that seems underdeveloped to me is the artistic side, much of which has been left to a gallery of images and their captions. I've identified some further sources on the talk page that might be useful to exploit. Please follow up there as you will. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 05:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain what more can be incorporated on the artistic side using reliable sources. The article incorporates the origins, influences and artistic design of the memorial. In particular it incorporates the influences of other works, of both Allward and others, which have demonstrated influences on the memorial. I would appreciate more detail than simply saying it requires more on the artistic side, is there an artistic elements or movement that you are aware of that has not been properly incorporated.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look through the material I posted on the article's talk page? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not any clearer there what you wish to see changed or addressed.
  • The terms 'Mother Canada' and 'Canada Bereft' are both used and cited using reliable sources.
  • This page is not a bio of Edna Jennings or any other memorial model, which there were a number of, she is noted in the notes but that's as I am willing yo go with it.
  • If you wish to provide greater data on Clemesha's runner-up status I created Canadian Battlefields Memorials Commission the otehr day. That would be the best place for such data. I even uploaded a copy of Clemesha's submission.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I've been editing in this area recently, and this article stood out as one of the best articles we have on the memorials in France to the WWI missing (though here it is also one of the national memorials). I am going to add comments here as I read through the article, and have read though the earlier (GA and A-class) reviews as well. Carcharoth (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the A-class review, the ending of the article was said to be choppy. I tend to agree, and the Death of Georges Devloo section in particular feels like a strange way to end the article (I always look to see if an article ends in a logical or strong fashion, rather than petering out). You said: "I am inclined to leave the Death of Georges Devloo section because the event got national news coverage in Canada, mentions in the Canadian House of Commons and resulted in official condolences from the Canadian Minister of Veterans Affairs." Did you consider bringing that out in the text of the article itself? As for ways to end the article, I would suggest that the "Restoration and rededication" section is the best way to end the article, unless there is more recent news. Are there plans for the future that you could end the article with? Carcharoth (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no particular attachment to the Death of Georges Devloo section. I was simply making a point that the events serounding his death were notable. GIiven the events took place a year ago I would be comfortable removing it at this time. Thoughts?--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Restoration and rededication fits more appropriately with the History section of the article, which provides the flow of events from conception to current date. Would you suggest moving the entire Site section and placing it before the History section, otherwise I'm not sure how to pull it off an keep the flow. --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not too bothered, but thought it worth mentioning. I don't have any solution to offer, really, except the possibility of a "future events" or "future plans" section. Maybe end saying there is a ceremony or service each year at the memorial on the Sunday before Remembrance Day (though the only real source I could find for that is this). Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finishing with the "Influence on Canada" section has met this concern for me about how the article ends, though something about ongoing commemoration and annual visits would also round it off, I think. I've just now remembered an objection I forgot to mention, which is the way that the section is titled "Death of Georges Devloo". I think that bit would be better as part of a section about who visits the site and who runs the site, and the guides and the site superintendent, and the relationship between the memorial and the nearby villages (Vimy and Givenchy-en-Gohelle) and some more on the views of the French (government and locals) on the memorial (the bit about Devloo would fit in naturally there, as an example of local French generosity). i.e. about the relationship between France and Canada in the context of the memorial. Starting from the initial gift of the land in perpetuity, to current stuff such as this which points out that the Embassy of France in Canada has an art deco representation of the Vimy Memorial in one of its hallways. More on that here (better picture) and here (details of the artist and other WWI commemorative sculpture in the hallway) and (getting a bit off topic now) here. So maybe something on how the Vimy Memorial relates to France-Canada relations? Carcharoth (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says that the memorial site is maintained by Veterans Affairs Canada, but the infobox mentions the Commonwealth War Graves Commission as well. I'm not clear on the exact relationship, but from from some reading I did recently about the equivalent Australian National Memorial (at Villers-Bretonneux), it seems the various Commonwealth national agencies are partners within the CWGC (an intergovernmental organisation). In Australia, that seems to be the Australian War Graves Commission (Office of Australian War Graves), along with Department of Veterans' Affairs, Australia. The OAWG acts as Australian agent for the CWGC. Is there a similar relationship between the CWGC and the relevant Canadian agencies over this memorial? According to this page, the Canadian CWGC agent is this body (inventively called "Canadian Agency Commonwealth War Graves Commission"), and it is "co-located" with Veterans Affairs Canada in Ottawa. It may not be necessary to delve into the bureaucratic responsibilities in the article, but the lead only mentions Veterans Affairs Canada, while the infobox mentions the CWGC. Is it possible to make clearer what the responsibilities of each body are? Carcharoth (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The site is managed by Veterans Affairs Canada, through their Canada Remembers Division. They handle all the site maintenance (with the exception of the cemeteries which is handled by the CWGC), programming, ect and even staff their Director general of European Operations on site. There are, as I understand it, areas of shared responsibility given that the CWGC has the mandate to commemorate all WWI dead by name and the Canadian government agreed to include the names on the memorial. The CWGC does not however manage the site.
  • The Canadian Agency of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is co-located with Veterans Affairs Canada, in Ottawa, although its employees are not employees of the Canadian Government. The agency is really an arm of the CWGC and represents its interest in Canada, rather than vice-versa. From what I understand, it has responsibility for some 19,000 Commonwealth war dead buried in Canada and the United States. It doesn’t handle any of Canada’s interests in Europe. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some minor points to finish:
  • The "Early conflicts" paragraphs are a bit confusing.
  • Should there be an apostrophe in this sentence? "The ceremony was one of King Edward VIII few official duties before he abdicated the throne."
  • From that same paragraph, there is mention of a Vimy passport - is it possible to get a photo of one of those? - and of the speech by King Edward VIII - is it possible to quote something from that, or link to a source that gives the text of the speech?
  • The mention of battlefield archaeology is good, but something on visitor numbers and battlefield tourism would be good as well (though we don't have an article on the latter).
  • Some of our articles on memorials that list names give links to articles we have on people listed on the memorials, especially VC cross recipients. You may not be able to get a comprehensive list, but a few names as examples may be possible.
  • Done. I have listed the names of the VC winners at the end of the Vimy memorial section. I haven't found a comprehensive list of notables names amongst the sources so I think going beyond the VCs might not be prudent (eventhough there are a number of impressive individuals on the memorial - ie. J. B. Ironside MM & 2 Bars, Croix de Guerre (France)).--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also found Allan Davidson, but as you say, it gets silly if you go beyond just a few examples, and the VC recipients seems the logical place to stop. Hopefully links will still be coming in the other way, though, and a list could be maintained on the talk page. One minor point: the reference you used may have been misformatted when you made that edit? Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a dedicatory inscription to Canada's war dead, in both French and English, also appear on the monument" - is this the same as the one quoted in the infobox? If so, it would be nice to have the text in French as well.
  • Article says 11,285 names of the missing dead. Infobox says 11,169. This is likely due to discrepencies in sources. Best to get the most recent and authoritative source and use that figure - remember that names are removed over time as bodies are found, identified and buried in a war grave. Numbers quoted in original inscriptions will be out-of-date now.
  • No discrepancy. Unlike other memorials which were designed with nameplates that could be removed as bodies were found and identified (ex: Hebert Perterson's body was found in 2007), the Vimy memorial is a continuous band of names and thus modification is not possible, so there are a number of cases where people are commemorated by both a headstone and on the memorial. So there are in fact 11,285 names on the memorial but only 11,169 names of missing. I'll insert a note to clarify the ambiguity. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have heard that on other memorials where the names are carved (and this is more usual than using nameplates, I think, at least for the inter-war era) the names are removed, so that might be worth double checking. The CWGC at least makes a big point about only commemorating someone once, either on a memorial, or by a war grave headstone. It is possible that the removal of the names is simply being deferred to the next restoration/maintenance project. If this part of the discussion is best moved to the article talk page, that is fine. Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. That satisfies me, and I see what you mean about the continuous band of names. Most of the points I've raised are being addressed. What is the tidiest way to note that? Strike them and leave the other comments unstruck, or what? Carcharoth (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't checked if the image of the Morrocan Division Memorial has alt text giving the inscription, but a quote of what is said there may be an idea. Not sure, though, as it may rather overwhelm that section.
  • On a second pass through, I thought of the following:
  • There should be a mention of the annual ceremonies and maybe the major anniversaries commemorated here and other ceremonies, other than just the inauguration and rededication. See here, which talks about "the annual Vimy Remembrance Ceremony" and "The official "Canada / France Vimy Memorial Ceremony" held each year on the first Sunday before 11 November." and "the services in Vimy commemorating the 70th, 75th, 80th and most recently on 07 April 2002 the 85th Anniversaries of the Battle of Vimy Ridge and the 50th and 60th Anniversary of the dedication of the Vimy Memorial." (that would need updating). There is also mention there of "the transfer ceremony at Vimy for the unknown soldier to Canada" (in 2000) - was that at the memorial as well? It is not always clear where these ceremonies take place, but it seems the memorial is a focal point for such things. I also found this (Google cache of a 'Canada in France' ambassadorial website that doesn't seem to maintain its pages very well) that led to this pdf of speeches at the 75th, 80th and 90th anniversary ceremonies. The latter (Villepin) you already mention, but the other two anniversary speeches by Francois Mitterand and Adrienne Clarkson may be worth mentioning. There have likely been other anniversary ceremonies as well, but a reliable source listing them all may not exist, unless you want to look at newspaper archives for every year since 1936.
  • I noticed that this webpage has a video of the inauguration of the memorial. It would be nice to somehow point people towards that.
  • What is there looks good. The only thing I would say is that it feels a bit short. The first few sentences, in particular, hint at a lot more, and as I suggested above, more on France-Canada relations (at all levels) in the context of the memorial would be good, not just the influence on Canada, but also on France. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing I forgot - are there sources for the costs of annual upkeep and maintenance, and who employs the people who work at the memorial site and in the memorial park (I assume a mixture of Canadians and French), and who pays for this? This ties in with the point I was making above about how responsibilities are divided between the CWGC agencies, Canadian agencies, and French agencies.
  • No idea on cost. I haven't seen anything published. The staff are all employed or contracted by Veterans Affairs Canada. This includes the office staff, guides, shepherd (for the flock of sheep that cut the grass) and security guards. Far as I know, the cost of operating the site is fully borne by the Canadian government but I do not have a source to confirm that.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feared that there might not be definitive sources for that sort of thing, though there must be some sort of annual report somewhere, but maybe it is not made public. The bit about the sheep is instructive, as it leads back to the amount of unexploded munitions and the preserved nature of the battlefield. I'd definitely try and work that into the article somewhere (you can probably find a news story that mentions it), but these are all minor points that I'll bring up on the talk page now (instead of here). I've got just one more comment to make, and then that should be it, as nearly all my comments have been promptly addressed, or explanations given, so I'll just sum up what I think still needs to be addressed and leave it at that. Carcharoth (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summing up from above, what I still think should be considered:
  • Paragraph or section on the history of major anniversary events held here, plus details of any annual events
  • Paragraph or section on the management and maintenance of the memorial and park, and facilities and services provided
  • This one is not possible because there are no reliable sources on the subject. To obtain the data would require primary research alone. The guided tours are mentioned, but beyond that nothing in terms of reliably sources data is currently possible. --Labattblueboy (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. I was unclear. I didn't mean the stuff about how much it costs to run, or how many people are employed there, but the general sort of information about what facilities and services are provided and what sort of things happen at the memorial site. I found this on an 'Interpretive Centre' that was opened in 1997 (already mentioned in the article, but the opening date is not mentioned). This page says that there is a Student Guide Programme run by VAC for students wanting to work in France as guides at the Vimy and Newfoundland memorials. And if the bit about Devloo and no public transport from the Vimy village train station is going to be mentioned, it should also be mentioned that there is a shuttle bus service from Arras, otherwise you may mislead people into thinking that travel is only possible by car, taxi, and tour bus. It is possibly to travel there independently without a car or being part of a tour group on a bus/coach, you just have to get the shuttle bus and avoid getting the train to the village of Vimy (you go to town of Arras instead). I hadn't realised that before I read the website, as the Devloo section in the article had confused me. It even left me thinking "how can the French authorities not provide transport?!", when in fact they do. One final thing that could be mentioned is: "the France-based Friends of Vimy volunteer group" (Les Amis de Vimy). That can be reliably sourced to the VAC page on the Interpretative Centre. The pictures on this page show some of the sort of things done at Vimy (note the mention of a memorial capsule, and at the bottom 'Les Amis de Vimy' presenting a medal). Here is an expenses claim for some ambassadorial staff member to "attend, on behalf of the Ambassador, the annual meeting of 'Les Amis de Vimy'", so clearly they are an established enough group for the Canadian ambassador's representative to visit them. Here is another example. It is the flavour of the day-to-day and routine and non-routine activities, not necessarily the details, but the atmosphere with some examples, that it would be nice to get across in the article. Carcharoth (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph or section on the responses to the memorial over the years (by critics, supporters, locals, governments, and others)
In my opinion, varying amounts more on the above points, would round out an excellent article. Carcharoth (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 21:47, 19 January 2010 [24].

George W. Romney

Nominator(s): Wasted Time R (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the criteria and tells a compelling story. George Romney was in turn a displaced person, a college dropout, a finder of an accidental career, a wartime industrial leader, a famous corporate CEO, a religious leader, a successful governor, a front-running but then dreadful presidential candidate, a quixotic cabinet secretary, and more. He's also the father of a leading 2008 (and likely 2012) presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. The article recently underwent a very thorough GA review and has had fairly minor subject matter and MOS work done since. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks as usual for your sourcing checks.
I guess I was mistaken about the FamilySearch site, so I've yanked all of those cites and replaced them with book cites (I was mostly relying on it for years that people lived). The only year range I had to lose was for Romney's mother, which I haven't yet been able to find elsewhere.
The article at http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=FRC2007092001 is published by Sabato's Crystal Ball, associated with Larry Sabato and the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. They are well regarded for non-partisan political analysis. The title "Senior Columnist" for the author is just a characteristic of this publication; all of their articles are called "columns". They are pretty much equivalent to stories in The Politico or "News analysis" pieces by reporters in The New York Times.
The url http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-16389040.html was just a teaser for a paywalled article in the magazine Campaigns and Elections Politics. I've removed the URL since its form is misleading.
The url http://law.onecle.com/michigan/19-board-of-state-auditors/mcl-19-132.html is one of those sites that aggregates legal decisions and published laws and the like. I'm only using it for the date of the building's renaming, which is uncontroversial but which I couldn't find sourced anywhere else.
Former ref 4 was a FamilySearch one, now nuked.
Former ref 56 was a special case, since I was referencing The New York Times article search page, rather than any particular article. But I changed it to italics. There shouldn't be any real newspaper references that aren't italicized, since I use "cite news | newspaper=...".
Former ref 197 had a publication date (Summer 2007), but it wasn't very clear on that page, so I've added an access date too. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re the Family Search site. While the particular information cited may not be a reliable source because of the multiple contributors to it, in this particular case following the links to those submitters can lead to a Wikijargon reliable source because one of those submitters is none other than
GEORGE WILCKEN ROMNEY Microfilm: 1394283
1840 E VALLEY ROAD
BLOOMFIELD HILLS MI Submission: AF83-065690
USA 48013
and it looks to me like that self-information published on that particular microfilm (available from LDS) would be a reliable source for some purposes in this article. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No dab links, and dates are consistent Month Day, Year throughout—good. --an odd name 04:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments on refs
  • In refs but not notes: Angel, D. Duane (1967); Hess, Stephen & Broder, David S. (1967); Plas, Gerald O. (1967); Romney, George W. (1968) and another Romney, George W. (1968) [these should be 1968a and 1968b if they are somehow used].
Thanks for checking these. Since the book list section is called "Bibliography", I included books specifically about Romney, even if they weren't used in any citations. This covers the Angel and Plas books. I haven't been about to find the Angel book; there were a plethora of Romney 'campaign bio' books published in 1967-68, all of which have fallen into obscurity (I had to use interlibrary loan just to get the two major and most-reviewed ones, Harris and Mollenhoff). The Plas book is a sloppily-written anti-Romney screed that got poor reviews at the time; I've looked at it but didn't consider it reliable enough to make reference to. I also included the two books written by Romney for completeness, even though they were campaign-time publications and of no value as sources. The Hess and Broder book doesn't belong, since it isn't primarily about Romney and wasn't used for a citation, and I've removed it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some people throw extra books into that section, and I won't Oppose for it, but every time I've submitted articles to journals they've always disallowed the practice. I would suggest placing the books that you've read into a "Further reading" section, and removing the books that you have not read. But I won't Oppose, so I'm not forcing you. • Ling.Nut 01:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done this in journal articles I've published, but I have seen other journal articles give a long list and then say something like "references 3, 5, 12, 20, 22 not cited in article". But there's no precedent for doing that in WP that I've seen. But returning to this WP Romney article, there's a sentence in it that says: "A spate of books were published about Romney, more than for any other candidate, and included a friendly campaign biography, an attack from a former staffer, and a collection of Romney's speeches.[147]" This 'spate of books' includes all of the ones that are listed in the Bibliography but aren't cited, so I think that's additional justification for them being here. Again, I'm using 'Bibliography' in the fuller sense of 'books about Romney and books that were used in writing this article', not just 'books about Romney that were used in writing this article'. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F026120-0014, US-Gouverneur Romney und Freiherr von Guttenberg.jpg and File:NixonAndRomneyInOffice.jpg are verifiably in the public domain. File:GeroRomney2.jpg is pending an OTRS; it was hosted on the University of Michigan and not all Ford Presidential Library materials are public domain.[25] However, since I submitted the OTRS (after corresponding with the Library), I am confident it would pass. Jappalang (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks very much for checking these. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The dabs were clean when I filed the FAC, then a couple of days later someone changed the redirect on "dairy bar" to point to a disambig page instead of a regular article. Since there actually aren't any articles that describe a dairy bar in the U.S., I've now unlinked the use of the phrase in this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support A well-researched and well-organized article, and all my concerns (below) have been resolved by the nominator. —Eustress talk 22:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments —Eustress talk 20:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible to assuage the red links used throughout the article?
Thanks very much for your comments. I think the red links in the article are justified under the WP:REDLINK guidelines. I'm a big believer in red links, as they point other editors towards fruitful ideas for article creation. It's a little similar to how academic papers how "unsolved problems" or "further work" sections.
Won't hold up FA status —Eustress talk 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in WP:WIAFA about redlinks. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...I think I was thinking more about FLC criteria, which is why I crossed it out already. Thanks. —Eustress talk 04:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP cannot use those images under its fair use rules. The first is owned by the family and/or the University of Utah, and magazine covers can only be used in articles about the magazine itself. Indeed, the Time cover used to be in this article, but was thrown out by other editors.
That's too bad. What about Romney during "brainwashing" interview (TV screenshot fair-use rationale?), and various pictures here (Romney with Reagan, in front of AMC) and here? The article just seems quite absent of images for one who lived in the spotlight. —Eustress talk 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wire service photos are never usable; per WP:Non-free content#Images 2 #6, unacceptable use includes "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article" (which it isn't in this case). The screenshot ones are dubious in terms of fair use and of poor quality. I've searched and searched and searched for WP-usable photos of Romney, and these are all I've come up with. I agree it's paltry, but the image-checkers at FAC are very rigorous about throwing out images with even slightly dubious rationales, I've experienced it several times in the past on other articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your consideration. —Eustress talk 04:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to me the bit about the George Romney Lifetime Achievement Award should go in some kind of "Legacy" section, since I don't believe the award was begun until after his death. Same issue with the naming of BYU's public management institute.
I'm reluctant to create a legacy section for just these items, because it tends to indicate that that's the entire extent of his legacy. There's arguably a lot more. So I kept the volunteerism 'naming afters' in that section, and put the other 'naming afters' in the Final years section.
Perhaps "legacy" is poor word choice. Maybe "posthumous honors"? Anyway, if there is more out there, I believe it needs to be researched in order for the article to be considered comprehensive. —Eustress talk 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By more in terms of legacy, I mean his civil rights record, his record as a business executive with a high public profile, things like that. I've tried to describe and cite those legacies during the article's biographical narrative, rather than at the end. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now clarified and cited that the George W. Romney Volunteer Center began during Romney's lifetime, and thus belongs in the volunteerism section. I've moved the Governor George Romney Lifetime Achievement Award into the "Final years" section, to join the other posthumous awards/namings. I think this is better, and hopefully this will satisfy your concerns. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on this issue. I think you've struck a good compromise. —Eustress talk 22:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it POV in the "Final years" section to say "he was prominent"? I think we can let the facts speak for themselves.
I simply wanted to contrast it with his lack of prominence in the public/political world. It's the final instance of a thematic thread of the article, which is that Romney took his religion very, very seriously.
That sounds reasonable. —Eustress talk 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless beginning a sentence, numbers greater than ten should be rendered in numbers (e.g., "eighty-eight" --> "88").
WP:ORDINAL blesses rendering numbers as words "if they are expressed in one or two words", with "eighty-four" given as an example; "eighty-eight" is allowed too. If it really bothers you, I can change it.
You use numbers when expressing how many grandchildren and great-grandchildren survived him later in the paragraph. Best be consistent throughout the article. —Eustress talk 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've changed it. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks —Eustress talk 04:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way to decrease the length of the title of the table in the "1968 presidential campaign" section? A footnote would do.
This is really more of a caption than a title, except I could figure out how to get it at the bottom of the table. I don't want this text in the footnote because it is very critical: the most commonly false claim made about Romney is that he lost the presidential primary race because of the "brainwashing" remark. As the table makes clear, he was already losing the race and had been for a while; the remark just changed him from being behind to being way behind. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think what I'd really like is a "footnote" somewhere immediately below the table. The text, "Romney was trailing almost from the start, and his numbers dropped further after the August 31, 1967, 'brainwashing" remark'" is more commentary than title material. Can you somehow make the title more concise? —Eustress talk 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at whether I can change this to a less prominent caption. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've figured out how to rework the caption to supply only a brief title at the top and put the rest of the explanation below the table rows. It looks a lot better to me (thanks for pushing me on it), see what you think. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, much better! —Eustress talk 22:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you consider a more traditional portrait shot for the infobox image? (see here)
There's no source information for that photo, so we can't use it either. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Thanks for entertaining my salient takeaways from reviewing the article! —Eustress talk 04:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your comments and your support! Wasted Time R (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 21:47, 19 January 2010 [26].

