Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 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
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOC limit}}
{{TOC limit}}
== March 2010 ==
== March 2010 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liberalism/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dragon Quest/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dragon Quest/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/County Route S18 (California)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/County Route S18 (California)/archive1}}

Revision as of 23:36, 6 March 2010

March 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 23:36, 6 March 2010 [1].

Liberalism

Nominator(s): UberCryxic (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC), User:Rick Norwood (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)''[reply]


I and Rick Norwood proudly nominate this article because we feel it fully meets the FA criteria. Over the last month, the Liberalism article has experienced a major overhaul in an effort to become featured. Rick and I essentially rewrote the entire thing. This is what the article looked like on February 15, and as you can see now, it's undergone a vast improvement. For an article of its stature, it's reasonably extensive without being absurdly long, coming in at only about 114 kb. It contains nearly 200 citations from about 80 books, a neatly organized TOC, thorough alternate text, and plenty of great images to inform readers about the subject.

The article did have a peer review, which I just closed. It received scant attention there, but its talk page was humming all week as Rick and I conducted our own thorough internal review before nominating. That review would also not have been successful without the valuable insight of The Four Deuces, who helped us with sources, content, and categorization. Rick and The Four Deuces have done a great job maintaining the article over the years. This article would not be here without them.

We look forward, in particular, to your strongest criticism. I have a lot of experience with featured articles: I've written five of them already. I know what this article does well. What I want to determine is what you think it does not do well. Having had that experience with featured articles, I also know that many FAs emerge from personal passions and hobbies. That motivation behind writing FAs often produces articles on obscure (although very interesting!) subjects, and the same has been true for some of my FAs, so I'm not insulting anyone here. Clearly, however, this is different. Here we're dealing with one of Wikipedia's most important articles, on one of the most famous subjects in modern history and popular culture. You all (that is, the reviewers) better get this right, and that's why I expect only harsh criticism. You won't be hurting anyone's feelings. As I said in the peer review, don't shy away from being deliberately brutal and scathing. We nominators expect nothing less for an article of this caliber. To the last point, I wanted to say one final thing about images. I know that three images are definitely being included with fair use rationales. If you determine that they are blatant copyright violations and that we have no grounds for including them in this article, we'd have no problem removing them.

Thank you in advance for your time, for your interest, and for your comments. We look forward to hearing from you.UberCryxic (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A review of WP:OVERLINKing and WP:MSH (on repeating "Liberalism" in section headings) is in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Liberalism" removed from all section headings. I have thoroughly reviewed WP:OVERLINK and I plan to remove repeat links under the same section, unless they are separated by at least one subsection (for example, "French Revolution" would be linked at beginning of History section AND at the "Era of revolution" subsection). I also want to leave repeat links under different sections (so "French Revolution" should be linked both in History and, under above standard, also in Philosophy or in whatever other section it appears). Before I implement these changes, can you please tell me if you find them acceptable? Or do you want me to be more severe in my cuts? I have no problem either way. I just want you to be a little bit more specific in what you think I should do.UberCryxic (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERLINKed just from review of one section: Europe, Middle Ages, Christianity-- those are terms commonly known to English-speaking readers, and linking to them adds no benefit to our readers, only adds a sea of blue to the article (I share Brian's concern about the rush to FAC without a GAN or peer review ... these small details would have been noticed at other content review processes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EL pruning is also in order, particlarly with respect to non-English language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect templates are used in hatnotes, per WP:SS; this article is not a summary of those articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response I have switched the templates per WP:SS and I removed three external links per WP:EL. The removed links were two non-English language sites and a blog. I have also de-linked dozens of words and terms to nations, continents, religions, and to other historical events that were either linked too heavily or, per your suggestions, do not contribute to the understanding of the subject. No doubt more remains to be done and I'll continue the de-linking process in the next few days. Give me any and all specific ideas for what to de-link. Originally, I was afraid that I had underlinked, so I'm kind of happy that the problem is overlinking!UberCryxic (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks) but has some problems. The alt text for File:Reformation.gif doesn't contain the gist of the image, for example, that generally the Protestants were in the north, and that many of their gains were beaten back; please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance. Much of the alt text contains proper names that it shouldn't (see WP:ALT#Proper names); for example, File:John Locke.jpg's alt text, "Portrait of philosopher John Locke as an old man in his study" should not mention "John Locke" because (a) it duplicates the caption (see WP:ALT#Repetition) and (b) a non-expert cannot verify the name merely by looking at the image (see WP:ALT#Verification); "in his study" should also be removed on verification grounds. Please see WP:ALT#Portraits for advice about how to write alt text for portraits. The alt text for many of the other images (e.g., File:Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States.png, File:Charles Meynier - Napoleon in Berlin.png, File:En Mendigorría.jpg; here I stopped looking) has similar problems; please read the abovementioned WP:ALT sections and then go through all the alt text again. Eubulides (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response I've gone through all the alt text in the article and removed proper names while also making the text more descriptive in general.UberCryxic (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it looks good now, after I tweaked it a bit further. Eubulides (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help!UberCryxic (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You say in the nom statement: "The article did have a peer review, which I just closed. It received scant attention there..." The peer review was closed within five days, which scarecly gave time for proper PR attention, particularly for such a long article. Had you been prepared to wait a little (there is a running backlog of 12–15 articles) your article would indeed have got attention, not least from me. I don't have the time for detailed comments at the moment, but here are a few minor points:-

  • Two disambiguation links to be picked up from the toolbox
  • The caption of the lead image ("Vote Liberal") ought to specify earlier than it does that this refers to A Canadian election. Thus: "Poster from the Canadian Liberal Party..."
  • Perhaps too many images? The overcrowding has caused more than one incidence of text-squeezing between left and right aligned images. This is contrary to WP policy.