Hawaii hotspot

Nominator(s): ResMar 21:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC) and ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, it's been two weeks since the last one, and all of the original comments have been cleared. I've done my best to deal with Fif's comments as well, based on what he told me. He started working on it but never finished, so I did my best myself. It's a very interesting article, and a worthy read.

Also, since the last nom, the list has been split from the article, and nominated as a standalone article: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain/archive1. Compounded with my GAN on Kohala (mountain), I'll be busy indeed; if you can help please do! ResMar 21:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now refs 28 and 29 take a long time to load, and give the error "Error - Cannot Connect to Server The handle you requested --handle number-- cannot be found." ...bleh. All other external links work. --an odd name 11:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. That's a problem. I've found replacements but NONE of the PDFs work, for some reason. this for example. ResMar 15:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I think I'm just going to remove the links, they're journal anyway so...ResMar 15:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 15:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They should not have been removed and I do not believe the links are bad. There was a server migration in September and I discussed this on the project page. I also made an attempt to fix all links on this site, so I'm not fully aware as to what is going on now, but it looks like the entire server is down for Sunday maintenance. Please restore the links and I will take responsibility for making sure they are correct when the server comes back up. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. It would be nice if server admins at least showed abstracts or titles of static pages while they fix the full ones and databases in the background, to preserve verifiability and such. Oh well. --an odd name 23:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? Ok Vid your call, now :) ResMar 00:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The servers are back up but the handles still don't work. I'm hoping that this will be fixed by tomorrow morning, but I'm going to give it one more day. Viriditas (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Using temporary, but working PDF files until handle links come back online. Apparently the servers are undergoing a move to a new location. Might not be complete for a week. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Server move done, handles back online, everything in tune and it's working again. I've re-replaced them with the handles. Cheers, ResMar 23:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was cleared by WP:RS/N, uh didn't I leave a message on your talk page...? Here's the link. ResMar 20:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's reliable (and then some). I'll strike. RB88 (T) 02:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COME ON. 9 days. ResMar 13:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

): Not again... ResMar 13:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait what? Archived? Where? Now? ...if this article IS archived...sigh. Then 2 more weeks waiting so as to reopen it so that no one can come and then the cycle repeats. I can't seem to understand it, no one else has trouble with empty FAC pages...ResMar 17:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comments An interesting read, I'm happy to support, but a couple of niggles.
  • Groups advocating alternatives to the plate tectonics, such as flood geology, have cited the new discoveriers as evidence against the hotspot theory. - I've fixed the typo, but this sentence should go anyway, I don't think a non-American would dream of putting this in. This is supposed to be a scientific article, what's this mumbo jumbo doing here? Also, if you must placate the loonies, you need to make it clear why the evidence helps them
The fringe is always notable...can't have a debate without detractors, right? Unfortunetly, I can't seem to track down specifically how this aids them, only that is does. ResMar 17:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually would say that the fringe never need be acknowledged unless it is the topic. Otherwise it would not be the fringe and rather a respectable (even if very small) minority. Also, "debate" is not always necessary for science articles; unless something is under active scientific debate, it can be considered settled enough for an encyclopedia and simply stated. So I would suggest that this sentence be removed, Awickert (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: removing this sentence b/c (1) On a quick perusal the sources used say nothing about this, (2) it is completely non-sensical as moving plumes are actively discussed by scientists and do not contradict plate tectonics. Awickert (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's been removed, as I can't find it anymore. Ah, yes, it's your doing. ResMar 13:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strontium–Niobium–Palladium should these be capitalised? (just checking)
I think not. Reduced to small caps. ResMar 17:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support To be honest, I am very often disappointed by the articles that get featured (some actor I've never heard about, jazz songs from the 60s, etc.). I think this article would be a great featured article. It is encyclopedic, well-written, and on a notable subject. By the way, does Black Tusk know his article is being nominated? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 19:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. I know him and he knows me :) But I'll go ahead and poke him to see, maybe he's ignorant.Just don't want to get accused of canvassing... ResMar 00:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am aware of this article's nomination, but I wouldn't say I'm being ignorant. I have been trying to collect information and organize sections for a massive expansion for the Mackenzie Large Igneous Province article. BT (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took that only as "ignorant of the fact that this article was at FAC." I too was ignorant in that respect just a few days ago. :) --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 04:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are a few somewhat choppy sentences in the lede and first major section that have too many commas and are too long for my liking, but nothing to object over. Others may see this as more of an issue, but I don't. Other than that, very informative (a bit too much explanation of general themes like what a hotspot is or how lava tubes form for me, but then, I'm already familiar with the basics), reads well (esp after the lede and first section) and is cited nicely. A great article overall. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 04:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go over the choppy text part. The first section is the Hawaii hotspot in the context of the hotspot theory, it was the origin of the theory and a continual study-spot so that's why it's there. Plus, not everyone knows what a hotspot is :) ResMar 13:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on non-compliance with WP:NFCC Image review:
    • File:Pele HVO.JPG: this photo of a copyrighted painting does not seem to serve a purpose other than to show a depiction of a deity (decoration). None of the text in the article talks of how the goddess is depicted in the painting nor does the painting help a reader to understand more than what the article's text have already stated. Principally the image fails NFCC criterion 8 and 1.
All other images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, not a big problem to remove that oO. ResMar 13:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. ResMar 13:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That part of the article was split into the list, so leaving a summary and a link makes sense, I think. ResMar 23:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as for above comment: that is the section that moved into its own article, so replacing it with a short summary and {{main}} template makes sense, I think. It used to be at the start, however, but now sits right before the link in the "see also" section, but not sure how to improve it, except perhaps remove the List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain from See Also since it it is adjacent. Or keep as it is.
I liked the Pele picture, but there are certainly enough other pictures, and this focus is on the science. Not sure about copyright status, since it is on display in a facility of the U.S. Federal Government. The link on the File: page www.arthurjohnsen.com to the author does not work for me. Anyway, not relevant to the nom since it is off - we can work on it for the other use.
Also note the handle server is back up again. Not sure if we need to change all those links back to e.g. hdl.handle.net/10524/170. I actually preferred the pdf direct links, but the hdl ones got to a shorter html page that gives the summary info, and was supposed to not change like the pdf ones did a few months ago.
I think to be safe it's best to use the static handles, if the names change again then there will be a big scuffle over broken links. Now that they work again (yay!) I've gone and re-inserted them. ResMar 23:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only nit from my review last time was adding National Park links to the template, which I just did myself. So ready to go in my opinion. W Nowicki (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One issue: I can't find a single peer-reviewed publication supporting the section entitled, Crack and magma theory, though my (google scholar) search was admittedly cursory. However, unless a peer-reviewed publication is found, the section should be removed per WP:UNDUE and also because the work of these two scientists will not have been scrutinized by the scientific community. (Note that conference abstracts are generally not peer-reviewed in the Earth Sciences, and certainly never see the scrutiny that a major journal article does. Awickert (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll blow up 5k of content. ResMar 22:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blowing up content is superior to publishing a misrepresentation. I will try to do a more thorough search on this but am about to leave on a business trip. It may well be more accepted than it seems... Google scholar is really good and I am happy to send you any journal article that you don't have access to. Awickert (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Rather not deal with it, as it's one of many alternate theories, anyway. ResMar 22:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same comment goes for the Other challenges section: not a single quality peer-reviewed source is cited here. While I'm sure that valid criticism does exist, we can't go ahead and cite everyone's online-published criticism. Some of the section, however, probably could be re-cited to more reliable sources for science. (I understand that mantleplumes.org has some manner of limited peer-review, but it is certainly below the caliber of the standard journals.) Awickert (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mistake me for someone that has access to those kinds of resources. Same here as above (if you're willing to save the content, be my guest, otherwise it's gone). ResMar 22:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note for ResMar: I'm leaving this open, in spite of several statements from you that you don't have access to the kinds of sources required, because Awickert appears willing to work on addressing the issues and supplying those sources, but please note that WP:WIAFA states: "... it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ..." A representative survey of relevant literatue and high-quality sources on science articles include peer-reviewed journal sources; writing an FA without access to such sources might necessitate collaboration in the future with someone who does have access to the kinds of sources required by WP:WIAFA. Being kinder to reviewers who offer to help is always a good strategy :) FACs are not promoted based on a tally of support declarations: a content expert has unresolved concerns; please work with Awickert to resolve the remaining concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm stuck between WP:UNDUE and the completion criterea, basically. Nice...ResMar 22:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will give you journal articles. I don't think that mantleplumes.org is necessarily bad, but I do think that there should be more comprehensive and authoritative sourcing for a section that aims to present issues with the scientific mainstream. Awickert (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awd, if you're on a buisness trip this jepordizes the article's chances of passing. Yes, I'm impatient, doing this a fourth time will drive me mad. I'm unsure of wether to get rid of it or wait for something to happen. I think maybe I'll email him a set of articles and see if he can't JSTOr them for me...ResMar 22:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Starting some work on it tonight (back at the hotel); I'll ask Sandy to leave it open. (As a side note, JSTOR is not the only journal source (or even a major one I use), but this is a technicality. Awickert (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comprehensibility: Comments inserted in brackets. "A detailed analysis of the topography and geoid of the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain reveals that while [what is?] high near the hotspot, local [rmv "local" as unnecessary] elevation falls with distance, but most severely between the Murray and Molokaʻi fracture zones." Suggested rewording: A detailed topographic analysis of the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain reveals the hotspot is the center of a topographic high, and that elevation falls with distance from the hotspot. The most rapid decrease in elevation occurs between the Murray and Molokaʻi fracture zones. (And then talk about geoid)
  • Topography and geoid: Actually, this whole section could use some work. I think that it is trying to talk about dynamic topography, but the wording leaves a lot of things unclear. Awickert (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is written to the source. What the source says, I write. I can't write any further or I would violate more stuff, nor can I find anything more detailed after a search. ResMar 22:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been an attempt at writing to the source, but it doesn't. The source doesn't mention tectonic uplift while the Wikipedia article does. The article by Pal Wessel instead discusses thermally-driven uplift and dynamic uplift (defined as uplift driven by density variations in the mantle that deflect free surfaces and phase-change interfaces). I'm happy to take a harder look at the article and try to make the paragraph better, so long as I'm not stepping on your toes. In particular "dynamic reason" doesn't say a whole lot to someone who doesn't know about geodynamics (and is somewhat ambiguous to me as well). Awickert (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best (and actually read the pages on topography, geoids, and fracture zones) to reword it for clarity. Hope it's better. ResMar 19:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eruption frequency and scale: the spacing of volcanoes also has to do with the mechanical properties of the crust or lithosphere; I also can't find how the sources cited connect this to volcanism. If this isn't just about my searching skills, this would be WP:SYNTH. However, I'm happy to send those interested in this the primary sources on volcanic rock volumes discussed in the mantleplumes.org article. Awickert (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
? Please elaborate. ResMar 22:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources don't seem to say that the spacing of volcanoes has anything to do with the eruption volumes, so that would be WP:SYNTH. However, the more conclusive information about eruption volumes does show a trend in increasing amounts of volcanism, and very nicely at that, so I think that this info should be the focus of this section. Awickert (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chort. But it's pretty obvious...ResMar 19:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed so as to state that the distance increases with distance, implying but not stating eruption frequency. ResMar 23:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll look into this too. It's not actually so obvious to me; I imagine (but don't know) that distance between volcanic vents would have something to do with the mechanical properties of the lithosphere. I'll get to reading. Awickert (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, you can't honestly be raising standards about sources. Now I realize that some people are privileged enough to be able to write everything from journals and publications, but I'm not, nor will I ever be most likely; I have extremely limited access to "immensely reliable" resources, and mantleplumes is as high as I can manage. I'm sure JSTOR means you can virtually write entire articles from text resources. I don't have JSTOR. And am not willing to spend money on buying all sorts of useless memberships for Wikipedia. ResMar 22:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to send you whatever you need via email. I always thought that the bar, or at least the golden bar, was peer-reviewed journal articles. I really just want to make sure that this article is not skewed via selection bias towards what is written in freely-available sources. Awickert (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you don't have anything else, it's the best I can manage. Asking someone else to go around scraping refs togethor for hours isn't something I can do everyday, either. ResMar 00:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see how using mantleplumes is "bad" either. I presents a nice little list of arguments. I hate digging through piles and piles of abstracts finding this stuff, and mantleplumes is a high-quality source by me. Sure, I can bloat the article with a bunch of "verifiable" journal articles (I can't even comprehend most of them), but mantleplumes is a high quality source and stands up to it. Sure, there's better stuff, but the fact that it exists doesn't mean that it has to be added. I'd rather use one good source for 20 things then 20 "peer-reviewed" sources for the same exact thing. ResMar 22:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The mantleplumes source has only been cited 3 times, and never by an article in a mainstay Earth Science journal, making it almost certainly undue weight. I don't mean to get down on you - the article is by and large excellent. There are just some technical points and some academic-resource-availability things that are important. One issue with freely-availible smaller journaley things like mantleplumes is that they can be used as a soapbox by scientists to throw hypotheses around. That doesn't mean that there isn't lots of good info there, but it is necessary to watch one's step.
Mainstay peer-reviewed publication isn't something I can manage consistantly, if at all. ResMar 00:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You miss my point here: you can go to something as straightforward as Google Scholar, and see how many times that the article has been cited, and see where. It doesn't even require reading of the citations. Awickert (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you're really interested in getting this to FA. I am just interested in making sure that Wikipedia FA's adequately represent the state of the science. And like I said, much of the work here is already good, so you can feel very proud of yourself for that. Awickert (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, see, I don't like bulking pages up with extra refs like that, and it's very reliably referenced. (I looked at this again, I'm moving and my Internet was out for a couple of days, and I see I got a bit irked...sorry about that...) ResMar 00:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about "bulking up with extra refs" - I wouldn't bother you about the sourcing unless I was afraid for the factual accuracy. But let's cut this line of conversation off (or redirect it) before it becomes a dramafest in a public place. The bottom line is that I will help you get mainstream sources, I will help you make some changes based on them, and that (I hope) the article will end up better for it in the end. Unfortunately, you'll need to bear with me during a rather hectic week. Awickert (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'm not feeling well today so unfortunatly it must wait another day. (headache...) ResMar 21:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's all been handled to the best of my abilites. ResMar 22:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Awd is away as far as I understand, and won't return to active editing until Jan 11th. As such, only he has access to all the secured JSTOR PDFs and the like, and there is nothing I can do to address his comment about balancing the refs in the section on opposition. Dunno how much patience the FAC people have (I'm guessing not much), but I definetly don't want to see a fourth reiteration of this, and the article has quite a few support votes (currently, 5 of 'em) standing already. ResMar 22:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's somewhat here, just a little late at night. I'm going to work on it. Awickert (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[27] 21:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
See my note above; it is kind of Awickert to lend his expertise and offer to forward journal articles, but high-quality reliable sources are a necessity for FA; writing a science FA without access to journal articles is difficult to impossible, so please work with Awickert to resolve the remaining issues, which he has generously agreed to work on. "Quite a few support votes" do not get FACs passed when a content expert has outstanding concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Dave (talk)

This article shows promise, but does have some issues. Once these are resolved I'll be happy to support. Dave (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Note: Some of these items are pasted from a review I started a couple of weeks ago in a sandbox. Some of these items may have already been addressed[reply]

  • Sources
    • Using the linkchecker [28], several are missing an accessdate. The links to tamu.edu are showing as dead, hopefully that's a temporary thing.
  • Lead
    • and require a completely different mechanism for maintaining volcanic activity." This clause is a little rough, to me it leaves the question unanswered, "and that other mechanism is what"? Maybe cut out, or reword?
  • Wilson's theory (I'd truncate the section name, I like them short)
    • In the section titled Wilson's theory you have the words "it is thought". Did Wilson think this? If so, I'd say "Wilson theorized..." If this is not part of Wilson's theory this should be clarified due to the section title. I'd state something like "other scientists have suggested" Similar for "Many geophysicists", as it's in the section "Wilson's theory" was Wilson among those geophysicists? or is this geophysicists who built upon Wilson's theory?
  • "get"
    • I try to avoid the word get in professional writings. From my volunteer work with people taking ESL (English as a Second Language) classes, I can tell you get is difficult word to translate or explain. In the U.S. we abuse this word, for example "get me a beer" (get = bring) to "I want to get away" (get = escape) to "He gets down on the dance floor" (get = is talented) and on and on.
  • Shallow hotspot theory
    • "moved the ridge away" is a little vague, was the ridge smoothed, or moved to a new location?
    • This section never definitively states who advocates this theory (i.e. does Wilson believe this is possible, or is this others who disagree with Wilson, etc.
  • Moving hotspot theory
    • I'd avoid the terms "long been" and "new research". If you know specific decades, I'd replace. with that.
      • I've replaced new reaserch with new evidence, however I'm keeping long been because it's in the context of the text. Exact dates have already been mentioned in the first section. ResMar 14:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "To test whether or not the bend was a result of a change in direction of the Pacific Plate, scientists analyzed" Who sponsored the scientists? (I.E. NASA, a university, National Geographic Magazine? etc?)
    • Suggested rewording: "Some groups that do not believe in plate tectonics (see also, flood geology)" -> "Groups advocating flood geology instead of plate tectonics have cited" .... I try to avoid the words "see also", in prose. IMO it's a distracting phrase.
  • Characteristics
    • This stray sentence doesn't add much value, I'd suggest expanding this to be a short paragraph: "The immense size of the Hawaiian hotspot and its creations is just one of many fascinating aspects."
  • Size
    • The height is sourced to geology.com. Per the about page for this site, the publisher is Dr. Hobart King, as such the citation is not properly credited.
Done. ResMar 02:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Movement
    • I have made some fixes to this section. you might check to see if they were appropriate and I didn't hose anything.
  • Eruption Frequency and scale
    • "0.01 cubic kilometers (0.0024 cu mi) of lava per year" Might it be better to use smaller units, (i.e cubit meters and cubic feed), with numbers this small (0.00024) it's difficult to gain perspective on how much this is. I don't know the answer, asking an honest question.
Honestly, this section has been changed so many times, I don't know what to do with it. People have said to make the units bigger and smaller so I've given up trying to fix it. I suppose it will land on a suitable compromise someday. Perhaps we should change it to "the hotspot spews an immense volume of lava"? Perhaps we can find a mountain or dwarf planet of equal volume in which to compare it? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 04:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the joys of FAC reviews. You get 6 conflicting views of which way is the "right" way. =-) Of course, I'm right =-). Actually, I do think that an object size comparison would help. I still can't visualize how much this is, but understand if you've tried several ways and can't find a way to make it work. Dave (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lava
    • "In addition to the two types of lava, Hawaiian volcanoes produce unique volcanic forms, described below." I'm not sure this adds value, the word "predominately" makes it clear there are more than 2 types of lava, and the "described below" links to the next section. What you might do instead is swap the last two paragraphs in this section so the transition between sections is focused on lava.
Removed the stray sentance. ResMar 21:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eruption Phenomenon and Lava sections
    • I'm not sure how to handle these sections. This is very interesting, and all new to me. However, it is drifting from the topic at hand (Hawaiian Hotspot) and seems more appropriate for an article on Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Maybe abbreviate the content, especially in the last two paragraphs of the phenomenon section? Dave (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that lava is intricatly related; after all, it wouldn't be a hotspot if it wasn't volcanically active, would it? This setction deals with lavas of Hawaii, which is very much related to its source hotspot, and in fact is quite unique as compared to other lava types. Eruption phenomena, on the other hand...well...I'm hesitant to flat-out remove it. I think it certainly belongs somewhere, and as far as I see it this is the best place for it. Also, with the article shrinking (list split, sections collapsed, things getting challanged...), I really am feeling nervous about comprehensivity. ResMar 21:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was just some friendly advice. If you disagree, that's fine, it's not enough to withhold my support vote.Dave (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can argue over where this should go instead =). ResMar 23:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 01:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder if the article needs another copyedit/MOS check. The first random section I looked at had four things that needed to be fixed, so I stopped there. Sasata (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:11, 16 January 2010 [29].

School Rumble

Nominator(s): 陣内Jinnai 18:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I have finished resolving any issues from the previous FAC (that I could tell). To the 2 sources that were not given reasons (ComiPress & Digital-Sat), the former is a of anime and manga news site that republishes information relating to the mediums. Per WP:ENGLISH the use in this article is to make the listing, originally in Japanese, more accessible to those who cannot speak it. While originally it was a mix of editorial and user posts, since 2006 its split and the site listed is the official news site. For the latter, that is the website for an Italian online magazine on digital TV that that has existed for a decade. On the other issue, I have replaced the screenshot with a short clip which meets WP:FAIRUSE and also given direct, sourced, commentary relating to it and why its use would be needed, in addition to text, that neither text nor text and a screenshot alone could show, part of which is linked to another wiki article in the text and caption.

Note: I will be away from my usual computer throughout the holidays, but should be able to respond within a reasonable time, especially after Sunday.陣内Jinnai 18:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No dabs, and external links and alts look good.
  • Minor (to me): After I replaced a hyphen with a dash in the References, I noticed a bunch of time ranges use hyphens, date ranges use spaced en dashes, and prose uses em dashes. I tried a script, but the resulting diff didn't look like it would catch much (or fix them to one style as I hoped), so I leave any dash or hyphen fixes to others.
  • Check that each ref is used only once for each statement (I removed a dupe). Check also for missing words (I added one)—you don't want to accidentally a source.
    • I will have to wait to do a thorough check on that given the size of the article, the number of refs and the speed of my relative's computer till i get back unless any of them come out as inneduatky sspicious.陣内Jinnai 04:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good video btw. It helps illustrate the Initial D reference far better than the old image, and I think (esp. with the text commentary) it easily meets the non-free crits. (added on 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 00:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is the absence of the games from the animanga infobox intentional? I also noticed that it's not categorized under Category:2005 video games and Category:2006 video games. --Remy Suen (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of games from the infobox is intentional; such items are commonly produced for even remotly successful anime and the games are otherwise of little note. Furthermore it was never intended to have a game posted for an anime unless it was based originally on a game, like Air (visual novel) or it has concurrent release like .hack.
As for the categories, I can add those later when i am at a better pc.陣内Jinnai 23:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2005/2006 video game categories added.陣内Jinnai 20:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. It's pretty good, but the prose is flat in many places. What should be an interesting topic to read about was difficult to get through for me. I'd recommend getting a fresh pair of eyes on it to pep it up and introduce some variety in the writing. The plot section is one of the worst offenders, but the droning lists of languages, release dates, formats, and so on could use a touch-up as well. Not a ton of work, but needs refreshing.
    • Essentially naming off a list of releases and dates or formats is dull. Ex. the second paragraph of the lead, and the first paragraph of the Manga heading. Let's find a fresh and interesting way to write about this.
      • I'm attempting to find some other copyeditors at the moment. The article has been copyedited by a second copyeditor.
    • It's somewhat overlinked—please don't link common dicdef terms like "puns", "eccentric", and so on. Some terms are linked multiple times, like "protagonist".
      • I removed some of the links. The remaining ones are duplicated from the lead and the prosebody. I am leaving pun linkage because it is a core concept around which the manga revolves around (along with a few other types of humor) and as such it is reasonable to link to that one. If you want me to remove the ones linked in the lead that are also linked in the body, just let me know.
    • In the lead you write "Unlike other Del Rey releases, the English translation retains the naming order of the Japanese original to preserve puns based on the characters' names." Later, you write "Del Rey also retained the Japanese naming order to preserve the series' humor." The source supports the fact that Del Rey is doing this and why, but neither your main body prose nor the source support the "unlike other Del Rey releases" phrase. Please make sure that what you write in the lead is reflected in the main body, and that the source supports it.
      • Removed the part about "unlike" in the lead.
    • The laundry list of citations after some statements are ugly and undesirable. If you say something was translated in n languages, can we just cite one source that lists the languages rather than citing every primary source where that language is available?
      • Sorry none of the sources really say that. I can cut down the list if you want, but there is no source that says SR was translated into multiple languages.
        • It's not a huge deal. It's just visually unappealing to me and creates the appearance that it's a controversial statement that requires a number of citations. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well a lot of them were leftovers from when the infoboxes listed non-English/non-Japanese publishers. So each one was basically verify that either it was licensed for DVD release or shown on a network in another language.陣内Jinnai 07:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:11, 16 January 2010 [30].

Rebbie Jackson

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 20:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked on it for a few months and believe that it meets the FA criteria. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 20:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as per last nom. Sources are fine. It's a nicely researched, nicely written article. I think people may have been a tad harsh last time. If anything the prose is much improved. RB88 (T) 15:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mm40 (talk) on ref formatting/external links, I'll review prose later

  • "At the age of 34" can just be "At age 34" (just saw this randomly)
  • Done.
  • All the Jet, Vibe, and Billboard references should use {{cite journal}}
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Ref 30 (Ultratop chart) should have "Ultratop" (with the link) in the work parameter
  • Done.
  • Under References, either all of or none of the publishers should be linked
  • Unlinked all.
  • Under External links, I think it should be "at the Internet Movie Database"
  • Done.

Image Review — No images. Done. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, 1a, 1b and 1c. It's pretty good! My concern is that you seem to have done some of your research from sources that tend to focus on the drama aspects of the Jackson family when this should really be mostly about Rebbie Jackson the musician. The result is sort of a tabloid vibe in some parts. You get away from it when you discuss her music which is good. There are many more good sources available than what you have represented here. Have you searched library databases such as Academic Search Premier, International Index to Music Periodicals, Access World News, etc? Thing brings a larger concern—your biography essentially ends in 1998 with the release of Yours Faithfully, as if nothing happened in her life after that. — Laser brain — continues after insertion below
I did some source research for this the first time and this time again and found zilch. Compared to the rest of them, she's basically a hermit. I think depth-wise in terms of sources it's fine. (Although, some people may want more fleshing out with those sources which are available.) That's fine, but last time it seemed to encourage those who wanted more and those wanted less in equal measure. That's why I thought it was a bit unfair. People somehow want sources to appear from thin air and sometimes that's impossible for certain articles. RB88 (T) 01:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree that this can sometimes devolve into a give-and-take that seemingly doesn't appease anyone. I noted, for instance, that some previous reviewer had them take out the whole section of her life after 1998. And I don't ask until I look myself, on the the sources. I came up with bunches of hits that were not used here, and I think it's worth scanning the magazines and newspapers for less tabloid-like facts. If it turns out the research has been done to the extent it needs to, I would still like to comb through this a bit to get the tone more in line with an encyclopedia. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's 4 key questions here which I'll be answering then. 1. Does it contain "tabloid" sources? NO. 2. Are there other sources available? YES. 3. Is their material a duplicate of what's already used or used in a book synthesis. Pretty much YES. I only found one more source which I gave Pyrrhus yesterday and that only had marginal info and a couple of quotes. 4. Is the prose "tabloid-y"? I don't think so, but you're your own person, so are entitled to bringing up issues. But I think source wise it's fine. RB88 (T) 00:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked in the databases I mentioned? --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at academic publications through the complete UK unis database and also the Proud Gallery's extensive database of news and archives including primary sources. (And Google News obviously, but that goes without saying). Overall, I think maybe more comprehensive that what has been mentioned as examples but I might be wrong. RB88 (T) 03:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, I found sources in Access World News with info about her involvement in Michael's death, her being declared a front runner for caring for Michael's children, etc. All this is missing from your article. Some other specific problems:

  • In the last FAC of the article, a reviewer thought that the death section seemed to be trivia, so I removed it. I have now restored it along with details on her role towards Michael Jackson's children.
    • "The album, her last to date, had the singer collaborate with artist and producers" Oddly worded... how did the album have her do anything? Active voice is preferable but don't word it so the "album" is doing something.
    • Changed to "The production of the album, her last to date, had the singer collaborate..." Hopefully, this is better.
    • "It also featured contributions from her children, who were fathered by Nathaniel Brown." Again, a strange meandering way of telling us who the father of her children is. Then you stop short and use another sentence to tell us he is also her husband. Jarring. Why not just say her children, full stop, and then tell us who she's been married to. Readers will have no reason to assume they are anyone else's children.
    • Reworded sentences.
    • "Her siblings are..." It seems weird to provide the birth dates of the dead siblings but not for all of them. Why not just "(d. 1957)" and "(d. 2009)" or whatever the convention is?
    • Done.
    • The Marriage section is too People-magazine-ish. It focuses on the conflict, which is certainly what was in the papers and magazines, but it shouldn't be the overall tone of the section.
    • I've tweaked a few parts that I thought might be most problematic.
    • "The songs from the album were recorded at Tito's Ponderosa Studios" Would saying "The album was recorded at..." change the meaning? Don't use words you don't need.
    • Done.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Pyrrhus16 22:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments - I still feel that attention is needed to the prose. It does not flow well. Major problems in research and comprehensiveness continue to emerge. Some specifics:
    • There are several instances where the writing dances around continuously saying "Jackson <verb>" or "Rebbie <verb>" by using phrases like "The teenager thought", "The young woman ... wanted", and "the female singer's album included". It feels forced, like we're trying to avoid repetition or ambiguity by using synonyms instead of introducing actual variety into the prose. I recommend getting someone new to go through the whole thing, after comprehensiveness and quality of research are addressed.
    • Many awkward turns of phrase and instances of wordiness such as:
      • "Division was created in the Jackson family" Why are we twisting sentences like this into passive voice? Wouldn't this be better: "18-year-old Rebbie's announcement that she wanted to marry her childhood love Nathaniel Brown in 1968 created a division in the Jackson family."
      • "Jackson expressed her feeling for the man" What feeling? Something not covered by wanting to marry him?
      • "Having the last word on the matter, Joseph refused to walk his daughter down the aisle." Does the first clause really tell us anything that the second doesn't? Does Taraborrelli state that he was trying to have the last word?
      • "Due to ratings success" Owing to?
      • "With the album, Jackson became the last of her siblings to release hit material and embark on a career in music." The first idea is ambiguous; it could be interpreted that no Jackson released "hit material" (which is ambiguous in and of itself) after Centipede. Certainly that's not true? I'm sure you mean that of all the Jacksons that ever released "hit material", Rebbie was the last in line... but the reader doesn't necessarily know that. The second idea, "embark on a career in music" is just confusing, since you've been writing about her musical career back with "Jackson began her singing career in 1974". Oof.
      • "was not released as a single, despite receiving substantial airplay." When would airplay cause something to be released as a single?
    • I'm still not convinced that this has been carefully researched and is comprehensive. I did another search today in Access World News and found stories about a reality TV show that Rebbie was offered and in which Michael's kids will star. It seems there is a whole chapter of her life missing, really. There are sources about her performing in a huge tribute concert in 2009 (JOSH MCAULIFFE. (2009, April 9). Jacksons’ big sister to perform at Apollo-Motown tribute. Times-Tribune, The (Scranton, PA) Retrieved January, 13 2010 from NewsBank on-line database (Access World News)), etc. etc. If I find a hit within a couple minutes of searching that contains information we're not representing here, I'm not at all comfortable.
      • From my research, the reality show rejection news is from the end of 2009, so maybe a bit harsh to expect it to be included. I personally would say it's trivial in the grand scheme of things and ask for its removal if it was in there. I also couldn't find any news whatsoever at AWN. What search criteria did you run? RB88 (T) 03:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • How is it "harsh" to state my opinion? This is the second time here I've seen you call out reviewers as "harsh". I'm sorry but if you're putting your article up for FA status, you are inviting close scrutiny and criticism. At any rate, I'm searching "Rebbie Jackson" in quotes; what are you searching? --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, if you felt antagonised. I was also just stating my opinion. The recent timeframe may have been a reason why its missing, because research might have ended before the end of 2009. In any case, I don't think it warrants any comments about lacking comprehensiveness. And I was searching exactly using that criteria and did not find anything. RB88 (T) 04:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't feel antagonized. I'm just saying I don't think I've said anything harsh. You commented about the reality show but what about the tribute concert? We really don't want to say anything about her life in the 2000's other than how it relates to Michael's death? That's ten years neglected! --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can find no sources on her performing at the concert. The above source that you mentioned states that she was expected to perform. Adding that to the article, without knowing if she did, would be inconclusive. Artists have often cancelled scheduled appearances at the last minute. In regard to the reality show, it seems trivial to mention it because she was not involved with it. Pyrrhus16 19:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is the critical commentary about Centipede and the other albums? It is out there in droves and it's non-existent here... for example, about Centipede:
      • "With Centipede (Columbia 12-inch), Rebbie Jackson benefits from the songwriting smarts of the most famous of her five famous brothers. Now, if she would only develop a singing style different from that of a famous ex-Supreme." (Rich Harry, October 13, 1984, The Morning Call)
      • "[A] very creditable showing" (Jonathan Takiff, October 18, 1984, Philadelphia Daily News)
      • "Michael Jackson produces his older sister, and - surprise! - the result is something more than mere sibling hype. Rebbie's singing is cool and sensuous, and Michael has surrounded her with a sharply percussive rhythm track that uses the synthesizer as an ethereal mood-enhancer. The melody is rather tiresome when repeated for five minutes, and the lyric makes absolutely no sense at all - it's almost aggressively dumb - but the chorus is a killer." (Ken Tucker, September 16, 1984, The Philadelphia Inquirer
--Andy Walsh (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Album critical commentary should be reserved to the album pages (regardless if those pages are created or not) and not in the biography. A single line (i.e. favourable, non, or mixed) is all that is needed. Same for singles critical comms in album pages. RB88 (T) 03:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I afraid I don't agree with you in this case. It would be one thing if the album articles were fleshed out and contained the information, but they don't. They're just stubs. It's not acceptable for the information to just be "nowhere". When and if someone beefs up the album articles, they have a head start. We can't afford to ignore a whole cross-section of sources and leave readers in the dark about these topics in her life. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're not here to discuss or appraise the album articles. We're here to dissect Rebbie Jackson. Adding detailed critical commentary of albums, especially quotes, in a musical bio is excessive detail and should not be done. That detail should be and must be reserved for the respective Critical section in each album. If they don't have them, then 1. It shouldn't mean her bio has to have them and 2. It shouldn't mean her bio has to fail the comprehensiveness test because of it. RB88 (T) 04:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think one can dissect Rebbie Jackson without talking about how her albums were received. We are presenting her as a musician, and saying she is notable for being a musician. We certainly can't stand just on the fact that she's a Jackson. What else is there? She's a Jackson and she makes music. It's certainly worth mentioning that Michael's involvement with Centipede, for example, was pretty much the best thing that could be said about it according to some reviewers. Additionally, I meant my comments to be representative and an indication that sources are missing. The things I posted here were found just on the first page of results in Access World News. That almost always means more is lacking. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Important details about the studio sessions can be added, like Michael helping her. On the other hand, specific album critical commentary does not have a place in her bio. A "favourable, non, or mixed" reception with a handful of refs at the end of the sentence is all that's required. If more detail is added, it will fail WP:SUMMARY and I will be the one to oppose. RB88 (T) 05:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RB88, and have added that the album received mixed reviews from journalists. I don't feel it's necessary to list every comment ever printed about the album in her biography article. This is not even done for album articles. Pyrrhus16 19:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Pyrrhus16's recent edits: Thanks for your fixes so far! You've patched up my examples, but I'd still recommend waiting until after the comprehensiveness/research issue is resolved and getting a copyedit from someone new to the text. By doing so, you get a fresh perspective on not only the writing style (which I still find lacking, ex. "MTV later concluded that the album struggled.") but also on issues you may be too close to the text to see. For example, the headings: Why begin them all with year ranges when their content does not reflect those ranges? The "1986–1997: Reaction and R U Tuff Enuff" heading only covers events through 1988 and then you end with a vague statement that "she performed around the world during this hiatus." What does that mean? Are you saying she claimed a hiatus that wasn't really a hiatus? What happened between 1988 and 1998? Next, we have a heading ostensibly covering 1998–2008, but the writing really is only about one year. Again, what happened in those 10 years? You can't claim that nothing of note happened because you can't find sources. I'm not guessing that there are sources available—I know they are available because I looked. You'll have to move past Googling and hit the public library, or ask a reference librarian for help using the databases. I can be swayed about my 1a objection after a thorough copyedit, but I can't in good conscience ignore the large temporal gaps in coverage. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:11, 16 January 2010 [31].