Sorry no time for more. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response I've rephrased the caption and I've removed two images from the article, including one with suspect copyright. One of the images that I removed in Impact and influence was kind of repetitive as the article has a similar image that deals with that topic. Take a look again and tell me what other images you think should be removed or repositioned to make the text flow better. As for the disambig links, can you tell me which ones they are? I could not find them. Scratch that I fixed those too.UberCryxic (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response I've made significant changes to the alt text now, per the policies cited above. Can you please tell me which links are bad? I don't know how to check.UberCryxic (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are to absolutism and end of history, as you can see in the "Dab links" section of the toolbox at the top. Ucucha 20:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I'm really sorry about that.UberCryxic (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Ucucha 23:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the people who worked on the article, I want to thank everyone who commented above. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You should combine identical refs. --Skizziktalk 21:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you don't; FAs such as Cologne War have been approved without combined refs. However, this article is inconsistent; you should either combine all identical refs or none of them, per criterion 2c (consistently formatted citations). Ucucha 22:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I guess you are right that it isn't a requirement for FA, but I can see no advantages at all with having them separated. Personally I think the few duplicates in Cologne War should be combined too. Are there any guidelines about this? --Skizziktalk 22:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process right now of combining references.UberCryxic (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skizzik: I think the reason for not combining is that it preserves the sequence of the refs; when you click on one ref you can easily see the surrounding ones. See here for another editor's motivation for not using it. But the matter is moot here anyway since UberCryxic has introduced named refs throughout the article. Ucucha 23:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have gone through the article and combined all like references. So do you want me to do that or not? I prefer the earlier version, but don't care that much either.UberCryxic (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You missed some (Van den Berghe 56, perhaps others). As I said, it's your choice: either combine all refs or combine none. You should do what you prefer. Ucucha 23:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I prefer the earlier version so I'm just not going to combine any. Is this discussion closed? Never mind Sandy just edited the article and I don't want to do one big revert like I was planning to. I'll just take care of the rest.UberCryxic (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Van den Berghe combined now too. I don't see any others, but if anyone knows how to remove all my edits pertaining to combined references without undoing Sandy's as well, go right ahead.UberCryxic (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha: Hm I can see your point. I still think its more elegant with condensed refs but I guess thats just a personal opinion then. So do what you think is best for the article if there are no guidelines on how it should be done, sorry for the trouble I may have caused. --Skizziktalk 23:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah to be honest with you I really don't like the new system, so I'm going to go back to the old citations. Sorry Skizzik, but if it's not a requirement, I'd rather not have it.UberCryxic (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Overall, the present edition is inferior to the old version. There is no mentioning about Rousseau, Voltaire, David Hume, Benjamin Franklin, Karl Popper or Friedrich Hayek. The article explains why fascism as ideology was a threat to liberalism, but it remains unclear why communism was a threat. Terms like political liberalism or economic liberalism are never defined. There is no mentioning about privatization or even about the rule of law (other than in the lead). Certainly rewrite and cleanup were long overdue and they have made the article more attractive and readable, but much of the substance has been lost.—pivovarov (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of addressing your concerns right now. However, I take umbrage at the suggestion that the previous version was superior, considering that it had several neutrality tags, scores of important yet uncited claims, choppy categorization and slender paragraphs, and a million other problems that could fill an entire book (including a total lack of substance and context, while we're at it). I will definitely include some of the authors you mentioned, but it's very unfair to suggest that this version is inferior, and I'm quite surprised that you would make such a suggestion.UberCryxic (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response I have now included material on Rousseau, Voltaire, and Hayek. I think this is good enough, in the sense that you could always come up with a list of people that you think should belong in the article. The main purpose of this article, however, is to summarize the subject, and I think it does that fairly well now with the philosophers mentioned. As for your other concerns: private property is mentioned throughout the article. The rule of law is explained in the context of social contract theory throughout the article. I'll work some more on the communism part.UberCryxic (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned a few names that were missing in the new version, but the problem is not with the names (there are more names: Ludwig von Mises, John Kenneth Galbraith, Kenneth Arrow). My point is that the version of 2010-02-01 was fairly mature and you should have used it as a reference. In the course of your work you lost some valuable material that was present in the old version. You are saying that the old version was hardly better because a couple of sections had neutrality tags. True, they had, so how have you resolved the neutrality problem? The sections in question were on neoliberalism and on 21st century — in the new edition both are gone. The section Europe in the current edition says nothing about liberalization or privatization, which were the actual policies in the 1970s. The fact that private propery is mentioned throughout the article is irrelevant. What I do see throughout the new edition that it confuses liberalism with both democracy and liberal democracy. The old edition had two sections ("Elitism and democracy" and "Democracy") trying to address this subject and to explain why original classical liberalism was hostile to democracy.—pivovarov (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neoliberalism is not gone. It's mentioned under Wars and renewal. It doesn't have its own subsection anymore, but considering the length limitations under which I'm working, it does not deserve its own subsection, and the initial decision to give neoliberalism its own subsection was actually a mistake. The complex relationship between liberalism and democracy is discussed under Dominant ideas and traditions. Whether it's discussed enough is a different issue. Liberalism is so broad and general that you can come here and demand greater coverage on every notable topic pertaining to it. These are the kinds of hard choices I had to make. Significant amounts of material needed to get cut to keep the size down. You are throwing around several peacock terms, describing the current version as "inferior" to the supposedly more "mature" article of February 15. You give that version a lot of praise without mentioning that it did a horrible job in covering the history of liberalism. Both the content and the structure of (almost) the entire article were patchy and incoherent. I would rather leave some things out and make the article comprehensible rather than list every possible thing relating to liberalism without cogently explaining anything. Look, if you have good and actionable advice, I'm happy to take it. You said include more philosophers (you named them too), and I did. But I'm afraid complaints about what the article covers and what it does not cover are more difficult for me to address when I think your fundamental premises are completely flawed.UberCryxic (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have done a lot of hard work and in many aspects the present edition is better than the old one. However, my concern is that readers are going to find it incomplete and will start adding unreferenced and biased content as they did five years ago. In my view, it would be better to create a near-all-inclusive text, to refactor it into child articles, and to leave an overview containing all keywords in the parent article.—pivovarov (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you offer specific suggestions, like what sentences you want included, for the article? I am working under extremely tight length requirements right now, which is why you might have noticed that History underwent massive cuts and reorganization. I want to address you concerns, but I also hope you are aware that this article has limitations (it can't cover everything).UberCryxic (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things I've wondered about is just why Wikipedia does not have a History of Liberalism article. You'd think that's a standard article that should've been created a long time ago. I guess no one got around to writing it.UberCryxic (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be preferable to move the current "History" section of Liberalism to History of liberalism and replace it with a summary. I agree that this article is too long. Ucucha 23:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll definitely create a new article. Long overdue...as for length, I'll trim some non-essential parts from the first few subsections (Prelude and Beginning), but I think the rest of the material is really important and I hesitate to fiddle with it. Also, Elvis was promoted a few weeks ago with over 160 kb. This article is currently 113 kb. I suppose length might be a problem if you compare the vast size of History to the rest of the other sections, but the article itself does not seem long when you consider the subject..UberCryxic (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elvis (pop culture, music) did not get the kind of review this article will get at FAC, and OtherStuffExists; also, see my closing note on the Elvis FAC, which had Karanacs' concurrence. It's hard to understand why History of Liberalism is a redirect, when the history is here, could all be copied into that article and summarized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a redirect anymore! I just recently created the article. For now, I simply copied what's in the main Liberalism article, but I'm going to start trimming some parts from the latter right now, per your advice here. That way they won't be the same.UberCryxic (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of that new article: Sandy, can you please go and do its initial review, confirm that it's an article that deserves to be on Wikipedia, and remove the tag? Thank you.UberCryxic (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update on size After making some significant cuts to History, the article has fallen from 113 kb to 108 kb. I merged the Prelude and Beginning subsections. I hesitate to make further cuts without more guidance here because I'm afraid it would hurt the narration and might impede the understanding of the average reader regarding the progression of liberal history (or what gave rise to liberalism in the first place). I would also say that it's expected for the History section to be long, or at least much longer than the other parts, because it mostly focuses on what liberals specifically did, as opposed to what they thought (Philosophy) or what they influenced (Impact and influence). What people do should have more encyclopedic value in general, although others might disagree with that perspective. Anyway, I don't think this is the right place to hash out our philosophies on the proper structure of an encyclopedic article. Like I said above, for an article of this stature, 113 kb (and now 108) is fairly reasonable. If you want more cuts, please provide specific examples of what you think should be cut.UberCryxic (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This version is 9700 words (we measure articles by prose size, not KB, see WP:SIZE and User:Dr pda's prose size script). I'm surprised the cut is only 300 words, but will wait for others to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well WP:SIZE does say that articles over 100 kb should be split, as a "rule of thumb". Under that standard, I should be following the kilobytes. But if I am following words, as you wish, then how many words do you think this article should be? I mean I think it's senseless for me to just cut things without a proper idea of what length (in words or kilobytes, whatever) is appropriate. I want this article to be focused and coherent, but I also want it to contain enough detail to actually entertain readers or pique their interest.UberCryxic (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just slashed off one more paragraph in History (106 kb now if you measure by that standard). Does caption text count as part of the article's word count?UberCryxic (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't.
Perhaps a more effective approach, rather than trying to slash off bits and pieces every few sentences, is to write the section from scratch as a summary of History of liberalism. Ucucha 03:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But if I did that, where would you want me to stop? Do you want...6,000 words? 7,000 words? Drastic cuts is not the problem. I just have no idea what exactly you're looking for (ie. what you consider "short" or "long"). Now, presumably you do have such a standard because I'm being told that 9,700 words is long. So if that's long, what's short? Or better yet: what's acceptable? That's what I want to know.UberCryxic (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All-right just give me a few minutes. Let me go through it once more and I'll get back to you.UberCryxic (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