Château-Gaillard

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Here we have an article about Richard the Lionheart's favourite castle. There's not an enormous amount to say about it because the site was built in one phase, a monumental effort that was mostly complete in just two years, and the most important parts of its history were the first few years of its existence. The article details the main points about the castle, touching on its history and its importance in the context of castle building, and I believe it is comprehensive. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to review the article. Nev1 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think the letters on the plan should be explained further in the caption, & tied into the text. Also the photos, or at least one of them, should identify the larger lumps left, and the direction of view. Barthélemy, who I used on Castle, says that Richard's ""manor" [palace] was situated outside and below the citadel" - not sure if this is H on the plan or outside the castle altogether. A couple of lines on Richard's career would give context - he'd been back from the Crusades for less than 2 years in 1196. In "Walter de Coutances travelled to Rome in the winter of 1196.." - is that 1195-96 or 1196-97? Best to specify. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I can explain the letters on the plan; I can't find Viollet-le-Duc's explanation of the plan. Allen Brown has a plan in his book (Allen Brown's English Castles) but doesn't go into as much detail as Viollet-le-Duc; in fact all he does is lable the baileys, moats, and the keep.
As for the other points, I completely agree and have made the changes. The captions now better explain the images, "the winter of 1196" has been clarified. How's this for more background? Nev1 (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other points fine. V-D's plan, or an equivalent, ought to be online in French somewhere. I may have a look over the next few days, & I need to give it a thorough read-through, but we seem on track here. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text added (I knew I'd forgotten something). I've not added any alt text for the plan though as it would pretty much be repeating the caption. Nev1 (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some alt text needs to be there. It needn't repeat the caption, as the image contains many details not in the caption. However, if you think the diagram merely repeats the adjacent article (not the caption), please use a placeholder as per WP:ALT#Placeholders. Also, the location map needs alt text; please use the |map_alt= parameter of {{Infobox Military Structure}}. The alt text you added looks very good; thanks! Eubulides (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Plan.Chateau.Gaillard.png is missing alt text. Jappalang (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? Nev1 (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it all looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The panoramic pictures were a lucky find. I couldn't decide which to use so thought I'd go for both! The coloured image gives a fuller view of the castle, but the black and white photo is a personal favourite as it's just stunning. Nev1 (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: all images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. However, File:Plan.Chateau.Gaillard.png and File:Siege.Chateau.Gaillard.png would do better to have more accurate PD templates and at least descriptions of their authors and page numbers in the Dictionary. The FAC, however, does not need to be hold up by this. Jappalang (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support:

  • "He went with Philip II of France as each was wary of the other invading his territory in his absence."
    Suggest a change to "He went with Philip II of France as each was wary that the other might invade his territory in his absence."
    Done. Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... were drenched in a rain of blood ..."
    A "rain of blood"? Was this a metaphor for violence? Maybe some clarification is in order?
    This is literal (I was going to add a wiki-link, but Wikipedia doesn't have an article on blood rain... yet; if Malleus or Parrot of Doom doesn't swoop on the article I intend to write it myself), and hopefully the following sentence ("While some of his advisers thought the rain was an evil omen, Richard was undeterred") makes that clear now. Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. I hazard it is some sort of natural phenomenon by which red-stained water precipitates? The "omen" bit helps a bit, but readers might still wonder if it is a supernatural occurence. I would suggest enclosing "rain of blood" in quotations to make it distinct as taken from the original text. Of course, as you said, an article on rain of blood (even if a stub) would resolve the issue as well. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the quotation marks. I've found what looks like an interesting article on occurrences of blood rain in medieval literature but haven't got round to reading it yet. The Red rain in Kerala is a modern equivalent (and apparantly you get red rain in Britain due to dust from the Sahara), but in the Middle Ages I suppose it must have been disconcerting and it probably did seem supernatural. Nev1 (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 6 April 1199, Richard died due to an infected arrow wound on his shoulder."
    A brief on what circumstance he received the wound is perhaps in order (name and link the battle or such).
    I've added that it the wound was sustained while besieging Chalus, but I'm wary of going into more detail as it didn't happen at Château-Gaillard. Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The curtain walls are studded by flanking towers, intended to provide enfilading fire, were cylindrical, typical of contemporary towers."
    A word might be missing from this sentence, or it requires breaking up. Either way, the current sentence structure "... are studded by flanking towers, ..., were cylindrical, ..." seems weird.
    I've split the sentence and rephrased it to read "The curtain walls are studded by flanking towers which were intended to provide enfilading fire; the towers were cylindrical, typical of contemporary towers". Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a fine piece on a castle of the Lion. I am leaning to support on resolution of the above. Jappalang (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "rain of blood" stuff is easy to take care of, so I will just throw my support in now. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, not nearly comprehensive [failing 1 b)], and don't see how it can be resolved in this session. E.g. "In the 1990s, archaeological excavations were carried out at Château-Gaillard; in conjunction with the archaeological work, efforts were made to preserve the structure." Fascinating ... would expect a paragraph if this were a realistic FA candidate, but in fact that's my lot. # Innovations and layout is just awash with such assertions, that just hint at info but then move on. Fair enough for a B, not for an FA. Appears that most of the material on this castle is in the French language, but there's nothing in the main references section in that language; maybe that's the problem? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most important French source not directly referenced in the article is Le Château-Gaillard et les fortresses des XIIe et XIIIe siècles by Pierre Héliot. Now an article dedicated to the site in a renowned journal on castles is essential. Although it is not directly referenced by Wikipedia's article, Allen Brown's English Castles uses the Héliot article so I don't see this as a big problem; it is represented in the article, albeit indirectly. As for the excavations in the 1990s, the conclusion was essentially that more work needs to be undertaken on the site as a whole.
I realise this might be an annoyance, but could you specifically list your problems with the innovations and layout section? Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff about the excavations should be in the article, and yes it is a problem if you don't utilise the main sources for a topic you wanna get to FA.
The section is question is just to fleet-worded on the lay-out aspect (it's ok on the innovations, though even this needs more context), jumping from topic to topic (in one para, from the gatehouse to a quote about how great the castle is). "Liddiard emphasises the importance of the throne room in the keep; one of only two rooms in the keep (the other was an antechamber), the throne would have sat in front of a large window" ... why is this the first time we hear about the throne-room, and in passing? "Château-Gaillard consists of three baileys – an inner, a middle, and an outer with the main entrance to the castle – and a keep, also called a donjon, in the inner-bailey" ... and that's all we hear of those. And so on. Ideally, I'd like to see sections for each part of the castle, even if short ones, descibing them physically, archaeologically, historically. and functionally. Not sentences interwoven with random quotes in a huge confused paragraph. Do you have the local site guide? This would be useful. For an FA, you'd want if not to print it thing off and take it there, at least to find it useful. This section of the article is basically useless except for the map and the citations. It looks like a guide that's done the history section, and then got cut off except for a rushed summary of the rest. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're going to have to agree to disagree about the sources; as an English castle Château-Gaillard is covered in English-language books which refer to the French-language sources. I would obviously like to have more French sources, but they are not indispensable as their subject material is covered by the other sources (apart from the stuff about the most recent excavations which doesn't seem to have filtered into English-langauge sources yet).
On reflection, the innovations section could do with some restructuring as it is perhaps confusing and disjointed. I agree that notes on function would be useful, however separate sections are excessive and would involve a lot of repetition. The castle was essentially built in one phase (one of the sources comments on this as unusual as most castles have several construction phases over their lifetime (I should have included that actually) so should be treated holistically. I don't think this needs to be confusing, it just needs some rearranging and explanation. Unfortunately, I don't have the site guide. I'll also see what else can be added on the excavations, but can't promise that a whole lot will be added. Anyway, that gives me something to do on Boxing Day! Nev1 (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would obviously like to have more French sources, but they are not indispensable as their subject material is covered by the other sources
Obviously, you can't know that unless you access them. By not using them you not only limit the comprehensiveness of the article (that other sources use them is really another argument for using them, not against ), but you deprive yourself of the opportunity to know whether it is comprehensive. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more on the excavations (and have asked someone to doubled check my interpretation of the French source) and reorganised the innovations and layout section. What do you think of the revised section, does it work? Nev1 (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's better, and I appreciate that you're making an effort to address my concerns, I really do. But it's still very far from comprehensive. I understand you have a problem getting and reading the sources, but if you can't use the main sources then you can't make the article comprehensive, and so you'd probably be better putting your energy into a topic where you can. The architecture section ("Innovations and layout") is still many times smaller than it should be. Even now the French article has more text and pics on this matter.
Incidentally, you might wanna double check some of your dates.
King Henry V of England besieged Château-Gaillard for six months before capturing it in 1418; the French retook the castle in 1420, but it soon fell into English hands again.
The French wiki gives December 9, which obviously may not be reliable, but this map in the The Cambridge illustrated atlas of warfare: the Middle Ages gives December 8 (if I'm reading it right). I myself have gotten dates wrong in articles because I write so many and make the occasional mistranscription. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether this article becomes an FA, I'll try to make it as complete as I can. It is currently the comprehensive English-language article on the castle available and provides useful links to anyone wanting more. As for dates, I double checked with the source used and it does state 1420 rather than December 1419, but I'm more inclined to believe that Cambridge history so I've changed it.
As for comprehensiveness, all I can is that the article should "neglect no major facts or details and place the subject in context". An article can be comprehensive without being complete. The most important events in the castle's history were its construction and the first siege, hence why there's so much detail. In the history's of Henry V of England's life, the fall of Château-Gaillard to the French is given barely a footnote. Could you suggest what more should be added to the innovations section? I'm not going to harass you to change your oppose as I think it's perfectly valid and one I should really have foreseen. I was perhaps lulled into complacency by the amount of information I was able to find in English. Thanks for the assistance and pointers, you've helped expand the article further than I thought realistic. Nev1 (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just regarding this section, is it not that this is the date the English capture it? Just to thicken it, the ODNB says that Thomas Beaufort duke of Exeter [s.v.] "proceeded to reduce the strongholds to the west and north up to Dieppe and afterwards to invest Château Gaillard to the south, which surrendered to him on 23 September [1419]". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, as December 1419 was so close to 1420 I assumed the author of the encyclopedia entry where I found the info had made a slight mistake and that December 1419 referred to the French capture of the castle. The ODNB and the Cambridge Illustrated Atlas could both be correct, but this would make it a more significant error on the part of Kibler, unless he leaves out some details, which is quite possible. That pretty much underlines your earlier point; I have a feeling a French source might help here. Or it might not, but I can't be sure because of accessibility. I am wondering whether to withdraw this nomination; there's very little that can be confidently elaborated with regard to activity in the Hundred Years' War from the English-language sources. Nev1 (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having access to quality sources means that you can verify for yourself claims made by secondary writers. The Cambridge History of Warfare isn't as far as these things go that reliable. Two authors covering a huge swathe of history like that ain't gonna compare with the specific academic monograph covering the Winter campaign of 1419 read alongside the printed versions of the primary sources used. So all you might need for this kind of thing is decent English sources. E.g. check the scholarly works on the 100 Years War and Henry V, look at what they say and check the footnotes to see how we know the castle was captured when. It might turn out that it hangs on an interpretation of a very difficult source or something. But if you don't won't know what is going on. Anyway, I was thinking you'd need the French sources for the architecture, for French local history matters, and so on. I wouldn't have thought you'd need them for English campaigns. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a possibility I'll look into; I checked an Osprey book on the Hundred Years' War (admittedly not the most detailed volume on the subject), but it didn't have Château-Gaillard in the references. As far as the architecture is concerned, I'm confident that Allen Brown is enough. He explains the site in detail as an important study in the development of English castles; his ideas have mostly endured and he is still held in high regard. Liddiard then provides the less military side of the castle (ie: it's a symbol of power) and in his book summarises very well the newer ideas that castles were more than simply fortresses. Nev1 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once I disregarded the information from the encyclopaedia as useless, it was much easier to find information relating to the Hundred Years' War with the help of Ealdgyth as I stopped chasing the wrong facts. The new info agrees with the Atlas, but not the ODNB entry. There were no footnotes indicating how Château-Gaillard fell in five or six books on the Hundred Years' War (not all referenced in the article). And of course the moral of the story is to never trust what you read in an encyclopaedia ;-) Nev1 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support I've been to the castle and it is still an enormously impressive place, and this is a fine article, but one that I found a bit disappointing in places and I'm eager to see it improved some more so that I can support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead needs looking at a bit more - I recommend developing it into two paragraphs with the additional information of: a brief description of the shape and main features of the castle, the exact length of time taken to built it and an explanation of why it was slighted. The natural break seems to be after "unusually short time".
  • "was on Crusade" - name and link the crusade in question.
  • Better. I do have something to add, which is that "He went with" is a slightly pedestrian way to describe the progression of two monarchs across Europe - "joined by" or "accompanied by" would both be slightly better options.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The site of Château-Gaillard was identified as a strategic position" - explain why?
  • Again better, but why was that town so special - Normandy was full of towns. I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was the river that made it so important, can you expand on this at all?
  • "Richard ordered the construction of the castle" - when?
  • "base from which he" - use Richard instead of "he"
  • "however one of the party, William Longchamp, died along the way" - with what effect?
  • "(Grand Andely already existed)" - this place should have been mentioned earlier, back when the site was first discussed.
  • "In English "Château-Gaillard" means "castle saucy"" - why was it so named?
  • It's not clear; there's a little speculation that it might be because of political intrigue of because the castle was ostentatious, but nothing worth including. The problem is that it's an interesting tidbit, but can't really be expanded on. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "£15,000 to £20,000" - are there any estimates on what this is in modern terms?
  • "in retaliation for the massacre of Welsh mercenaries by the French" - what massacre? either make it "a massacre" or specific the nature of the event.
  • "Philip ordered a group of his men to look for a weak point in the castle." - did they find one? The text is not clear on this point (after all, a tower might be regarded as a strong point, not a weak one).
  • "both in the Hundred Year's War." - this was 150 years later, so its a bit like comparing the Crimean War with Iraq. Give it a bit more context by stating the time difference or find another example closer to the event.
  • Those are the two most famous examples of civilians being allowed to starve to death outside a town's defences and the ones used in the source, so I've mentioned the gap in time. Saying it's like comparing the Crimean War with the Gulf War (either one) isn't the best example because of the huge advances in technology which weren't evident between 1194 and the Hundred Years' War (both were fought with swords and arrows and the most significant advancement was the advent of gunpowder and cannons were unpredictable and expensive at the time of the 100 Years' War), but point taken. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Château-Gaillard was for a year" - was what?
  • Was this castle unaffected by the Hundred Years War between 1330 and 1419? It seems likely. If you have access to a library then I recommend the works of Jonathan Sumption, who has written three truly brilliant volumes of a history of the war up to 1399.
  • Early on in the Hundred Years' War, fighting was mostly in the west of France and around Calais, which the English secured under Edward III; under his son Richard II the English suffered losses and it wasn't until Henry V that Normandy was retaken. That's when Château-Gaillard came into the fighting, and although it held out a while it wasn't a whole lot of help as the rest of Normandy capitulated fairly easily. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll let this go for now, (although in fact there was extensive fighting in Normandy, Britanny, Poitou and Aquitaine during the first forty years of the war) but in a couple of weeks I'll be able to check my copies of Sumption and if they have anything to add I'll incorporate it into the article (if that is OK with you?).--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Joan of Arc was captured on 30 May 1430 and a month later Château-Gaillard was recaptured by the English; by then the war was already turning in their favour." - it is not clear from the text what this event has to do with the castle.
  • "ordered the demolition of Château-Gaillard in 1599." - why?
  • "searching of an entrance" - do you mean "for"?
  • "completely rebuilt by Philip" - repetition of Philip
  • I think the article would improve with some restructuring. Many of the questions I had during the first half were actually answered in the second. If the construction section was made a second level heading, and the Innovations and layout moved beneath it, then a reader would be able to understand the shape of the castle, which would improve understanding of the history that follows.
  • The whole section could be moved earlier, although that would break up the historical narrative. Are there specific details that you think need to be mentioned earlier or is it the whole thing? The intent with the current layout is that casual readers will be interested in the history (Richard the Lionheart, the rain of blood, the siege, etc) but the layout will be less interesting. I thought that the history section could stand independently of the layout and innovations section, but if not moving the whole section earlier is an interesting option and sounds less laborious than moving individual sentences. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take your point, and will think on it some more. As something of a military historian, I would naturally find it easier to understand the history if I know the technical specifications, but that is not the onyl viewpoint. I may have some additional suggestions here in the near future, but no action is required at the moment.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oman 1991" - Oman certainly didn't write that in 1991 as he was long dead - give the actual date of publication, not the date that your copy was reprinted.


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:11, 16 January 2010 [32].

The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie

Nominator(s): ATC . Talk 16:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for the fourth time, as after getting more help from copyeditor User:Truthkeeper88, and a list of suggestions from User:Matthewedwards, and some copyediting of my own, I know think it meets FAC criteria. ATC . Talk 16:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments What makes this reliable?

  • Include the publisher even for the webcasts when you cite them.
  • Ref 25 is pretty bare.
  • Ref 26's publisher needs italics.
  • If you're going to cite both work and publisher for some refs, then either do it for all or none. It's your call but we require uniformity.

RB88 (T) 04:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will fix them. Also what do you mean by "bare" exactly. Could you reword what you meant, so I can understand? Thanx! ATC . Talk 00:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NVM, I figured it out when I was fixing the other references - making the work/publisher in italics, additionally reverting all of the publisher to simply: work. ATC . Talk 21:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a lot of citation cleanup, but I don't think I got it all. Quite a few things were wrong. Some titles wrong, some wrong citation templates were used, the "work" parameter automatically italicizes, so additional italics aren't needed, and only periodicals, newspapers and journals are in italics, website should be listed as publisher so they aren't italicized. The citations should still be checked; I only went through quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sandy. ATC, follow her advice and also answer to my query about the reliability of Newsblaze. Cheers. RB88 (T) 00:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RB88: Yes, you're right NewsBlaze is not reliable. I was trying to find a reliable source to replace it with. I wanted to know if this is a press release, and if not so, is it reliable: http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2008/07/naked_brothers_band_to_visit_c.html. ATC . Talk 16:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Thanx SandyGeorgia for the clean-up. I knew something didn't seem right with how I was fixing it and thought that was the problem. ATC . Talk 16:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RB88: NVM, I figured out that it was a news source, I didn't know at first that it was Plain Dealer. ATC . Talk 02:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are some other questionable sources, including a least an editorial review on amazon.com; I saw some others while I was in there, but don't recall which. (It may have been something from sfgate.com that was editor submitted from a blog ... but I can't recall correctly.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know what you're talking about. I'll get to that, but first I had a question about another source. http://www.top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=34898 for: The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie#Awards and reception with the sentence: it was placed in the top-10 spot on the Nielsen VideoScan children's non-theatrical DVD charts.[36] I went to the Nielsen news release website and looked up top 10 releases in 2007 (on a PDF file) and the film was not listed. Top40 charts is the only source that comes up on Google (That and NewsBlaze). Should I not include it if a reliable source can not be found? ATC . Talk 03:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-- It doesn't matter if there aren't other sources. If the sources you use are unreliable then they and the material has to be removed. I suggest putting it in the talk page until a more suitable source has been found. Also, I think the Amazon editorial review is fine. The website, especially in the past, tried to provide more than just a store service. In fact, Metacritic often used its reviews. RB88 (T) 01:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I erased the source and left a message on the talk page. ATC . Talk 04:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia: I looked into the SFGate.com source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/15/PKH4UT9HO.DTL. It looks like a blog, but on top it says its by the San Francisco Chronicle, which is the top-selling newspaper company in Northern California. I don't understand what a blog would be doing on there, but it seems reliable and am not entirely sure if its a blog. ATC . Talk 07:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK by my book, as the article is merely a reproduction from the print edition of the newspaper (see the bottom of the page), and is written by one of the newspaper's regular contributing journalists. Steve T • C 11:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. Did you go to the source itself, because it's in a blog format kind of. I guess other users should put there input too. ATC . Talk 18:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been clearer; yes I did go to the page, where the source itself says, "This article appeared on page N - 40 of the San Francisco Chronicle". All the best, Steve T • C 21:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my bad there has been a misunderstanding. There were two SFGate sources on the Wiki article, I wasn't referring to that one. I was referring to this one about venture capitalist Tim Draper, Polly Draper's brother. ATC . Talk 00:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: article uses a single image,[33] qualified as fair-use, to identify its subject. The FUR only needed a little bit of tweaking, but is now fine. Jappalang (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the basis of the prose in the lead, which you'd think would have been given loving care.

  • "television movie"—is that an unclear, uncommon word? Is it useful to link it?
  • Please consider moving the comma from before "and" to before "who" in the opening sentence.
  • I find the semicolon boundaries bumpy in the second sentence, don't you?
  • There are three people called "Draper". I think the second para has to start with "The director" or her full name.
  • "decided to present the footage in the style of"—Maybe I'm too distant from the topic, but isn't this a little cumbersome? Why not straight and simple, like "The film is in the style of ..."?
  • "As" is a dangerous word in English: is it a "because" or a "during/while" as? I really don't know. I can't see how either would fit, actually.
  • "Based on the band her eldest son Nat had in preschool"—sounds like he had sex with them? Starting young ... I see after two seconds, though. There's a smoother way of putting it, yes?
  • Sorry, a little confused by your comment. At any rate, one solution is to tweak slightly & reword, which has been done. Another solution would be to remove the introductory clause if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NYC, isn't it too famous to bother linking? Unless there's a more specific NYC-type link-target (I don't think so). And you've got a more specific location linked, anyway ... please see User:Tony1/Build your linking skills.
  • late 2005.
  • The network became the pilot?
  • The film premiered in the US on that date, yes? Better to say that, given that native anglophones inhabit at least seven countries.

Needs a team effort. Tony (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has the rest been copy-edited? 18 days is a loooong time to be in this process. Tony (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After your review of the lead a few days ago, I've been through, Steve's been through and ATC has been through. In my view, Steve's edits were the best, so I've just restored them. I'm happy to address specific issues you see. Honestly, I've spent a little too much time with this article and have lost some perspective, so a fresh set of eyes is welcome. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Truthkeeper88, it was amazing after seeing User:Steve's edits. It's exactly what the article needed! ATC . Talk 16:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited it again, but I suppose the contractions and other stuff came back again after Steve finished with it last time? I haven't checked the MOS or RS, but probably should have talked about RS before copyedits otherwise contents from questionable sources get reworked and then have to be copyedited again YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do we know what area of Manhattan it was in? It could have been in upper East Side, or alternatively a slum in Harlem, or Chinatown YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greenwich Village according to this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Truthkeeper88 you're right but according the TimesCenter stage interview when a kid asked them where they lived (when they were taking questions from fans) they said "Manhattan" and I think it was Michael who said "Lower Manhattan". I think its important to respect their privacy regardless of what the news article said and just write "Lower Manhattan" or the Lower part of Manhattan. The JazzTimes article author/interviewer may of never asked about not saying what part of Manhattan they live in, so I don't think we want to be at risk for any legal privacy problems, as they're people and deserve there privacy. ATC . Talk 17:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:05, 12 January 2010 [34].