History of liberalism is 5,200 words, so it was over half the article: definitely a daughter article in and of itself, that should be summarized back to here. (These things would have been picked up in a peer review or Good Article review.) Uber, articles are measured here by readable prose; KB is merely an approximation, and not often a good one. You can get Dr pda's script here. You should be aiming for a correct use of summary style as much as a readably sized article that won't burden readers; reviewers will have an easier time determining how well it covers current concepts once History is summarized, and doing that correctly probably means a rewrite from scratch as a summary (as Ucucha suggests). An article rushed to FAC, without waiting for PR, is likely to get bogged down in this sort of thing, that would have been picked up at PR (which typically takes two weeks minimum). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of slashing and burning right now. I perfectly understand that History was (is) long, and that was a deliberate choice on my part. I wanted it to be long, but I guess I went a little overboard (ok a lot). No one's perfect. I got the script by the way, but I'm not sure how to use it.UberCryxic (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should have a new link in your toolbox, on the left of your screen, that says "page size"; click that when you're on the page whose size you want to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit I don't see it. I must've added the wrong thing in my monobook.UberCryxic (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using Chrome by the way. Would that have anything to do with it?UberCryxic (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you added the script to the correct page (vector.js if you're using Beta, monobook.js if you're using Monobook, etc.) and emptied your cache? Ucucha 04:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to say "yes," but I don't know exactly what you're referring to. I'm afraid I'm a little bit inexperienced in the finer details of Wikipedia. Look it's fine. I'm making the requested changes right now. When I think I'm done I'll notify you and you can let me know if the new History is ok. It should not take more than 30 minutes.UberCryxic (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm also in a tough bind with the opposing editor above because that user is demanding more material. This is a very careful juggling act. It's essentially impossible for me to seriously cover that user's concerns with these kinds of reductions.UberCryxic (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With two articles, there is room to cover everything; that's why the article needs to be written correctly, using summary style, not trying to cram History into one. Again, you should be focusing on writing the article correctly, comprehensively, and with due weight; if that means summary style needs to be used in other places, that's what it means. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update #2 on size Phew....ok. I'm done. I've given History a complete facelift. It's significantly shorter (3 subsections now, like Philosophy) and it still does a good job of summarizing the main features of the topic (neoliberalism is still in there!). I don't think readers will be left wanting here. My script isn't working so I can't check word count, but I've taken the article to 94 kb...from the 113 at the start of the FAC process. That's actually smaller than when I first start editing in February. Can someone please tell me the word count (and also what fraction of that is History)? Thank you.UberCryxic (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As of this version; 8,300 words. You started over 10,000, hived off 5,000 to history, but are still showing 8,300 ... that seems to imply you have a 3,000 word summary of history-- which is not a summary-- it's a full article. May I suggest that peer review is a better place for this sort of work? Pivovorac's 1b) comprehensive concerns are significant. 1e), stable, is also an issue here, at least one editor disagrees with thos quick changes; Pivovorac links to a version that is only a month old, was not peer reviewed, was not put through GA, and is unlikely to be stable in its current form. FAs in a few weeks may be achieved by some very experienced FA writers, but are highly unusual even for them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're doing a pretty good job at hashing out our differences here. We've accomplished a great deal in just a day. Under those numbers, History represents about 36% of the article. At this point we're entering very subjective territory, but I don't see that fraction as too big of a problem, although I am willing to further reorganize that section. I would just note that this article cannot be judged under the same standard as most others on size. It's expected to be (I would think) significantly longer than the typical Wikipedia article, for good reasons.UberCryxic (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FAC is not peer review and not a place to hash out differences when an article was rushed here after major changes with no other review; why was the peer review closed in only five days, without waiting for feedback, and what is the rush? An article should be stable before it comes to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if it seems like the article was rushed here. I felt like the peer review was going badly and that the article was ready for FAC. At the same time, I am somewhat surprised to see you say some of these things. You bring up stability: the article changed under the auspices, and with the approval of, the two editors that had been watching it for three or four years. I made sure I brought them into the process carefully and systematically before making these rigorous changes. Wikipedia articles sometimes change quickly. Be bold is one of our greatest mantras. I've done this in the past many times, and I'm not sure what's wrong now. People do have disputes during the FAC process. I'm working with you to fix the article's mistakes, and again, I think we've done amazingly well on the first day. I'm sure we can correct all issues of comprehensiveness and size today in the FAC, making the peer review process very repetitive. We're making good progress here and I'd like to continue. I will give History another overhaul.UberCryxic (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors is not very broad consensus :) A peer review would have brought fresh eyes, and would have fleshed out these problems. I do not think this article is ready for FAC, and suggest you withdraw. Pivo's concerns appear substantial, and adding that to the size issues, an overhaul is needed. Because I've participated now heavily in this review, I am recused as FAC delegate, so that is just one editor's opinion -- I am not speaking as delegate, and closing this nom will be up to Karanacs. FAC is not to be used for PR; reviewers are overburdened, and it's an abuse of their time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm quite shocked that I'm reading these things. I did not come here for PR or to overburden reviewers. With all due respect, I've worked very warmly and effectively with the other reviewers. They've made their suggestions and I've (almost always) followed their advice down to the last period of the last sentence. You're the only one from which I sense some antagonism, and I don't know why, considering that I am actively trying to follow your suggestions too. Rick and The Four Deuces are regulars. They've had a long experience with the article. They know how it looked three years ago, two years ago, one year ago, etc. They were generally content with my changes. By contrast, you're following the advice of someone who's made a grand total of 52 edits on Wikipedia. I placed the article on peer review per Wikipedia's guidelines, but was disheartened that it received little attention, so I decided to come here instead. I respect your position in Wikipedia, but I have been to FAC five times before and I'll be here again in the future. This is exactly where I belong.
Now, our wikidrama aside, let's get back to History. It stands at 36% of the article now. I can give it another overhaul, but it's best if you and I do this together. Tell me exactly what parts you think should be cut or reorganized. The section is short enough that you can read it easily and quickly.UberCryxic (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article needs a lot of attention from one or more subject experts, in philosophy in particular. A few examples:

  • The Prelude amounts to an attempt to summarize the entire Enlightenment in an effort to provide historical context. It neither summarizes well nor provides much context. This could be done much better, and could probably be done in summary style.
  • The summaries of Locke, Hobbes, and Descartes (among others but these in particular) are overly simple and almost caricature their views. That is not your intent, but that is the effect.
  • Listing the many flavors of liberalism ("classical, egalitarian, etc.") without explaining them at all underscores the fact that the discussion is incomplete. The differences between them are important for understanding the main subject. The old version of the article really did do a better job of this.
  • The Dominant ideas and traditions section is a rapid recitation of names and theories that does not explain what the ideas are about or how they relate. There is no coherent "story" here about how all those things add up to something called "liberalism".
There are many other examples throughout. You ask for "brutal and scathing" feedback, but that is not what this is. I offer these only to illustrate that this article badly needs expert attention. I would suggest a review by the peer review department at WikiProject Philosophy, for example, before bringing this to FAC. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Which version of the article are you reading? Descartes no longer appears in the article, per some major reductions I had to make to bring down the size of History. Take a look at the current version of History and let me know what can be done to improve it.
The Dominant ideas section is derived from Major themes, which explains that it's very difficult to come up with what you call a "coherent story" for liberalism. That was the point of listing all those adjectives and the quite blatant quotation, which should resolve your worries, that liberalism contains "separate and often contradictory streams of thought" (Shaun Young, Beyond Rawls: an analysis of the concept of political liberalism). Major themes, however, does list several principles common in the liberal philosophical tradition (per philosopher John Gray). Dominant ideas itself covers some of those important principles (and what liberals have said about them) mentioned in Major themes. And it's unfair to suggest some of those flavors have not been explained "at all." Classical liberalism and social liberalism (the dominant political conceptions of liberalism) were explained in detail.UberCryxic (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The jist of my comment is that it comes off as a very uninformed and thus uninformative treatment of the topic, which I believe more expert hands could greatly improve (spoken by someone who does have expertise in the subject). If you really want to make this a great article, I would encourage you to give some expert hands a chance to improve it. I hope my points are taken constructively; I do not expect to comment further. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wish you would comment here further since I'm trying to address your concerns. Can you offer any specific changes?UberCryxic (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can and will, if asked do— in the context of a peer review. While I have noticed that you have improved it a quite a bit since my first read through, there remain real issues under both 1(a) and 1(b). My comments would be extensive and no doubt invite more discussion. I have to agree with Sandy and Brian that this is not the place to do that. Why not just withdraw it and allow the proper time and attention it needs to be a solid FAC? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1(e): Since its nomination here, the article had been under continuous amendment. It is changing all the time; it has been edited about 200 times in the last 36 hours, among other changes losing more than 2,000 words. I have started to read it several times, but what's the point of trying to review an article that is so obviously still being built? As has been emphasised many times in the past, FAC is not an article-building process; nominators are supposed to bring stable, finished products here, not work in progress. The article should be withdrawn immediately, and re-presented when it is finished and stable. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History (and only that section) has been under continuous amendment because I have been asked to change it, and I've complied with those requests. Beyond History, the article has hardly changed at all. The changes that I've undertaken involve making History more compact, focused, and readable, per Ucucha's and SandyGeorgia's advice, with which I agree. Stability mainly refers to, as I understand it, the absence of edit warring or content disputes. This article has had none of that recently. That one section is changing quickly in response to FAC is no reason to claim the article is unstable, but especially not when the changes involve trying to summarize the section from its related article (History of liberalism, just created). From what I gather so far, the only major complaint against the original version of History was its excessive length, which is why I created a new article entirely and tried to summarize the remaining section (hence the 2,000 word drop). All that changed is I got rid of extraneous and unnecessary content, but if you compare the section and the article, their basic themes and motifs are the same. In that sense, the article has remained stable. When the article came to FAC originally, History was the problem child (some of the editors knew that even before FAC) given its enormous size (over half the article). All I did was trim down its size, and that's not a sign of controversy or instability. Everyone agreed it needed a massive reduction. As for a finished product: I have full confidence that History is now written in summary style and still covers the major aspects of the topic. Take a look at it again and tell me what you think. You can do that now because the article is no longer changing. Things seem to have settled down.UberCryxic (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your nomination statement begins: "I and Rick Norwood proudly nominate this article because we feel it fully meets the FA criteria" (emphasis added by me). You now say that you brought it here knowing that History was a problem child, so I wonder why the problem was not addressed before the article was nominated. I think my objection is valid, but I don't want to hammer the point to death. I note your later comments, and will try to add some objective comment/criticism in the next 48 hours or so. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! I eagerly await your comments. I know you have far more experience than I do with featured articles and you can help us significantly. In recognition for your effort, I promise to address your concerns with lightning speed. I want to earn your support and I'll make all the necessary changes to do just that. I sincerely apologize for not taking care of History before the nomination. Rick brought up the problem of length, but I mistakenly disagreed with him and we decided to nominate instead. However, now I have made a huge push to resolve the length problems very early (1st day) into the nomination, which is notable at the very least. An article that was 113 kb when it first came here is now 94 kb. As I mentioned above, far bigger articles on less notable and encyclopedic subjects have become featured.UberCryxic (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Per your advice, I have removed all images listed above that do not have verifiable sources, although I plan to look for others that do have good sources. The logo of the UDLP in Sudan had already been removed. Tell me if I left anything out, and thank you for your help.UberCryxic (talk) 19:49, 6 March 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 00:53, 5 March 2010 [2].