The Slip (album)

Nominator(s): Drewcifer (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article easily passed GA some months ago, and now I think it's ready for the next step. Any comments and suggestions are welcome and appreciated. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media review: Three images:

  • Usage: Good, standard.
  • Rationale: Good.
  • Alt text: Good.
  • License: CC-by-SA-2.0. Verified.
  • Quality: Professional.
  • Alt text: Missing.
  • Usage: Good. Exemplifies style of individual artwork created for each album track, which is significantly different from album cover art; sourced critical commentary on art in main text.
  • Rationale: Good.
  • Alt text: Good.—DCGeist (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image review. I've fixed the missing alt text on the second image. Drewcifer (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something about the lead strikes me as off, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Could probably be rearranged. I will say that you should clarify that the physical edition of the album was not free. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments Prose could use some outside eyes. The second paragraph of the lead uses "critics" repeatedly, and the sentence "Trent Reznor posted on the official Nine Inch Nails website on April 21, 2008 a post saying "2 weeks!", echoing a similar tactic employed to foreshadow the release of the band's previous album, Ghosts I–IV earlier the same year" is a run-on mess. These are just two examples. Please copyedit thoroughly. Also, it worries me that the "Music and lyrics" section is primarily drawn from reviews. Did no one interview Reznor or any of the other creative minds working on the album about how the music was constructed. I know Reznor's a big gearhead and will go on about what equipment he used (for example, I have a 1994 Guitar World article where Reznor gets very detailed about what computer equipment he used on The Downward Spiral and how he arranged songs. Did Reznor have a general aesthetic in mind? Are there recurring motifs? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I've addressed the first few, I think. As for the amount of detail the music section goes into, I beefed it up a little teeny bit, but there isn't a whole lot to go off of. There's plenty of interviews and general press surrounding NIN around that time, but due to a perfect storm of more interesting circumstances (Reznor's split with Interscope, his experiments with distribution methods, NIN quitting touring, Reznor getting married, some stupid hubub about him deleting his Twitter account, the impending Year Zero miniseries, etc, etc.) and the fact that the album was "quickly assembled" and released, none of the sources actually get around to going into much detail about the music of The Slip. Neither does Reznor, since he's been asked every question but. So unfortunately that just doesn't exist, or at least I've been unable to find it. I'll contact my usual sources to see if they can lead me down the right path, but I'm certain I've included everything possible as it is. Drewcifer (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments What makes these reliable? I'm leaving these for editors to decide for themselves. I'm neutral this time, can't make my mind up fully either way. RB88 (T) 22:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • A link to The NIN Hotline is provided on the official NIN website under the category "News and Information". link. Also, during the whole Year Zero ARG, many news agencies used The NIN Hotline as a source for information (link, for example). Drewcifer (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Links confirm it's a fansite, which is not allowed. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. RB88 (T) 22:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Is not allowed" is a little strong. Your link says it should be questioned; fair enough. I think WP:RS trumps a signpost anyways. So, from WP:RS: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." So in other words, even a "fan site" can be considered WP:RS if their "work" has been published by other sources considered WP:RS. Drewcifer (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then you have yet to provide an RS source that has published their work. The first link merely links it while the other is a website user's blog entries. Also, by convention round these parts, the signpost takes precedence and is much stronger in wording as we are at FAC. Don't be surprised to see even the third-party RS sources being questioned. RB88 (T) 02:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Matt Dunphy (who runs the NINHotline) has been quoted by USA Today (link). In this case I'd call him the "established expert" they're drawing from. Rolling Stone also quoted the hotline (link). Dunphy has also been interviewed by Kevin and Bean on LA radio, but there's no link to that, so you'll just have to believe me on that one. Drewcifer (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go through the refs and put in italics the names of print media.
  • I'm not sure if I follow you on this one. I went through the refs again, and everything seems in order. Print sources (Cleveland Free Times, Rolling Stone, etc) are all italicized, and online-only sources (Allmusic, Pitchfork, etc) are all un-italicized. Are there specific refs that looked wrong to you? Drewcifer (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove italics from online-only publishers.
  • Some refs need the publisher added for uniformity with the rest. Or remove all the corporation publishers from the rest. Your call.
  • Added a few, but the corporation publishers don't apply across the board, so there's a few still missing. Namely, in some cases (Pitchfork for example), its basically self-published, so it would be the same name repeated. Same with ABC News. Drewcifer (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RB88 (T) 16:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few quick comments An interesting read. Allmusic is published by "Rovi Corporation" after "Macrovision" changed its name last July. In the lead, The Slip is described as the "eighth major album". Is that eighth studio album? Also in the lead, you state that the physical release was not free but this isn't specified in the body of the article. Plus, I have never been a fan of references in the lead. The quotation needs citing but the other facts are surely cited later in the article. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 01:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments; all have been addressed, I believe. Drewcifer (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:24, 12 January 2010 [35].

Video Killed the Radio Star

Nominator(s): Crea (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all of the FA criteria Crea (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This may make an excellent FA at some point, but as it stands it fails on sourcing. Bare urls in the references, sections lacking sourcing and unreliable sources. Suggest withdrawing and seeking a Peer Review. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Agree that a peer review would help. Also, please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdraw Some non-free content and grammar issues, along with those above.

  • For next time (because it really should be withdrawn or failed this time), make sure that primary article editors know you have nominated the article.
  • Why is that specific sample of the song used? It should be used near prose where elements of that part are interpreted, praised, or criticized by third-party sources—non-free media like that can't easily be justified in the infobox.
  • What justifies the additional album cover (for the PUSA version)?
  • "on the 7 September 1979"—spot the problem word. This major error is in the highly visible lead, so the rest of the text is really not worth my check.

Expand the article, then seek other editors to review and copyedit it. There are full view sources on Google Books, uncited in the article, that may help expand it and actually make it comprehensive (as required by the criteria). For now, though, withdraw and expand it free of the hurries and worries of FAC. --an odd name 09:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose, definitely withdraw Not ready by any stretch of the imagination. I'd like to remind people that this is not GAN and has much stricter, thorough criteria which should be read properly. That's not to say that it couldn't be an FA in the future after some TLC and a PR. RB88 (T) 01:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:24, 12 January 2010 [36].

Alien Nation (film)

Nominator(s): Peetric (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because its a cult Sci-fi classic which spawned a number of TV Movie sequels plus a popular TV Series. I believe the article is well written, has an appropriate structure and is concise with info for its length. It appears to meet the requirements. Peetric (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Peetric, this is unlikely to pass as it stands, due to such issues as the lack of a proper lede, and problems with sourcing. Have you looked at the Featured Articles about movies at WP:FA? We are not really set up here to educate you in getting the article into shape to be a FA. Can I suggest you take it to WP:PR instead?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree that it needs quite a bit of work. Also, the lead image needs alt text; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not that this might not make an excellent FA at some point, but it falls far short of the mark as it stands now. Unsourced sections, references lacking needed data for WP:V and an underdeveloped lead. Strongly suggest taking the above advice. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


RESPONSE Hi....ok, well I tried to lengthen and develop that introduction along with some other sections. I will continue to try to work out those issues. But that WP:ALT text; I'm not sure how to apply that tag!! ... lOl ... Can someone help on that??? Peetric - 20:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eubuildes is the man when it comes to the mysteries of ALT text. Perhaps ask him on his talk page? Also, are you sure you wouldn't rather go to Peer Review? That is more set up to give detailed feedback on a continuing basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Oh, I think there's a shot it could make the cut without Peer Review. As far as the Alt Text is concerned, maybe I'll do that. Or perhaps Mr. Eubuildes will come back and view this page again for responses. Peetric - 22:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdraw by an odd name—I disagree that "it could make the cut without Peer Review". It seems fairly well-organized, but is weak on content.

  • Two dab links. Replace them with more specific article links to avoid confusing readers.
  • No dead external links—good. Add titles to the links, though—if they're dead, their titles, authors, and publishers will give us an idea of their provenance and reliability.
  • IMDb is not very reliable—replace whenever possible. Capitalize it consistently, too ("iMDB"?).
  • Avoid original research. The "See also" links are better off in the article, where they can be explained. As they are, I had to think about whether someone was relating the film to the other subjects by their own metric, instead of those of sources.
  • Dates are consistent Month Day, Year style—good. Try to find a specific date for that Siskel review though ("circa 1988" seems a bit too new to lack a full date).
    • Speaking of Siskel, avoid "The late". (Do we call the philosopher "The late Plato"?) Siskel gave the review, whether he died later or not; we can check the article to see if he died, and whether he has is not relevant for this article because he lived to review the film.

For expansion ideas, consider listening to DVD commentary (if available), reading longer SF film articles like Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and consulting WikiProject Films and WikiProject Science Fiction. Google Books has some full-view references that mention the film. Primary sources are acceptable for a few facts when other sources are not available. --an odd name 22:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the advice. I've just made and improved on many of those issues, and corrected them in the article. I will continue working on it, by trying to watch the DVD commentary for more insight. Appreciate it. Peetric - 23:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, suggest withdraw Peetric, well done for being proactive and trying to improve this, but this is not the process you want for extensive advice. Go to PR for that. Here, articles should be nearly perfect when they arrive for editors to tweak to near-complete perfection. RB88 (T) 01:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


: RESPONSE ........lOl.......I really think the article has been tweaked to near perfection. Its like trying to squeeze a glass of orange juice from an orange peel. This article certainly doesn't contain rich content like say a movie such as Avatar, but its pretty concise for what it has. The movie is 22 years old, and distinct info on it is hard to come by. I won't be surprised if this article makes it to being "Featured". Peetric - 2:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Peetric, while I agree that it is easier to do a more recent movie than an older one, we don't lower the standards for older ones. You've already picked up three opposes, and I did not oppose because I don't want to bite the newbies, and you've said that you probably won't make major changes. This isn't going to pass. When it is archived, I really suggest that you take it to peer review or ask for help at the films wikiproject.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Single copyrighted poster used as identifying shot; fair use rationale could be refined to state why this poster should be the one instead of another. Furthermore, copyright owners are not identified although refered to. Jappalang (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, strongly suggest withdrawal: Although Peetric has added an amount of content to the article,[37] it might not not be substantial enough to overwhelmingly make him the most significant contributor. Have the other major contributors been contacted (although seeing the state of the article before Peetric touched it, it might not matter.)? Nonetheless, the article lists only 10 references: 3 of which are IMDb (major no-no in most cases), 1 from Box-Office Mojo, and the rest reviews. It ignores the literature out there (see this Google search) that could help to flesh out the background, conception, themes, and criticisms/commentaries on this film. Needless to say, this fails WP:WIAFA 1(b) & 1(c)—comprehensiveness and well-researched. Furthermore, sources are missing for several sentences/paragraphs, again failing 1(c). Jappalang (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This article has quite a few problems, even without extra information out there. It ignores MOS:FILM, WP:SLASH, and several sections including Plot, Box Office, here are not sourced. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:24, 12 January 2010 [38].

I Dreamed a Dream (album)

Nominator(s): DreamNight (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because i think it already is ready, with sections containing enough material, enough refs and a good structure. DreamNight (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose — I disagree, it is nowhere near ready. The prose is deplorable, it's full of redundancy and poor grammar. There is "fastest selling" three times in one sentence, and this is the third sentence of the Lead. Then we have "biggest selling" first without a hyphen and then, two sentences later, with one. And this is a paradigm of illogical flow, "In 2010, during its first week, I Dreamed a Dream sold more than 329,000 copies worldwide, keeping in the first position again and being the best-selling album in 2010 to date, beating Lady Gaga's The Fame Monster, the second best-selling album with 252,000 sold copies". Then we have slang to contend with "ended up" means "came" or even "achieved". There is "viewed" instead of "watched" and she has not "refused to change her image"— quite the opposite from what I have seen. This nomination is grossly premature and I suggest withdrawing it. I like Susan Boyle—but this article is not even close to a Good Article, let alone a Featured one. I know it is only January 10, but this must be the most poorly prepared FAC this year. Graham Colm Talk 21:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with Graham that the article is not yet ready. I don't think it would take much to get it there, but there are problems with punctuation, grammar, prose, image licensing for the X-Factor picture, making it overall better to withdraw the nomination, get a peer review and some copy edits and take it to GA first. --Moni3 (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I would suggest nominating for good article status, but this article still new, no way near yet featured content quality. Candyo32 (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal Per Graham. RB88 (T) 01:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for NFCC non-compliance: While the copyrighted album cover can serve as the identifying shot under fair use, the screenshot of Boyle on X-Factor does not seem to serve any purpose to help understand significant critical commentary. In other words, File:Susan X Factor.jpg is not justifiable under WP:NFCC. Jappalang (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:24, 12 January 2010 [39].

Apolo Anton Ohno

Nominator(s): oncamera(t) 00:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready for the next step after having passed its Good Article Nomination. The article has been also been through a peer-review. The issues raised in both of those have been addressed. The article is about an American Winter Olympian and I feel it does a fine job of covering his career. oncamera(t) 00:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks) but it needs some work. Most of the alt text repeats what is in the caption (see WP:ALT#Repetition) or gives details that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image (see WP:ALT#Verifiability). Please reword it to fix these two problems. For example, in the first alt text entry "Apolo Anton Ohno standing atop the podium wearing his gold medal at the Men's 500 meters medal ceremony at the 2006 Winter Olympics.", only the phrase "gold medal" should be in the alt text. Please see WP:ALT for more about alt text. Eubulides (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making clearer what should be included in the alt tags for the images. I have made adjustments to them! I hope they are better suited now, oncamera(t) 03:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. The only two phrases that still have problems are "Ohno" and "The medal ceremony took place in the middle of the ice-rink so", as neither of these phrases are obvious to a non-expert who can see only the images. Would you please remove and/or remove them too? Eubulides (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and removed those two phrases! Maybe it reads better now, oncamera(t) 03:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's much better. I tweaked the first phrase to turn it into a sentence. It looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for remedying that! oncamera(t) 04:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I substituted a template in the comment above to avoid future changes. --an odd name 11:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No dab links or dead external links—good.
  • Dates are consistent Month Day, Year in prose and ISO style in refs—good.
  • Avoid abbreviations like "pbk" unless they are common, as they complicate screen reading (see WP:ACCESS).
  • Featured articles have prose that is "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Repetitive prose, like the following, is not of that standard—check for any such repetition throughout:
    • "Ohno continued to perform well in the sport after the 2002 Winter Games. Ohno declined to participate in a 2003 World Cup short-track event in Korea for security reasons. However, despite the absence, he successfully defended his World Cup title during the 2003 season." (Replace the second "Ohno", remove the "However")
    • Another one: "A large number of e-mails protesting the race results crashed the Olympic Committee's email server, and also thousands of accusatory letters, many of which contained death threats, were sent to Ohno and the committee." ("and also"?)
  • Is the name "Apolo" related to, for example, "Apollo"?

--an odd name 14:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concerns. I went ahead and remove the text (pbk), added info/source for the origins of his name (Apo=to steer away, lo=watch out, here he comes). I also went through the article and made edits to the repetitive nature of the prose. I hope I have addressed the issues accordingly, oncamera(t) 04:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's looking better. --an odd name 11:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • The Ohno ref (current ref 5) needs page numbers per WP:V, it's 153 pages. Also, this is aimed for a youth audience, is it really the best quality source? World Cat listing.
  • Current ref 11 (Claiborne..) lacks a publisher
  • Current refs 42 and 43 (2009 ISU World...) lack publishers.
  • Current ref 52 (Balta..) lacks publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your concerns. I went through and added a work or publisher to current references 11, 42, 43, 52. The biography has information where Ohno talks about his childhood and his father, and while some of the statements can be cited using an online source, other statements will still need the book. I will go back and make those edits. The World Short Track site: it is difficult finding an official ISU results page for seasons before 2007. But, I'll look again for news articles to replace those possibly unreliable source (current refs 31, 32). Replaced former refs 31 and 32 with news articles from USA Today and the Seattle Times. oncamera(t) 01:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 1 is still being worked on? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed current ref 1 to a new one... Still working on changing the book references, I added the page numbers to the book source and changed the order of header hierarchy per WP:Layout. oncamera(t) 01:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving the last one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I reviewed this article for GA, so I don't have much say here, but I wanted to express my support, anyway. This is an interesting article about an intriguing subject. There has been a great deal of improvement since its GAN, although it needs very little to be promoted to FA. I also think that the topic is timely, with the upcoming 2010 Olympics. It would be fitting for Ohno's bio to be TFA while he's in Vancouver, making still more history. A note about DWTS chart: although I raised the issue at GAN, I have no problem with it as it stands. It's common knowledge, like Ohno's other sports stats and follows the convention of articles about other athletes. Thanks, --Christine (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "He also competed in and won the reality TV show Dancing with the Stars in 2007."
    Quite disjarring to see this as the second sentence of the very first paragraph. It is nowhere as significant as his athletic achievements, and in my view lowers the expectation of a serious biography. I very much doubt a TV reality program is going to be a serious aspect of his life.
  • "The 13-year-old Ohno was the youngest skater ..."
    "At 13 years of age, Ohno was the youngest skater ..."
  • "He was a medalist in two events with controversy associated with the results."
    "He won medals/was a medallist in two controversial events."?
  • There appears to be some secondary analysis of Ohno's Salt Lake 2002 controversy.[41] Why is it not used as a source?
  • What are the thoughts of the Koreans toward Ohno? Is it just purely indignation over "being robbed" or are they viewing it as a matter of dishonesty?

Is there some other aspect of his life other than ice skating? Forgetting the reality show, did he help out charities, contribute to some social cause, or such? (Apparently, he did participate in some fundraising.[42]) Did he set up a company or go into a notable business venture? As a celebrity, what other high publicity events was he involved with? Was he recognized by communities or organizations for something? Did he have any impact on a particular community? What are his thoughts, ambitions, ideals (which sometimes are evidenced in training regimes or interviews during injuries)? Is he interested in anything other than sports? Much is a chronicle of his sporting events, but nothing over his thoughts and actions over his victories and failures in his early years. Perhaps no reliable material that covered it, but surely some of the more serious publications on Ohno should be used for this article than relying on newspaper reports of the races?[43] It seems probable secondary commentary or analysis of Ohno's character/performance might be missing, giving me concerns over the comprehensiveness of this article. Jappalang (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From his point of view, he probably finds being on the reality show somewhat significant, but not in comparison with his athletic career, as they are two different things. On his Twitter, his stint on DWTS is listed second. I have moved it down in the opening... I clarified and copyedited the other two sentences. I didn't know that source on his Salt Lake controversy existed and it doesn't load in my browser (neither does the other Google source). Is there pertinent information there lacking in the section? And I cannot speculate on the thoughts of Koreans who were or were not hostile against Ohno. I would rather keep a neutral point of view here and stick to what happened and usage of quotes of fellow skaters (avoiding weasel words). And for the last part, I'll look into adding significant charities or sponsorships. I'm not sure about adding details about what his favorite hobbies or even where to add in his thoughts on his ambitions without sounding like fancruft. Maybe you can link me to a comparable article for reference? Thank you for your concerns, oncamera(t) 03:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote "serious aspect of his life", I am referring to how the world sees him, not himself. He might see himself as a twinkle toe, but the world at large remembers him more as a fleet of foot skater. On Korean reaction, I am pretty sure as well that there are Korean (and other Asian) sources just as reliable, reporting on their community's perception and giving serious commentary/editorial on the incidents. It is not a matter of NPOV (which do not let you strike out reliable sources) but comprehensiveness; if there are serious and respectable commentaries over this incident, they should be reported. As for books, criteria 1c asks for "high-quality reliable sources" and I believe a book from a respectable publisher beats out newspaper articles most of the time. I am not so particularly hard up on this point if these sources are out of your reach (library or otherwise) or if they do not cover what is written here. For other articles that might serve as references, I consider Jada Pinkett Smith's FAC version, which failed, and Ayumi Hamasaki's, which passed, as quite comprehensive on the persons themselves. Jappalang (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a Philanthropy and sponsors section. Changed the losses to loss. What serious aspect of his life do you want? He hasn't started any foundations, controversies he's been involved with have been on ice, isn't married, no kids, etc. He's basically studies business ongoing at the University of Colorado since his sport/training takes up a considerable amount of his time. As for the Korean reaction, it's noted how they reacted: how can I know what were the possible motives or find a reliable/verifiable source to this? There is commentary from the skaters who were in the race; each with something different to say. And the quote by Ohno also explains. Also, I don't know enough Korean and wouldn't trust Google Translator to help source a possible featured article per WP:NONENG. Have you seen the talkpage for this article? The Korean stuff has been the main topic. Anyway, I understand what you're saying about "high-quality reliable sources" but that shouldn't mean I can't use news articles if I can't find the books you listed. Finally, it would be more helpful to me if you could find comparable articles that are about athletes (keep in mind Ohno's sport isn't as popular as others)... oncamera(t) 04:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that (Ohno's relative obscurity in non-sporting affairs) is the problem here. I think the issue of "no sources for such information" vs "still not comprehensive" has been fought over FACs several times. I am not going to bring it up here, I am just commenting that the article gives me a very limited picture of this athlete. Generally, a biography should tell who the subject is, how he or she thinks, what achievements and legacy he or she has, etc.
Thus, the additions of his philanthropic and commercial efforts are appreciated. I think the prose for those sections need to be improved a bit, and possibly reliable comments for them (or his motivation behind these activities) found to make them less of a list.
Back to the Korean side of events, the project is a collaborative effort, and I have seen several Korean-English capable editors around. They might be able to help with translating those articles. Neither WP:NONENG nor the project forbids foreign sources ("sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available."). If they are reliable, they should be included. If there are no such sources, then one cannot be faulted for not including them. Jappalang (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to click on the link showing Ohno-related books on Google. There are four Ohno biographies listed on the first page, but all of them are listed as juvenile non-fiction. As such, I'm not convinced that they meet the criteria for high-quality reliable sources. The first one I see is an autobiography (should be handled cautiously), and it's hard to tell if the others are serious works. They certainly aren't like the sports law book also linked above. That only applies to the four books I saw on the first page; there may be others in later search pages that would be better for our purposes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the autobiography used, it was to source information about his early life. I also used/added an online source from a newspaper to those sections. And, I used the biography source for some of his early achievements. It can be very different to find a non-pay-per-view source for speedskating events prior to 2000 (etc), since the International Skating Union hasn't been diligent with updating it's site for scores/results.see? I'm not sure about the other books on Google (doesn't load for me) or if they would provide new information that is pertinent. oncamera(t) 18:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using an autobiography for early life information that can't be found in other sources should be all right. I'm just saying that you shouldn't generally make a habit of using juvenile books, especially if better references are avaliable. I don't know if that's the case for this particular article, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. That link was on a Dancing with the Stars template. oncamera(t) 00:31, 9 January 2010 (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 17:26, 10 January 2010 [44].

Steampunk

Nominator(s): IzzyReal (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it is an excellent article that displays the literary sub-genre/subculture in an understandable and encyclopedic way. IzzyReal (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I enjoyed reading that. I made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a Wiki. There's a citation needed still to sort out and some of the pictures still need alt text. Also Girl Genius is set in Europe, though not quite our Europe. Some terms might need linking because they have differing meanings in English and American English eg should the coat link to Tail coat or Frock coat? ϢereSpielChequers 23:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by an odd name—mainly technical, but I think this machine needs some oil.

  • Have you consulted major editors of the article, or checked if they are inactive? See the candidates page: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination." Maybe they still need to find more sources, or have some other reason not to feature.
  • Two dab links that should be replaced with specific article links. No dead external links—good.
  • Some images still need alt text, just in case.
  • In "External links": "The Nova Albion Steampunk Exhibition: An annual gathering for steampunks, held in the San Francisco Bay Area. May be the first dedicated Steampunk convention in the United States."—If this is the first such, this should be mentioned in the article with a citation.
  • Magazine refs (like ref 22) should be as specific as possible (volume, month or season, article name and author, etc.). Publishers should be specified for all refs. I'm especially concerned about the etheremporium links—if they are wikis open to outside edits, those edits might not be fact-checked and the info might not be reliable.
  • Ref dates are mainly ISO style. Switch other ref dates to that format. Prose dates appear to be Month Day, Year.

It makes me think of gears, games, and Salma Hayek, so it's not all bad. :) --an odd name 23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - References are a mess, bare links, lack of page numbers, some printed sources lacking titles and authors for verifiability, use of unreliable sources (including but not exhaustive list: http://www.bigredhair.com/boilerplate/bp.report.html, http://www.zone-sf.com/difengine.html, http://voyagesextraordinaires.blogspot.com/2008/08/history-of-steampunk.html, http://steampunkworkshop.com/, http://kineticsteamworks.org/) and links to possible copyright violations (http://www.bigredhair.com/boilerplate/bp.report.html). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 10 January 2010 (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 17:26, 10 January 2010 [45].

Dow Jones Industrial Average

Nominator(s): Fabledd (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... its quite informative and gramatically correct. Fabledd (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdraw by an odd name—thanks for joining Wikipedia (and welcome!), but I don't think this is up to the criteria.

  • Have you consulted major editors of the article, or checked if they are inactive? See the candidates page: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination." Maybe they still need to find more sources, or have some other reason not to feature.
  • "History" needs lots of attention:
    • There's lots of what I and others here call "proseline"—sentences and paragraphs that are just "On date, event." The criteria demand "engaging, even brilliant" prose "of a professional standard", and I bet a lot of the events can be tightened into flowing prose. Point-by-point lists are boring, and people coming here from the Main Page want to be educated, not sedated.
    • What can't be tightened can probably be divided into more sections with headings so readers can get to the main historical ideas.
  • Recently, alternate text has become a requirement for images in featured articles. If the graphs don't load, or readers can't see the image for other reasons, "alt text" gives an idea of the missing visuals. There's none for the graphs here; they may need some.

More comments pertaining to the lead and first section alone, although I still oppose and think the whole page needs more work than the 59-page FAC backlog allows (added on 05:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)):

  • The first lead paragraph was huge. I tried to rearrange the lead in general, but I think it needs more word-trimming and a third eye.
  • "From a starting point of under 50 in the late 1890s to a high reached above 14,000 in the late 2000s, the Dow rises periodically through the decades with corrections along the way eventually settling in the mid-10,000 range."—Split into more sentences, and replace "correction". Past tense might be better.
  • What makes the graphs' sources reliable?
  • Explain what the Dow is in the body before the company chart. (I would've just moved History if it wasn't bloated.) Pretend that the lead doesn't exist (that's just a short form of the whole article).
  • The index doesn't consist of the companies (the Dow is not a conglomerate itself). It tracks their stock prices. Correct this throughout.

If you still want the Dow to be featured, I suggest you go to the talk pages of the top editors in the "major editors" link, and (if they haven't "retired" or gone on "wikibreak") talk with them about how to improve it. If they aren't available, you can request peer review for more detailed suggestions (I listed a few problems, but there may be many more). Good luck. --an odd name 02:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've made numerous contributions to this page, and I would say I think the article is a fairly good contender for being featured. I understand what your saying as far as "tightening" certain parts within the History Section; but its not what it seems. Basically, the subject matter may appear to be oversaturated and perhaps dull when mentioning certain timelines and specific dollar closing prices, but thats really just the nature of the subject matter. Alot of people find those additions to the article, interesting. If the Dow closes at a 5-Year low and then within 3 months it goes up 40%, its something that many readers find important and informative to compare the exact pricing and how financially relevant that may be. And as far as summaries within the History Section go; its really something that has to do with readily available information. The section of the 1930s or the 1950s is far smaller than the 1990s and 2000s sections. Basically, we certainly know more and have more verifiable and accurate financial information in the last 10 years than we had 50 years ago. We could just delete alot of the details throughout the 90s and 00s, but it would lessen the integrity of the important information we have documented. The bottom line is, its well written, its informative, the quality of the article is alot higher than others and its really not boring to read about price corrections just like it isn't when you read the wall street journal. I don't think the article should be disqualified for differing points of view surrounding the History Section. Oh and by the way, those graphs are in a constant state of being updated. They are large and take time to formulate. I'm interested in hearing all opinions. RT6543 3:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There's certainly no shortage of information on the DJIA from 50 or even 75 years ago. Newspapers have been tracking it religiously for decades. The sections on recent decades are longer people editors have been using this section of the article for play-by-play updates. Every time there is a significant move in the index someone will add a bullet. With the traffic this article gets, this is not unexpected. The editors need to be doing a better job of summarizing the data that is no longer new. For example, the Feb-2007 correction may have seemed like a big deal at the time, but it didn't turn out to be that big a deal compared to corrections that would come later (or compared to dozens of corrections that preceded it) yet it still is represented by a sizable bullet point.DavidRF (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • RESPONSE I noticed that it is a major problem. Everytime the Dow goes up 220 points or goes down 301 points; we don't need a user to add a daily price bullet update. There's enough examples in the page already. If certain updates look ridiculous, then its justified to delete them. Perhaps you are correct with the information from 50 years ago. However, there are 2 problems with it. Number one, they hard to get a hold of and not necessarily available through on-line sources over the internet. You'd have to go to a public library and dig up a photocopy of a 45-year old newspaper edition to get every fact on a related financial story or political event that influenced the Dow's movement on that day. Problem number 2; the page would be way too long if every decade summary is the same length like the 2000s decade. I think then, we'd be over-doing it. RT6543 5:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
My point was we were definitely overdoing it with recent eras, not that we should expand previous eras. I disagree that previous eras would be hard to find, though. Of course, we wouldn't want the daily play-by-play, but see Template:US recessions and see that there's a dip in the DJIA just before at or just before almost every single one of those. On a macro-level, details of bear/bull markets are pretty easy to find. There should be plenty of economics history books out there. But I agree those details are not necessary here. Details should be left for the articles such as those in Template:US recessions. That said, the play-by-play of previous decades in the DJIA article oddly focuses on stuff that had relatively little effect on the market (e.g bay of pigs, columbian war, civil rights movement, etc) and doesn't focus enough on the state of the economy. A ton of obscure wars are mentioned, but the Panic of 1907 isn't mentioned at all. Its the history of the market and not the history of the century. Something we could improve.DavidRF (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Answer. Ok, I did my best to correct that issue with WP:ALT. RT6543 3:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
A little too much commentary in the alt-text now, in my opinion. I understand its a tough problem, though. Mainly these plots are just historical traces of the index. The graphs for 1987 and 2001 are zoomed in pretty tight. Hard to say too much else besides "index dropped X%". Then, the 100+ year graph has so much information in it... entire articles are written on each dip in the index. You can't really claim that its "settled" now any more than it was "settled" in the late-60s and 70s. Captions shouldn't be controversial. What do people expect for alt-text captions on images like this?DavidRF (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • ADDITIONAL RESPONSE Haha Ha.....Well, I think you summed it up best when you said "A little too much commentary". I understand what you mean on the 100-year pic. Its pretty much impossible to sum up every microscopic detail in a 3 1/2 line paragraph. I tried my best. As far as settling in the 10,000 range; I meant to somehow sum it up within the closing segment of the yearly chart. In the last 12 or so years, we've been around the 10,000 area. But it is also true that perhaps for a 12-year span, between the late 1960s and early 1980s, the Dow settled in the 1,000 range. I just meant were it settled at in recent times. Anyhow, as a whole, I think those segments are much improved from before. For the most part, its fairly concise in describing the movement of those graphs to wiki users who can't see it. RT6543 4:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I understand the difficulty, but we might want to pare some of the conclusions back a bit and I ask the mods here what they'd reasonably expect to see as alt-text for some of those. Commentary is really best left for the accompanying text. Half of the charts are just "check out the bear market" or "look, market dropped sharply here". There's not much more to be said about them. What the exact values at the top and bottom are usually not the point of the graph.DavidRF (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the alt text should be relatively brief (see WP:ALT#Brevity) and should focus on the gists of the graphs rather than unimportant details (see WP:ALT#Essence; in particular WP:ALT#Diagrams). The previous comments seem to be saying that alt text has been added, but this is incorrect: none of the images currently have alt text. Please see WP:ALT for what alt text is, and how to add it; and please click on the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page to check the alt text once it's added. Eubulides (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They expanded captions instead of adding alt attributes. I moved some text to new alts, but they need work. --an odd name 08:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: This article has potential, but FAC should not used as an article development resource. There are other means for this, either talkpage discussion or, specifically, Peer Review. It is the nominator's responsibility to check that an article accords with FA criteria before bringing it here; saying "its quite informative and gramatically correct" is an inadequate reason for nominating. The article should be withdrawn without delay. Should it come to peer review I would highlight two particular areas for attention:

  • Prose: Ambiguous/misleading sentences, e.g. from the lead "It is an index that shows how certain large, publicly-owned companies based in the United States have traded during a standard trading session in the stock market"; jargonistic, e.g. "Within the equities world, asset manager SSgA State Street Global Advisors, offers a family of ETFs the SPDRs...etc"; generally inaccessible prose (too many examples to list)
  • Citations: whole areas of the article are uncited. The Investing section is full of unformatted bare links but no citations at all; the Criticism section has no citations beyond its first short paragraph; elsewhere citations are thin on the ground.

I will be pleased to provide detailed comments and suggestions at Peer Review, should the article be sent there. Brianboulton (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - most of the article is uncited, there are large sections that are just bulleted lists, not prose, bare links in what references there are, lack of independent sources (most of the few references are to Dow Jones itself), and unreliable sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response - Look, were trying to work out all the issues. There are some citations missing, and we've consolidated alot of info. But it still has potential. The article deserves a shot. Let's not discount it because of some small problems. I hope the article makes its way to Peer Review. The subject matter is fairly notable. RT6543 1:07, 11 January 2010 (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 17:26, 10 January 2010 [46].

Randy Johnson

Nominator(s): Alex (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has length and is very well written. It is well sourced and is about a relevant subject. I believe it meets the necessary guidelines. Alex (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by an odd name—I'm not feeling confident on this one.

  • Have you consulted major editors of the article, or checked if they are inactive? See the candidates page: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination."
  • No dab links (good) but some dead external links, esp. ref 15 and External Links item 3. Replace them with archives or new sources to keep the article verifiable.
  • Add titles and author and publisher info to citations. Simply calling a citation "1", like at the very first ref, doesn't help us verify the statements and sources if e.g. the website goes down. Sources should be high quality and citation formats should be consistent (see criteria 1c and 2c).
  • Merge one-line paragraphs to bigger ones, or expand on their statements with more sentences. The retirement news might be big, but giving it or anything else its own sentence makes the article look choppy. Go for professional, flowing prose.
  • Images need alt text in case they don't load or the reader can't see them. (added on 09:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

--an odd name 09:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose, suggest withdrawal – Clearly fails FA criteria, and the problems are so severe that the article needs more time for fixes than an FAC should take. The most severe issue is a lack of references throughout the article. I'm not sure how the nominator can say this is "well sourced" when the vast majority of the article lacks citations. In addition, a few of the existing references strike me as unreliable (RootsWeb in particular), a non-free image with a questionable rationale exists, the prose turns listy toward the end, and there is a clarification tag. I understand that Johnson has been in the news lately due to his retirement, but this isn't close to being a GA, let alone an FA. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:20, 6 January 2010 (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 17:26, 10 January 2010 [47].

Killswitch Engage

Nominator(s): TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because the article is informative and well cited. No edit wars are occurring, and has been a GA for 2 years. Should meet all of the FA criteria TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed(?) TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but I'm afraid it still needs improvement. The alt text for the lead image is "Killswitch Engage in 2007", which (1) tells us nothing of what that image looks like (violating WP:ALT#Essence) and (2) contains details like proper names and dates that cannot be verified merely by looking at the image (violating WP:ALT#Verifiability). The alt text for the 2nd image File:Howard jones of killswitch engage.jpg is better, but it conveys little about why that image is worth looking at: the massive arm and tattoo, the man shouting into the microphone. The third image File:Killswitch Engage.jpg has no alt text. The fourth image File:Kse-adam-joel.jpg has the alt text "Two men are shown playing guitar on a stage set" is not really adequate either: its "are shown" is one of the WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid, and surely the alt text can say something about what the men and their costumes actually look like. Please take a bit of time to read WP:ALT, look at the examples, think about what a blind user would want to know about the images, and then give it another try. Eubulides (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How are the new ones? I took some time to look at examples on WP:ALT and on The Beatles to get a better idea of what the text should be. File:Kse-adam-joel.jpg 's alt text may need to be changed, as I didn't know a perfect way to word it. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right before I nominated the article I contacted 4 editors that have the most edits on the article that have edited it recently. I was confused at the exact syntax of how to do it (before I nom, after nominated, or whatnot) though. I will contact those editors as well, despite in-activeness. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (suggest withdrawal)—The article presents a reasonable-enough timeline of the band's history, but there is little analysis anywhere in the prose. For eg: I read the entire article and still have no clue what Killswitch Engage sound like. Per present standards for band FAs, you'd need a couple of lines about it in the lead, and section dedicated to musical style and influences in the prose. You also devote far too much text to the band's tours; to be honest, reading that "Killswitch Engage played the <year> <festival> with <support band A>, <support band B> and <support band C>" makes for quite uninteresting reading. Every notable band goes on tour, so concert itenaries really aren't that important to note. On the other hand, concentrate on what makes the band unique—their music, critical response to their work, their influences, bands influenced by them etc.—indopug (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a section for Style and lyrical themes within the next two days. Specifically, which sentences should I remove (about tours)? I'm sure there are many that don't show anything about the band, but some are important, especially when a guitarist had back problems and couldn't play. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No specific sentences as such, but this article has sentences which list every single band KSE toured with; these can be cut completely: "36 Crazyfists and Five Pointe O...From Autumn to Ashes, Eighteen Visions, and 36 Crazyfists...DragonForce, Chimaira, and He Is Legend...Iron Maiden, Evanescence, Lamb of God, Linkin Park, Slayer, and Marilyn Manson...Iron Maiden, Children Of Bodom, Carcass, At The Gates, Exodus, Kreator, Opeth, Unearth and As I Lay Dying".—indopug (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the majority (if not all) of those. Started a styles an lyrical themes section, will be added when I have time to put more detail into it. Until then, can this be put  On hold (unless somebody else wishes to add to that section)? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added the new section. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on sources What makes these reliable?

  • Remove italics from online-only refs and put italics on print publications cited, even when citing their websites.
  • Ensure all Roadrunner cites follow the same nomenclature of publisher. I'm seeing tons of different variations.

RB88 (T) 23:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lambgoat has been online for over 10 years and has a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy (Google news has some reliable sites that cite lambgoat as a reference)
We need proof I'm afraid. Otherwise it must be removed. RB88 (T) 19:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was removed per comments below TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Punkrocks.net (now closed) was one of the largest punk rock websites, but closed in 2006. (Though it doesn't show anything about reliability), they had a stage at a major punk rock tour (Vans Warped Tour)
No substantial enough. Needs removal. RB88 (T) 19:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was removed TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blabbermouth is by far the largest metal website. While I don't consider it the most reliable website (one person runs the site), it is widely regarded as a reliable source here on wikipedia (see Blabbermouth.net and Google News
Removed that cite
Removed that cite as well.
What did you replace the above 2 with? RB88 (T) 19:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One I just removed (guess the page didn't save before) and replaced with a cite from WWE. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other I removed entirely, as it was already sourced by blabbermouth. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the italics, do you want me to italicize the title (such as a ref from a magazine)?
Yes, print publications must be in italics everywhere, while online-only sources not. RB88 (T) 19:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How are they now? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing those now
TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on sources; lambgoat.com, punkrocks.net, rocknworld.com, ultimate-guitar.com, metalunderground.com are fan-made (therefore non-reliable) sources. Blabbermouth is a widely respected website, can definitely be used for non-controversial topics such as news. Some sources about the site can be found on Blabbermouth.net.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removing those cites and adding cites from their documentary dvd. For metalunderground I put it on The RS noticeboard to see if it is reliable. Many articles here cite it, so if it isn't reliable I'll remove the cites from other articles. The Ultimate Guitar ref is referencing a professional review by the Ultimate Guitar team, not a random user, so should be considered reliable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that one. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:13, 5 January 2010 [48].