Dragon Quest

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 (talk); 陣内Jinnai


After working on the article with User:Jinnai and having it recieve a copy-edit, I believe it meets Feature Article requirements. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A set of comments draws near! A fittingly long article for an important series (Toriyama later worked on Chrono Trigger, a favorite game of mine, as well), with some oddities in my opinion:

  • (section "Music") "Several albums of Dragon Quest music have been released since the original game was made, the first coming out in 1986, based on Dragon Quest's music."—I don't like the structure here. There's the "plus -ing" thing, but it feels weird in general (as though it were a comma splice but too short to be split into two sentences) as well.
  • (section "Manga and anime") "Additionally, The Road to Dragon Quest (Dragon Quest e no Michi?) is a manga based on the creators of Dragon Quest published by Enix."
    1. Is the Japanese (kanji) title available? (The romanized title should be in the third parameter, but occupies the kanji field instead.)
    2. Shouldn't the whole title, from "The Road to" onward, be italicized?

You say this received a copyedit, but I saw enough other things to tweak (besides the ones above) that I think it needs another. See the article history.

--an odd name 03:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose reluctantly on 1a, because I still found serious language bugs. I fixed some of these, but I fear I've missed more. Get someone else to do another copyedit.

  • "Kenshin Dragon Quest: Yomigaerishi Densetsu no Ken is a stand alone game which comes with the a toy sword as theits controller and a toy shield containing the game's hardware."
  • "After the inputting the name Erdrick a window opens saying, "INPUT YOUR NAME!""
  • "Dragon Quest is such a cultural phenomenon in Japan that there are live-action ballets, the first video game to receive such an adaptation, musical concerts, and audio CDs based on the Dragon Quest universe."—is linking to "cultural" necessary, and is Red Book (audio CD standard) really the best link?
  • "For instance, the remake of Dragon Quest VI sold 0.9 million copies in Japan in its first four days, an exceptional sales figure for a remake."—I think 900,000 would be better here, but I haven't checked the MOS on that.
  • "The original Dragon Quest game is often cited as the birth of thefirst console RPG, despite the fact that it borrows heavily from the Wizardry, The Black Onyx, and Ultima series, and many others consider Final Fantasy "more important.""
  • "Although the first four games to come to America generally received good reviews, and as of February 2008 they were among the most sought after titles for the NES, especially Dragon Warrior III and IV, it was not until Dragon Warrior VII was released didthat Dragon Quest becomebecame critically acclaimed."
  • "Other points of contention are its battle system, comparatively simplistic storylines, lack of character development, simplistic, and for older title primitive-looking, graphics and the overall difficulty of the game."—what?
  • "The battle system, while notably simplistic, has been noted that it does speed the process of fighting up. As for the difficulty, Yuji Horii has been noted as"—weird structure in the first sentence, and avoid repetitive use of "notably", "has been noted", and "difficulty" in that paragraph.

--an odd name 23:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went through it and fixed a few awkward sentences.  ?EVAUNIT神になった人間 00:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support on 1a. Some parts still feel a bit redundant ("Creation and design" para 1 to the "Zenithia" section, for example), and I'm not sure stuff within the article like Erdrick and Zenithia should be bolded, but these are debatable or minor IMO. I am vastly more confident in this article now; good work all. --an odd name 16:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. The timeline image at the start of Dragon Quest #Main series has WP:ACCESSIBILITY problems. It lacks alt text (see WP:ALT) and it contains invalid HTML, mostly by omitting alt text where it is required (see the W3C validator output). Apparently it's using some sort HTMLish extension to Wiki markup that is not documented in Help:HTML in wikitext. I suggest redoing the timeline in text, since it's mostly text anyway; but if you want an image, I suggest using a standard SVG image with alt text. Whatever technology is chosen, please fix the alt-text and invalid-HTML problems. Eubulides (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No we don't want an image as this will need to be continually updated (Dragon Quest X has been announced and i doubt that will be the last). It was based on the code from Final Fantasy timeline. I'm not really sure what alt text needs to be added, and where.陣内Jinnai 00:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's fine to not use an image at all: text is a perfectly adequate way to represent that information. Apparently the EasyTimeline feature that's currently being used was designed without accessibility in mind. Assuming that EasyTimeline can't be fixed easily, I suggest redoing the timeline as text. Eubulides (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You know anyone who could work on that? It would be a shame to lose it as it gives a clear and easy understanding of the release timeline that is further explained in the text. It's much harder to get across some elements of the time gaps later as opposed to earlier without such just by reading.陣内Jinnai 15:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Surely it's easy just to use a table? I did that. I used a very plain style; please feel free to gussy it up. Eubulides (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner. I was busy with RL and when i got back wanted to fix the problems i saw that I could. The table had one major flaw; it leaves it indistinguishable on a cursory glance from the text. The blue like for the left collum is what set it apart. Unfortunately, I cannot figure out how to recreate this as a table and remove the white borders around everything (mostly the rows) so that the blue is seamless. As this timeline is designed to mirror the FF's timeline, I'd like it to be able use the standard functions of wikipedia while still maintaining the uniform appearance as much as possible.陣内Jinnai 02:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • If the problem is that there's not a sharp boundary between the table and the surrounding text, a simple fix is to put a border around the table, which I just did. Or, if you prefer, lots of other effects could be used, such as table colors. But perhaps I didn't understand the previous comment? Sorry, I don't know what "FF's timeline" is, but if other timelines are using the EasyTimeline Mediawiki extension they also have WP:ACCESSIBILITY problems, as that extension was designed without accessibility in mind, and generates an image without alt text; any such timelines need to be fixed. In my talk page you also wrote that the table "is also much larger text that can take up a huge chunk of the page displayed", but I don't understand that comment, as (with my browser, anyway), the table consumes less screen space than the EasyTimeLine output did. Eubulides (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I wanted to have the left collomn clearly distinquishable at a glance from the right. The easiest way to do this, which {{EasyTimeline}} does quite well, is with color that is otherwise non-intrusive. I realize the template has accessibility issues (among others) which is why I am fine with an alternative.
                  For me, the image now takes up ~55% of the page area (ie excluding the left-hand navigation bar). My resolution is 1440x900. The previous time line took up ~1/3 and never anymore. Even if I zoomed in/out it didn't matter. That imo is a bigger issue.陣内Jinnai 23:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on criterion 3 (images):
  • The logo could be scaled down (not in the article, in its source); it is too high-res right now.
  • File:Dragon warrior 3 battle screen.gif is seemingly not the subject of critical commentary or discussion in the article except that players access battle functions through a menu system. The image is not necessary to understand anything in the current text. Also, the fair use rationale is completely inadequate and not properly filled out.
  • File:Rockett.jpg Again, I don't think this image is lending any crucial layer of understanding. The text says it all, basically.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you want the battle system picture and the slime picture removed? GamerPro64 (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would be more apt to say that I am asking for them to meet the non-free image use policy. They either need to have proper rationales, be discussed in depth in the article, and be required for reader understanding—or they should be removed. Make sense? --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slime picture I can understand as there really isn't much. The battle menu is actually mentioned. Is the battle menu for DQ3 specifically? No and nor does it need to be; this is not a DQ3 article; its a DQ article. Some of the commentary is given in the reception. Per WP:NFCI screenshots just require critical commentary, they do not require direct critical commentary as something like video footage does.陣内Jinnai 16:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The logo has been reduced to 225px. Anything really below that and the letters in the back start becoming too hard to distinguish.
I added some critical commentary on the slime character.陣内Jinnai 17:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these fixes will be sufficient. The images are still barely discussed. That is not the only criterion, either—the images must also be critical to understanding. I don't think, as the article is written, the reader needs to see either image to understand what you've written.--Andy Walsh (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article is about Dragon Quest and therefore the logo is by definition, appropriate. If it isn't, then every book/DVD cover, etc is inapropriate.
As for the others, since you do not believe it doesn't cover it and I've explained why I think it does, please explain what you think is critical commentary on it that would suffice; again, it does not need to be direct critical commentary on that image as neither are a video clip.陣内Jinnai 05:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the logo was inappropriate. Could you please go back and read my explanation again, so I don't have to repeat it? Critical commentary is not the only requirement. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not necessary to understand anything in the current text. You cannot really describe the graphics level of any kind of program without visual representation unless it uses just simple lines and shapes. Furthermore, it is entirely difficult to get across the idea of how "simplistic" the battle system is with the text. Without it, it would be easy, especially in today's world of high-tech eye-candy centric games for the reader to assume the game was more graphically intense than it really is.