Sri Lanka

Nominator(s): Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because this article seems to substantially conform to the requirements of Featured Articles and was nominated more than two years back which failed. It has been improved substantially and I feel that after a few edits it may reach the status this time. Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -

  • Half a dozen fact tags, some from over two years ago, plus huge swaths of the article with no citations at all that aren't fact tagged. (Main problem in my view)
  • Many existing references improperly formatted - web references missing titles, publishers and access dates, book references missing page numbers.
  • Excessive bolding throughout the article needs to be removed.
  • External links in body of article should be turned into references or moved to seperate section.
  • Images lacking WP:ALT text.
  • Text sandwiched between images.

The reference issues are the biggest thing at this point, and they are issues that will probably take some time to correct. I didn't look at the references for reliability or quality, and so there may be more issues with the existing references then those I have listed above. I would suggest withdrawing the nomination and working on the article outside the pressures at FAC. Peer review may be a better place to start, and also consider a good article nomination, although neither of these two is required for an article to become a featured article. Dana boomer (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I accept your auggestions. I don't mind if the article is withdrawn from the current process. Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—not meant to "pile on" but I see the problems above and more.

  • There are some dab links and other article links that simply "loopback" to the article. There are some dead external links as well, mainly to gov.lk.
  • In section "Administrative divisions", remove the map's red links (they are supposed to show flag images that are now deleted) or add free flags.
  • Avoid choppy prose: Where there are single-sentence paragraphs (in section "Sports", for example), explain their ideas further or merge them to larger paragraphs. Move similar sentences together to improve flow.
  • (in the lead) "It is home to around twenty million people, about 14% of whom live on less than US$ 1.25 per day"—several problems here:
    • The figure is never mentioned in the article body. The lead should summarize what's already below it.
    • How is "US$ 1.25 per day" economically or psychologically important? Why use that currency in particular (instead of e.g. euros), and without a translation to the local currency? If it is the poverty line, mention that or link there.
    • "14%" doesn't seem too striking. How does it compare to major countries, or others with similar economies? (added on 00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

Address Dana boomer's points (and mine) and get others to copyedit and look it over for a later nomination. --an odd name 00:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:13, 5 January 2010 [49].

Achtung Baby

Nominator(s): Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... it has gone through a peer review and Good Article nomination process with very little trouble, and I feel it is one of the finest articles in the Music category. It has seen the eyes of many different U2 fans with many different sources, so it has information sourced from a great deal of places. I believe the topic is an important one, as well, as it almost spelled the end of U2, but instead brought new life to them, and the prose tells this story. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Two dab links—replace them with more specific ones.
  • Ref 96's external link is dead. Ref 65 goes to a less specific page.
  • Most dates in refs are ISO style; change the rest of the ref dates to that style for consistency. Double-check that prose dates are all Day Month Year (most are).

--an odd name 23:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I admit to jumping past the prose of the article completely and straight to the Charts and certifications section, but I have a few comments about just that section. Most of these comments are based on stuff from WP:ALBUM, WP:CHARTS, and MOS:DISCOG:

  • In the first table, what does the Peak position column refer to? Peak position of what?
  • The blank cells should have a dash, like the singles table.
  • Speaking of the dash, it should be an en-dash (–) or an em-dash (—), not a hyphen, which is what you're using now.
  • The Sales column is a slippery slope, since you appear to be basing it on the certifications given. Certifications aren't always based on units sold, sometimes they're based on units shipped, depending on the country, certifying body, sometimes even genre of the release. So, in other words, you should only provide sales figures when you're sure they're correct. So you'd be sure about this only if a) you have a source explicitly saying "100,000 sold" or you have one of the certifying bodies specifying exactly what a "Platinum" certification means (sold vs shipped). It looks like in all the sales figures you've given, you've extrapolated that info from the certifications awarded, which isn't reliable.
  • The ordering of the chart columns seem pretty haphazard. The typical way of doing it is homecountry first (Ireland, in this case), followed by the rest of the countries in english-language alphabetical order. It also seems like there's a huge skew towards the US here (5 of the 8 provided charts are American). Surely U2 has charted all over the world?
  • I also find it hard to believe that the album went Gold and Platinum in Finland and Germany respectively, but didn't chart at all? Drewcifer (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that based on the Charts sourcing I would be inclined to oppose, but having done some sourcing recently for various U2 albums and singles I can perhaps explain some of the format details you noted above:
  • I agree that the majority of the US singles charts should be removed; I do not think that any more than the Hot 100, being the main US singles charts, need be included. U2 may chart all over the world, but per a recent FAC for No Line on the Horizon, it was my understanding that singles charts be limited to just English-language countries, such as Canada, Ireland, the UK, etc. I'm sure that the numerous US charts can be replaced with data from Australia and New Zealand, giving perhaps more of an international focus rather than a North American one. With the website reorganization by Billboard earlier this year many chart data were also either lost or merged; this would probably help to prevent inaccuracies as well.
  • I'm not sure if it's policy that the home country be listed first but the order can be switched relatively easily.
  • It's been a little while since I did work on the chart sourcing for this article, but two possibilities strike me regarding the Finnish and German charts. The first is that their respective IFPI websites do not list chart positions that far back, and so the data was unavailable to users with limited proficency in either language. The second is that, as my browser tends to shrink for some reason when on foreign-language websites, I was not able to undertake a thorough search. If the former is true then the tables will unfortunately have to be replaced until further charts are added (if ever). If the latter, then I would appreciate if people who are able to view foreign-language websites help in the search for that information. The UK position should probably be removed too; neither Billboard nor AllMusic seem to list it, and the British certification sites I have found only list the #1 albums for whatever reason.
  • I agree on the sales numbers; from a brief recollection, I think that only Canada and Finland have properly sourced sales numbers. Until sources can be found, I believe the rest should be removed (though I'm sure that the data must exist somewhere for the US and UK at least in old news reports).
The rest of the details seem to be relatively minor fixes that can be done fairly quickly. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Although I haven't really heard this album, and don't like U2 much, I found the article to be a very good read. I think you've a captured a story very nicely:

  • You overuse the words "band" (replace with "group" and "U2") and "album" (replace with "record" and "Achtung Baby"). If you do a ctrl+F on Firefox and hit 'highlight all', you'll see what I mean.
  • The Zoo TV tour section should be expanded to two paragraphs. It was a very unique tour, and it gives a good idea about where U2 were at the time. Makes for interesting reading too.
  • Are either the non-free cover or the track-listing in the Video section really needed? I don't see how they add anything to the article. I think that single paragraph about the video, is better off in the Release section.
  • Shouldn't the accolades in the table be sorted by Year? Also, centre-align the ranks.
    • I wasn't sure if there were certain guidelines for how to organize material like this. I just as well thought alpha-sorting by the publication/organization was good. But I can change this. I center-aligned the rankings. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you remove either the quote box or the review template from the Reception, it isn't recommended to sandwich the text in between like that.
  • The first four paragraphs seem to deal with the packaging and title of the album, so they should be in a Packaging section (as is standard for album articles).
  • The singles don't need a section for themselves. Merge this info with that last para in the Release section. Also, since they have their own articles, there is no need to mention how acclaimed the singles are.—indopug (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should be fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still think there is too much information, esp. chart information, which would be redundant to the chart table at the bottom, and singles' articles. I doubt you need more than a paragraph for all the singles.
      • Also, I wonder if you could rewrite the section to make the discussion of the singles more seamless with the release of the album as a whole. For example, "The Fly" was released a month before Achtung Baby, so you probably should mention the single's release before the album's.
      • Minor thing: per MoS, "#1, #10" should be "number one, number 10" throughout.—indopug (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this should be taken care of now. I've left in the charting information in the prose, since it doesn't hurt to list the highlights for each song in a sentence... and if we do eliminated the charting table because of reference concerns, this information in the Release section would be all the more important to keep. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for a number of reasons. In a nutshell:

  • The prose needs work (example: "U2 returned to production team of Daniel Lanois and Brian Eno"). Suggest a full review by an uninvolved editor. I'm up for doing it, but you'll have to give me a few days.
  • Too many block quotes. Ascertain if you really need them at all (The Rolling Stone review strikes me as one that can be done without)
    • Removed the Rolling Stone review one. I think the others are of great value, and too long to stick in prose as just normal text. In my opinion, the quote blocks give more insight into the thinking the band/producers had and they help break up what is a lengthy, text-heavy article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Drewcifer pointed out, the chart and sales situations need to be sorted. I'd advise that you remove the singles chart table, for if your going to create a singles chart table you really should be including charts from non-English-speaking countries, and Achtung Baby had so many singles with such chart success you're best leaving that to U2 discography.
    • As was mentioned above, I'm not very good with charting-type information (MelicansMatkin is much better with that). He also mentioned the point that for English Wikipedia, we should mostly be concerned with English speaking countries (per a FAC on another U2 album). Could this point be clarified? It seems we're getting conflicting information for 2 different FAC reviews. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of sources don't look to be reliable sources (ex. Bullz-eye.com, everyhit.com, besteveralbums.com, rocklistmusic.co.uk, Acclaimed Music Forums, spin100.blogspot.com). Some citations are incomplete (saw a few missing webpage retrieval dates).
  • Not all major sources have been consulted. For starters, there's an Achtung Baby book in the 33 1/3 book series. There's some indepth articles by the likes of Mojo, Q, and so on that haven't been consulted (I have access to them through Rock's Back Pages). Remember, with an album from 1991, not everything will be available online or be currently in print. This is not helped by the fact that U2 doesn't seem to have the same level of writing or research devoted to their music as, say, the Beatles or R.E.M (Yeah, you have U2 by U2, but this is a primary source, and you should lean towards focusing on secondary sources). You're going to have to really dig for some Achtung Baby-specific sources.
    • Could you share some of the information that may be in these articles? I'd honestly be surprised if there was any new information to turn up, but if they stand out off the top of your head, they must be important. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same as above. This will take time. You also need to review that 33 1/ book, which from what I understand is primairly focused on religious imagery in the album. As of right now, the album is not comprehensive in regards to major sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • From what I can tell, it is not necessarily focused on religious imagery so much as it is the author's religious interpretation of the album (and from the reviews I've read, it sounds like religion is a bigger focus than the album, the songs, or the band). But that is a valid point - religious imagery is something that should be touched on. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reception boxes. Firstly, with the advent of the new review template (which is optional, by the way), the idea is to only list reviews with a clear rating metric. This means no longer including reviews that have to be described as "favourable" or "unfavorable". In fact, if you can find a source that summarizes the album's critical reception (essentially, finding a citation to back up the sentence "Upon its release, Achtung Baby received strong reviews from critics"), that should receive priority. Additionally, the "best-of lists" table is cumbersome and distorts the end of the article section. You address much of that in the prose, so it's unnecessary.
    • I understand your concern for the review box, but there doesn't seem to be any guideline that dismisses reviews without a rating. The template's documentation says the following: If no rating is given in the review you should use one of the words (favorable) or (unfavorable) to describe the review, possibly allowing for (ambivalent), (mixed), (extremely favorable) and more, but keep it short and simple. If you cannot summarize the review, don't include it in the template. In regards to the "best-of" list, I thought it would be more cumbersome to try and write prose about the album's appearance on a dozen-so-odd lists ("The album was ranked #62 all-time by Rolling Stone. It was also included on Time's 100 All-Time Albums list. It was also...."). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums for further information about the new review template. Keep in mind we still haven't drawn up proper guidelines for it, but one of the key points is that reviews without any rating metric will not be included in the box, given such terms like "favorable", "unfavorable", "mixed", etc. can only be subjective summaries. As for the accolades, it shouldn't be too hard to cover them in the prose. See Loveless (album) and In Utero for examples. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "best-of" table has been converted to prose in a new section called "Legacy". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trival details for the album's context. The sentence "The album's intended homage to American music legends was interpreted as the band placing themselves as peers of the likes of Bob Dylan" is not essential to understanding Achtung Baby.
    • I don't think this is non-essential. It explains that Rattle and Hum was an exploration of American music and that the perception of the record by many critics was they were trying to enshrine themselves in the rock pantheon, something they were lambasted for. I think both points are important, considering the different direction U2 took leading into Achtung Baby. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The way it is phrased makes it trivial. You say, "It explains that Rattle and Hum was an exploration of American music and that the perception of the record by many critics was they were trying to enshrine themselves in the rock pantheon, something they were lambasted for", but this is not evident by reading the prose, and the conclusion appears to be original research. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of sentences need to have their POV attributed.Ffor example, "Compared to the youthful exuberance on much of their 1980s work, Achtung Baby was a more direct and complex examination of pain in personal relationships and covered love, sexuality, spirituality, and faith, in addition to betrayal". That's not something you can objectively state, that's an opinion. So who said it? Make it clear in the prose.
This specific sentence that you highlight can be tweaked using the sources provided for that sentence - I need to get to them later tonight.
Personally, I'd rather keep away from attributed opinion unless the opinion itself is notable. Thus, I'm thinking to remove "youthful exuberence" whereas, the phrase examination of pain in personal relationships and covered love, sexuality, spirituality, and faith, in addition to betrayal seems to stand up pretty well - if one looks at the lyrics that's what it is about (and far more so than previous U2 albums). Of course, if one wanted to nit pick and argue to the extreme that it's all about personal interpretation, then perhaps we do need to remove it to satisfy those it see it as not about love, sexuality, spirituality, and faith, and betrayal, but rather the marshmellow man's experience apple farming on the space shuttle. Personally, I'd prefer the former, and suggest we step out on a fairly sturdy and well-fenced limb, and say the album deals with faith, betrayal, etc.
As I said, I can look at it tonight when I have the sources I used in front of me. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to attribute the opinion. Otherwise it comes off as fact, when it isn't. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, this is an overview of the article's issues. The articles needs some in-depth work to address them. Oh, and Indopug, I'd say this is not only the best U2 album, but an good introductory record for those who don't like U2. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Pshh. Boy and War pooh on this and any other ones they've done apart from The Joshua Tree. RB88 (T) 16:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Wesley, I'd like to see you do that copy edit you suggest. You hit the nail on the head by saying it needs fresh eyes. The article as it stands is essentially a combined effort between krazyjoker and myself, and even I can see some of the clumsiness that he or I can no longer effectively fix - the prose has been jumping back and forth between minor tweaks for a while now with no improvement - parts of it need a completely different approach. I think the structure and content and referencing is excellent, and the basic flow, rather it's a sentence, possibly paragraph, level tweaking that needs doing by someone new. Krazyjoker will probably agree that it's a bit scary offering one's "Baby" (pun not intended, but once noticed, I thought it most apt), up for potential re-write, but it might get us out of the stale-eye prose dead lock. I will also hunt around for other copy editors. --Merbabu (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can do a copyedit on the 1st of January. Sorry I can't do it sooner, but my time is limited these days. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on sources What makes these reliable?

  • All the atU2 links need to be removed. There's so much copyrighted material illegally published that I nearly had a coronary. Cite the works they all came from instead without a link.

RB88 (T) 16:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created print versions of the citations that attributed the original publications. I didn't have a lot of information, such as if there were specific authors or article titles. But I attributed the publications, the names of their lists, and the approximate publication date. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright issue was a good pick up, but indeed hasn't Y2kcrazyjoker4 now addressed this issue? ie, atu2 links to the sources removed. Futher, between the two of us, we have the majority of these references in hard copies anyway (and most cites didn’t use links to atu2 anyway). And, while I agree with the copyright issue of atu2 and no-one mentioned reliability on this page, it has been mentioned elsewhere so I will pre-empt it if I may. There is no evidence of a reliability issue - for the handful of references I’ve checked, they appear to be accurately reproduced, and there is no evident reason to think that the others aren’t. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media review: Two images. Alt text good for both.

  • Usage: Good, standard.
  • Rationale: Acceptable.
  • Usage: Good. Image is rich in visual information and substantially explicates sourced critical commentary.
  • Rationale: Unacceptable. A few problems here: (1) Sourcing is bad. We're given a link to the U2 home page, which does not show the image. You need to link to exactly where the image came from and provide all available information on publication and authorship. (2) A separate rationale is required for each article in which the image appears. There is currently none at all for this article. (3) The rationale needs to explain not only why the image significantly enhances understanding of the accompanying text, but the importance of the text to the article's subject, which may not be self-evident to editors who might come along in the future to vet the rationale. Do not simply duplicate the existing U2 and Zoo TV Tour rationale—its content is insufficient for a fair use image in a Featured Article (in addition to failing our image policy per #2 above). Take a look at the following summary/rationales, which are acceptable models: File:StoneSmoking.jpg, File:St1-enterprise and whiplash bolt.png.

Two audio samples:

  • Usage: Good. Well-chosen sample of non-single album track, with critical commentary on lyrics, musical arrangement, and the unique effect of its introductory passage, sampled here.
  • Rationale: Very good. Unacceptable. Again, a separate fair use rationale is required for each article in which the item appears. There is currently none at all for this article.
  • Usage: Good. Well-chosen sample of first of album's five singles, with critical commentary on lyrics, musical arrangement, and how its specific sound prompted its choice as the album's lead single.
  • Rationale. Very good. Unacceptable. And, for a third time, there is currently no specific rationale at all for this article. Do not simply duplicate the existing U2 and The Fly rationale—you need to explain why the sample is specifically important for the reader's understanding of this article, and you also need to note the length of the original song, so the technical aspects of the sample can be properly judged.—DCGeist (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sound samples' fair use rationales should be OK now. The image I'll revisit in the morning - it isn't on U2.com anymore. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may just be me but it seems that the image could have been taken from the ZooTV video (the position of the shot looks identical to many of the camera angles from the release), in which case it should be fairly simple to change the source (if that is indeed the cas). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not taken from the video - it looks like it could have been taken as a promo image, but it doesn't compare to screen caps from the actual video. Just looking at Flickr, it doesn't look like there are lots of options for pictures of the full stage. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:13, 5 January 2010 [50].

Principality of Stavelot-Malmedy

Nominator(s): OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the required criteria. Fwiw, I am the primary editor of this article. OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technical check No dabs or deadlinks, but WP:alt missing or inadequate 14:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Referencing is inadequate, just looking at first four refs. 1 lacks access date, unclear why it is RS, 2 lacks a publisher and looks like one copied from french Wikipedia, not actually seen by editor, 3 lacks access date, publisher, unclear why RS. 4 lacks publisher, unclear why RS. Other refs similar faults, some are to tertiary or otherwise dubious sources. Also uses Wikipedia as a source including this. Doesn't look ready for FA to me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of those issues were dealt with in the GA review (here). To be clear and summarise, you want access dates against the online references (and justification that the sources are adequately reputable). Can you be more specific as to which references you do not feel are reputable? Also, where is there a reference that uses fr.wiki as a source? It's quite common for reference sections to mention that foreign-language Wikipedia articles have been used; I wasn't aware this prevented FA status. Sorry, not wanting to seem defensive, just not quite sure what specifically you would expect to see changed in order for the article to be FA-worthy, so I know which particular areas to work on over the next few days :o) -- OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Online versions of books and journals don't need access dates, since the content is unchanging, but web-only content does. Web sites and books need a publisher. As a rule, general encyclopaedias are not considered RS unless the content referenced is verifiably by an expert on the topic. Foreign languages aren't indicated in a consistent fashion. I'll have a more through look tomorrow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I'll go through and take another look at those. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added access dates to all the Web references. I couldn't see any inconsistent language references. I've added publishers to book references where possible (given some of the books are very old, this isn't always possible, but the disambiguation that providing a publisher provides is surely effected by hyperlinking to the source in question). A few sources are tertiary, as you mention; in the main, that's because there aren't an awful lot of secondary sources for a small state of the Holy Roman Empire. I think it's safe to assume that the Encyclopædia Britannica and Merriam-Webster have suitable editorial policies still to be considered reliable, no? *GRIN* — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article makes use of the articles Principauté de Stavelot-Malmedy, Abbaye de Stavelot and Malmedy from the French Wikipedia and the article Stavelot on the English Wikipedia. In what way? If you have read them for ideas, that's fine, if you are using them as references, obviously not. If you are copying across references that you cannot/have not checked, that may be a cause for concern. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • File:Stavelot-Malmedy.png needs author death date to verify out of copyright Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It really doesn't — the file is on the Commons, and is from a work (The Historical Atlas) widely used for PD imagery both across the Wikipedias and elsewhere; this should be plenty enough information for a Wikipedia. I have added William Robert Shepherd's year of death (1934) to the image page nonetheless. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Agree with Jimfbleak it doesn't look ready. The referencing seems rather a hodge-podge of online sources, with the "Flags of the World" website the most commonly used reference. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finding alternative references was indeed very challenging; I'm happy to try to look further, but I'm not sure more reliable sources are out there; we are discussing a relatively small state of the HRE, after all :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is often ungainly:"Several sources note that the two abbeys held disputes between themselves, with Stavelot assuming primacy over Malmedy, to the latter's discontent; new abbots were invested in Stavelot on behalf of both abbeys, however." - the two references for this, by the way, date from 1762 and 1788. "The villa's lands occupied the borderland between the bishoprics of Cologne and Tongeren,[8] the territory previously having been part of the Frankish Empire, its independence dating to before the time of Charlemagne." - what does this mean? It was an "independent" villa? "A rejoiceful procession back to Stavelot paused en route to celebrate Mass on the banks of the Meuse, with a great crowd and further mirables". Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite a plethora of references, the "Art" section is of doubtful accuracy. As far as I can see from the many works I have just used to expand Stavelot Bible, the binding (no doubt originally in precious metal with jewels) is not a "high point of mediæval art" as it has been lost, in the French Revolution if not before; the reference citing the British Library has been misread. Although the question is uncertain, most experts don't seem to think that the metalwork objects produced for the abbey were actually made there. There is no link for Mosan art, the most relevant article here. "The abbey at Stavelot was one of the leading centres of mediæval artistic production" is a near-quote from the EB, but there it refers to a particular region, a particular period, and a particular medium. To expand it to cover "mediæval artistic production" in general is too much. The same might be said for the two plaques from the retable, which is largely famous because there is a 17th century drawing of the whole thing before it was destroyed. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll do a draft. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heraldica is cited as a resource in WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. FotW is quite widely used as a reference, to the extent that it has its own template: Template:FOTW, again referenced from WikiProject H&V. "The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy (FMG) was established in 2001 by a group of British genealogists and historians with a special interest in the medieval period. In January 2002 we formally registered the FMG as a not-for-profit organisation with the Charity Commission for England and Wales." They all seem like they should meet the requirements to me, no? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the Heraldry wikiproject says use it doesn't make it reliable for these purposes, nor is a site devoted to Flags going to be reliable for history. I could possibly see the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy being reliable. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think the title is not correct. I would prefer Imperial Abbey of Stavelot-Malmedy or monastic principality of Stavelot-Malmedy. I personnaly think the prose is often ambiguous. I provide a few examples:
    • "Saint Remaclus founded the Abbey of Stavelot on the Amblève river circa 650[5][6] out of what had been a villa." Was this villa a ruin? Was it still active?
    • "its independence dating to before the time of Charlemagne." The independence of the Abbey or of the villa? What does mean independent at those past times? It was a fiefdom, wasn't it? When? During the reign of Sigebert III.
    • "The monastery of Malmedy is considered by the historians and the hagiographers to be slightly older than the monastery of Stavelot" From the first part of the section, it seems Stavelot was first founded (on the villa's territory). Contadistinction?
    • " The abbey church in Malmedy was dedicated to St Benedict.[11]" This sentence appears as an orphan in the section. It provides almost no information.
    • "the abbeys played an important cultural role in Lotharingia, particularly thanks to prince-abbot Christian." Which one? Why in Lotharingia? Why not in Europe? Lotharingia has had a very short lifetime!
    • "Through the seventh and eighth centuries, the two abbeys followed their mission of evangelism, along with forest clearance, but suffered the same decay as elsewhere with the collapse of the Carolingian Empire, with the principality in the custody of lay abbots — temporal guardians — from 844 to 938, including Ebbo, archbishop of Rheims, Adalard the Seneschal, Reginar and Giselbert, dukes of Lorraine, and the like.[18][19][20]" Could you please cut this sentence into two or more? Avoid "and the like". Which decay? "Collapse of the Carolingian Empire" It is not clear whether the Carolingian Empire collapsed!
Vb (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eubulides (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I've dealt with all of those except the Prinsenvlag, which is included by {{flagicon}}; looking at the source, I can't see how to alter the alt tag there. I didn't realise that we'd gained the ability to add alt tags in the infobox, though; thanks for pointing me to that! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for doing all that; the alt text is much better now. I fixed File:Prinsenvlag.svg by creating {{Country data United Kingdom of the Netherlands}} and changing the article from "{{flagicon|Dutch Republic}} [[United Kingdom of the Netherlands]]" to "{{flag|United Kingdom of the Netherlands}}", and struck the items that have been fixed. However, the items not crossed out above still need fixing. Also, there's a problem with the newly introduced alt text: it contains many details that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images. These details include "Coat of arms of Stavelot", "St Remaclus" (twice), "the" (in "the abbey"), "legendary", "along the banks of the Meuse", "Bible" (twice), "St Sebastian", "Byzantine", "each containing portions of the True Cross", "Gabriel", "Lower Rhenish–Westphalian Circle", and "Holy Roman Empire". Please see WP:ALT#Verifiability for why details must be verifiable directly from the image, and please see WP:ALT #Proper names for why proper names typically should not be in alt text. Eubulides (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Foolishly, I'd not read WP:ALT in adequate detail; again, thanks for pointing me to that. I've made all these edits apart from the two from the map in Template:Lower Rhenish–Westphalian Circle — I'm not convinced the prose makes sense or is useful without those two names, both of which can be derived from the context of the map within the template. I'd like to argue that the context, thus, makes the two names permissible, despite the recommendations of WP:ALT#Proper names. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the changes. As a non-expert looking at that map, I'm afraid I have to disagree: it's not at all obvious to a non-expert that the colored region is the Lower Rhenish–Westphalian Circle and the white region the Holy Roman Empire: it could just as easily be the other way around. I attempted to fix it by adding a proper caption to the image, and then removing the corresponding info from the alt text as per WP:ALT#Repetition. I also reworded some info in the infobox alt text that I couldn't otherwise verify from the images. Eubulides (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Aaah, I see what you mean. That's much better. Thank you for helping with that! — 15:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm really sorry, but I have to oppose. The article has some serious historical problems. Anachronisms like describeing a 7th century abbot as "prince-abbot" of course the infobox: 651, Holy Roman Empire, successor state, the "Frankish Empire", colored coat of arms, and so on. Also imbalanced ... huge history section, a bit for geography and art, but nothing else. Parts of article uncited, e.g. "In 1659, a Capuchin convent was built in Stavelot.", and most of the sources used are frivolous, outdated or tertiary (e.g. "Saint Remaclus founded the Abbey of Stavelot on the Amblève river circa 650[5][6]") Article appears to cite primary sources directly or at least only with a non-modern editorial [Principality_of_Stavelot-Malmedy#cite_ref-Laws:p8.2C_10_25-0], and (to repeat slightly) many of the sources it uses are 19th and 18th century and thus probably out of date (and this might also explain why the article is so packed with anachronism). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I definitely agree with some of those points; I've corrected the anachronistic references to prince-abbots. The predecessor state to the Imperial Abbey, however, was indeed the Frankish Empire, I'm not sure what you would prefer to see here, nor do I understand the problem with a coloured coat of arms. I fail to see why old references are less likely to be accurate, however — we accept Bede as a reference for Anglo-Saxon England, for example. There are very few more-modern references for what was a small state in the Empire, surely it's better to have old references (which, as they're about then-recent history, are likely to be pretty accurate) than none? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 15:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, there are quite a number of reasons why old references are less likely to be accurate. I'm afraid that if you don't realise that yourself, you'll just have to take my word on it. And quoting Bede directly, or a similar source, is WP:OR and isn't recommended unless you are a specialist historian.
      • The assertion "The predecessor state to the Imperial Abbey ... was indeed the Frankish Empire" is just wrong. The Frankish realm wasn't an Empire until 800, and besides that the abbey was just an abbey that was part of a series of different kingdoms: the notion that it was a state within the best part of a millennium of its foundation is yet another anachronism. Francia was no more a "predecessor" to any of its monasteries than the Kingdom of England was a "predecessor" to Durham Cathedral Priory. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:46, 2 January 2010 [51].

John Christie (murderer)

Nominator(s): Wcp07 (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I nominated this article back in October and addressed most of the issues then. There was one outstanding issue of image use which I was not able to resolve; I believe I have resolved it now. I have linked the previous featured article candidate discussion here. Back then, the main issues were inline citations and copyediting, which I was able to address. Wcp07 (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wcp07 (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mm40 (talk · contribs)

  • "hanged in 1953 for his wife's murder, after his" you can remove the comma
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Christie had served in World War I" remove the redundant "had"
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, why is rape linked but not "theft" and assault"?
Links included for theft and assault. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the second note cautions against the use of necrophiliac, its inclusion is somewhat POV. Moreover, it's not discussed anywhere in the article, so it shouldn't be in the lead.
I've taken out the reference to necrophilia in the lead but I've still included it in the body (under "Later murders"). I think it's important to mention as Christie is commonly held to be a necrophiliac, even if that description might not be particularly accurate. I've pointed out that there is a dispute over whether he is one or isn't, so hopefully that will satisfy POV concerns. Wcp07 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Timothy Evans was charged with both murders, was found guilty of the murder of his daughter and was hanged in 1950" repeats the word "was" three times
Redundant "had's" removed. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Christie's own crimes were uncovered three years" two things: I think "own" is redundant, and "uncovered" isn't the most encyclopedic.
Done; uncovered replaced with discovered. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mr Justice Brabin stated" should lose the "Mr" and have a full name
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "nevertheless"
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enabled the then Home Secretary to" either should give a name or remove "then"; it's obvious that the then Secretary did it
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the age of eight" can be simply "age eight"
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is all of the first paragraph of Early life covered by the given reference, or just the sentence about his grandfather?
The reference in the first paragraph is only citing the sentence about Christie grandfather. The rest of the paragraph I felt didn't require citations; I can add some though if they're needed. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was a Boy Scout; upon leaving school" should have a period instead of a semicolon.
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to talk much louder than a whisper, Kennedy argues" can just be "to talk loudly, Kennedy argues" because the detail is previously given.
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ethel Simpson Waddington from Sheffield, on 10 May 1920" the comma is splicing
Done; comma removed. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "end his cycle of petty crime" isn't really a cycle, because one crme doesn't lead to another
Done; "cycle" replaced with "course". Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to Harrow Road police station" seems to need "the"
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she was on the beat or in a" I think "on the beat" is a bit jargonish
Done, reworded. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Christie impulsively strangled her during" why "impulsively"?
I used "impulsively" to convey the sense that it occurred without warning. I've replaced it with "without warning" to be clearer. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the husband of the woman with whom he had been having the affair" is a bit wordy. How about "the woman's husband"?
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph of First murders needs clarification: which building is being referred to?
Done; specified the building is Christie's residence. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 4 has a period at the end while the others don't (pedantic, I know).
It's put in automatically by the cite:book template I used for the reference. That probably means I'm going to have to add a period to all the manual references for consistency. How annoying. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully more comments coming; I'm going to wait a while as I think this needs some more copy-editing, but I'm gonna wait for some other opinions. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to put the article through further copyediting. But as you suggest, I'll wait for further comments. Wcp07 (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my lack of comments isn't a wait for more comments as much as lack of available time. Mm40 (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild oppose. I'm not any too happy about the prose, which doesn't flow very well. Getting some fresh eyes in there would probably help. When you've read a text over and over, and tried to please everybody, your feeling for more intangible things in it, like "flow", may end up a little overtaxed. (A phenomenon known as "flow fatigue".) I've done a bit of copyediting (just now), but there remain some sentences in there that sound almost a note of unintentional comedy. At a minimum, please rephrase "Christie resigned as a Special Constable, likely due to emotional conflicts between being a murderer and a member of the police force", and "The tenants were black immigrants from the West Indies with whom the Christies despised living because of racial prejudices". This one, "He also admitted to killing Beryl Evans, with whom Timothy Evans had originally been charged", while it's by no means comical, is an illustration of the kind of syntax difficulties you're likely to find yourself in if you insist, as this text appears to do, on the nonsense "rule" that a sentence mustn't end with a preposition. (See Preposition stranding for the "overzealous avoidance" of prepositions at the end.) Bishonen | talk 20:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I've rephrased some of the awkward passages in the text, but it's difficult to spot them when you've read the text over about a hundred times or so. I see what you mean about "overzealous avoidance" of having prepositions at the end, so I've rephrased the glaring ones to make the prose flow better. I'm not sure that it needs more copyediting, though - I actually had the article copyedited by User:Shirik last night before you made your comments, so I can't see what further copyediting it needs. Wcp07 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spaced en dash required in a full date range, since there's at least one space within the elements.
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link for "pardon"? Rather common word. Same for "conviction", "probation", "petty crime"
I've delinked many of the common words, most of which were successively linked by anonymous IP users. I'm happy to also delink "pardon" but I've kept it linked so that those not familiar with UK law can find out why the Home Secretary doesn't issue pardons but must recommend them (to the monarch) instead. Wcp07 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of clean-ups required, such as "in spite of having an extensive criminal record" --> "in spite of his extensive criminal record".
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relationship between clauses is a real problem.
Not too sure what that means. Are there some specific examples you have in mind? Wcp07 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an independent copy-edit throughout. Tony (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned above, I'm not sure that it needs further copyediting as it's now been copyedited twice since its peer review prior to the last nomination.Wcp07 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - for now. The main problem is that the prose does not flow well; the sentences are often too detached from each other in style and content. This is often easier to spot than fix, but I have made some suggestions [52], but other problems remain.

  • Here for example, there are two adjoining sentences both beginning with "after": After initially alleging that Christie had killed his wife in a botched abortion operation, Evans then confessed to murdering his wife and daughter. After he was charged with their deaths, Evans recanted his confession and again accused Christie of being the murderer, this time of both his wife and daughter. and there is "Evans...Evans.
  • This sentence is trying to say too much and has to be read twice, This reaction, together with Christie's exaggeration of the effects of the attack, stemmed from underlying hysteria in Christie; such a condition encouraged him to exaggerate or feign illness as a ploy to get attention and sympathy.
  • This sentence does not make sense, Christie, without warning, strangled her during sex at Rillington Place in August 1943, not long after his assault.
  • Here, both of whom were found in an outside wash-house with Beryl's body additionally parcelled up the "additionally parcelled up" sounds very odd.

The Ladbroke Grove image adds nothing to the article, but the legend does. I suggest deleting the image and incorporating the legend into the body of the article. The plan of Pentonville in Victorian times added nothing at all and I have taken the liberty of deleting it. On reading this, I could not help compare it with Moors murders, an engaging FA that flows beautifully despite the evil it describes.

Lastly, the reader needs to be told that at the time of the murders, homes in the UK were supplied with town gas, which was mostly carbon monoxide, which is poisonous, and not the much less harmfulnatural gas (methane), which we burn now. Graham Colm Talk 17:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:46, 2 January 2010 [53].

SMS Blücher

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I wrote this article back in June and took it through GAN and a MILHIST ACR in July. It's since sat on the back burner while I took the Derfflinger-class battlecruisers through to a complete FT. I feel it's pretty comprehensive, considering the fairly short life-span of the ship (she was in commission for barely more than 5 years). I look forward to any and all comments and suggestions to help me ensure this article is of Featured quality. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical stuff

--an odd name 18:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • How was the torpedo bulkhead situated in relation to the main armor belt?
  • Were the casemated guns washed out at high speeds or sea states?
  • The Bombardment of Yarmouth section doesn't mention any armored cruisers until Yorck ran onto a minefield. You only mention Blücher, some battlecruisers and light cruisers, but no armored cruisers. Where did she come from?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I clarified where the bulkhead was. I haven't seen anything specifically state that Blucher's casemates were wet, but given that practically every warship with casemates had this problem, I'd say it's reasonable to assume that Blucher did too. That said, without having a source state as much, I'm not going to add it to the article. As for Yorck, I haven't been able to find out where the ship was specifically prior to her sinking. It certainly wasn't with Hipper and the BCs, so I'm assuming it was with the main fleet. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. The text contains too much jargon and vague language—I found it to be a very frustrating read and not at all accessible. Some back-knowledge can be assumed, but average readers should be able to make it through most sentences without clicking off to read definitions and context. Sample issues:
    • The opening line leaves me a bit cold, to be honest. What does "last" mean in this context? Last built? Last surviving?
    • "which were expected to simply be larger" The modifier "simply" seems misplaced or misused here. What are you modifying?
    • "Being only an upgrade of the traditional armored cruisers" In what way? I read on a considerable distance to discover no section detailing the contrast between Blücher and the "traditional armored cruisers". Unclear prose.
    • "One week after the final decision was made" Which decision? The armament decision, or are you speaking of overall design considerations?
    • "Blücher had a draft of 8.84 m forward, but only 8.56 m aft." The word "only" suggests that the contrast should mean something to me... but what?
    • "However, she suffered from severe roll, and at hard rudder, she heeled over up to 10 degrees." This sentence was impossible for me to digest as a non-specialist. "Roll" links to an article that describes "listing".
Good start but it definitely needs tightening up and improved accessibility. --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing the article. "Last" does indeed mean "last built;" I've specified that. As for "simply," I'm not quite sure what you mean. The following sentence should make clear what I meant by the assumption that the Invincibles would feature only minor improvements over the armored cruiser type. I added a note comparing Blücher and the preceding Scharnhorst class in terms of number of guns. The "only" was meant to highlight the fact that the ship displaced more water forward; I've reworded that slightly. For the "decision," yes, the latter. I've linked roll to a better article and perhaps clarified what the 10 degrees was referring to. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments, through the Design section. I appreciate your looking at my concerns above. I urge you to get some help in here to tighten up the prose so we don't have to have laundry lists at the FAC—we're applying bandaids but it really needs a good run-through.
    • "information from the British Naval Attache about the armament of Invincible class was leaked" By whom? If possible, make active voice and specify who leaked.
    • "The three engines were separated in individual engine rooms." How do you feel about "segregated" instead? "Separated" gives me the impression of being taken apart.
    • "though fuel bunkers were expanded to allow up to 2,510 tons of coal" Unclear. Was this done at design time, or at build time as a last minute modification? Or was it done by the crew? As above, it could benefit from being made active voice to specify when and by whom.
    • Footnote 5 seems to go to the wrong URL, as it is the same as footnote 4. It's about the 21 cm SK L/45 and not the 15 cm. Therefore, I cannot verify the data about the 15 cm presented in the article.
    • How do we know the data presented on navweaps.com is accurate? I noted in the sourcing that the author says some of the data comes from "Tony DiGiulian's personal data files". Who is Tony DiGiulian, and how can we trust his personal data files? I would much prefer this type of technical data be sourced to a published work that's been fact-checked or peer reviewed.
    • "reduced to 80 mm in less important areas of the hull" Which are what?
    • "though this only ran the length of the hull between the forward and rear centerline gun turrets" Confusing. "ran the length of the hull" means the whole hull, but then you qualify the statement. Why not just "ran between the the forward and rear centerline gun turrets"?
    • "The forward conning tower had an armored roof that was 80 mm thick and 250 mm-thick sides." Missing parallel structure, rough to read.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to Navweaps.com, it's been discussed at WP:RS/N in the past (the old discussion has been preserved here). I've fixed everything else you pointed out, with the exception of the first. It's unlikely that the person who leaked the information is known; I haven't come across it in any of the reading I've done. I'll see what I can do as far as getting a read through of the prose. Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: What's wrong with this picture?
    • "approximately 30 mi (48 km) north of the Dogger Bank"
Gene Nygaard (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Can you be more specific please? Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it really shouldn't be that hard to see for somebody familiar with the subject matter, once somebody has pointed out that potential problems exist:
  1. Why would anybody be measuring this distance in English statute miles?
  2. In particular, why would this be in English statute miles in a German-ship article?
  3. Even if it really were in statute miles, those strange-to-the-context units would need to be specifically identified as such.
  4. Even if it were statute miles, the precision of the conversion result would be inappropriate for the "approximately" introduction.
That is often the consequence of over-reliance on black boxes such as {{convert}} by people who don't know how to make them work properly. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tarrant, to whose book the claim is sourced, specifically uses miles: "...in a position about 30 miles north of the Dogger Bank..." I merely repeated the figure from the source. I could see your objection if the convert template resulted in something like "approximately 30 miles (48.280 km)", but 48 is a perfectly fine number with which to use a qualifier like "approximately." Parsecboy (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can you be so clueless as to still not get it, if you are trying to edit articles about ships? Try statute mile, maybe that will help. Then check out the next main section below it. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2010 (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/January_2010&oldid=339991484"