Also, the fair use rationale is completely inadequate and not properly filled out. The entire thing should be filled out properly. The "portion used" is one that doesn't really fit for screenshots. This type of format is used in other feature quality articles.陣内Jinnai 21:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're connecting here, somehow. You can't put copyrighted images into the article as a replacement for thorough explanation and critical commentary—they have to be complementary and necessary for the reader's understanding. I don't think we're there. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Are you saying that if there were better explanations and commentary in the prose of the article about what was in the pictures, then they would be justified?  ?EVAUNIT神になった人間 19:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He means they are not necessary because they can be given in our own words—that is, our text is a free alternative, so the non-free images are not required and we should remove them. --an odd name 19:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can understand that. I know this is never a good argument on Wikipedia, but taking a look at the other vg series FA's, I see at least one screenshot on each. What are they doing differently than this article?  ?EVAUNIT神になった人間 19:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────────────────────────────────────────┘
(outdent) They weren't checked by Walsh. :) The rules are strict but ill-enforced, in both FACs and Wikipedia in general. --an odd name 20:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's all I have to say then : ) what do you think, Jinnai and/or Gamerpro?  ?EVAUNIT神になった人間 20:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The way I always thought of the slime image was as an example of Akira Toriyama's work and how it's become associated with the Dragon Quest franchise. There's a quote on the slime article from Horii that talks a little about it and any source that talks about DQ will mention Toriyama's work. As for the battle screenshot, would it help to explain it better in the text? I believe the reception section already discusses the use of menu battles and how ancient they seem. Does that image not help in understanding that?  ?EVAUNIT神になった人間 21:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added in a brief explanation of Akira's style to the slime section and an explanation of how the game looks different when in a battle. Does that text justify having the two images?  ?EVAUNIT神になった人間 14:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the slime goes, I'm not sure that's a huge loss. I'd rather it not, but the artwork is the core issue here. However, Dragon Quest is a video game and the core issue is gameplay. You cannot express just how simplistic the graphics are through words alone because of the way most games are no longer simplistic. Any attempt for more modern gamers to look on this would not understand. They wouldn't understand that "text-based menu systems" means just that-text and only text without some fancy fonts or background. It is essential to understanding why DQ has been looked upon less favorably my some reviewers in the west as not having enough bling, looks like its graphics are dated back in the NES/SNES era, but yet still doesn't look like a cheap fan-made game.
That alone is enough to counter a "words alone candescribe it argument" Walsh has put up. It isn't all right across from the caption, but spread out throughout the article. You cannot describe the simplisicty of a battle system through the way anyone who is even slightly familiar with modern gaming (and that is the larger part of the Wikipedian readership) without showing them just how simple it is. Most people, especially younger ones, won't grasp that concept.陣内Jinnai 04:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why are Akira Toriyama and Koichi Sugiyama in the "Creator" field in the infobox? Toriyama is the character designer, while Sugiyama is the composer, therefore only Yūji Horii should be credited as creator in that field. In the Final Fantasy series article, for example, only Hironobu Sakaguchi is in the creator field, not character designer Yoshitaka Amano and composer Nobuo Uematsu. The Prince (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That conforms with the documentation in {{Infobox VG series}} on how to treat notable people. All 3 members are central, thus notable, figures to the series. {{Infobox VG}} includes other possible fields, but if the former does, its not documented. If it does, I can change them, but all 3 should be mentioned as they are equally (Toriyama perhaps moreso) notable as Horii.陣内Jinnai 02:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither Toriyama or Sugiyama created the concept, Horii did. The field is for the initial concept of the series, not music, artwork, or other aspects. It makes no sense including them. The whole notable thing you're talking about here is whether the creator (which is Horii, not Toriyama and Sugiyama) is notable or not. He is, so therefore he's included. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be included. Toriyama and Sugiyama shouldn't be included at all; if there was a field for music and artwork, they would of course be included as they are very notable. What I'm saying here basically is that they're in the wrong field and it looks very off, IMO. The Prince (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am following the instructions as they are in the template and furthermore as members important to the franchise. If you feel there is a problem, it is with the template not having the correct field then the template should be edited because their removal from the infobox isn't justified as they are key members and I assume other video game franchises may be similar; I don't know how edit templates or even if that one is editable though as I'm following the template's instructions and all 3 members are important enough to list in the infobox (if Horii is, then the others are equally so), so its either all or none unless the template can be redone.陣内Jinnai 00:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not strike reviewers' comments, per WP:FAC instructions. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources good Mm40 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose on sources from Mm40 (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reference 3 ([3]) is a wiki, thus is not reliable Fixed
  • What makes http://www.dqshrine.com/features/seinterview.htm (ref 16) reliable? I see the about us page, but there's no evidence that it's official or is checked by anybody else, making it self-published.Fixed
  • What makes RPGLand reliable? Fixed
  • Why is RPGClassics reliable? There's no "About us" page, or proof that it's not self-published Fixed
  • Silconera's About Us page does not make me confident that it should be used Fixed
  • Reference 62 isn't working for me. Even so, why is it reliable? Fixed
  • There's a mix between "Last, First" and "First, Last" in presentation of the author's names. Be consistent! Fixed
  • Some retrieval dates are YYYY-MM-DD, while others are written out Fixed
  • Some publishers are linked, while others (refs 13 and 21 for example) Fixed
  • You cite Edge different ways; compare references 22 and 26 Fixed
  • The formatting in reference 79 is messed up Fixed
  • Take out all "(in English)" indicators. Also, references 78 and 82 are an Japanese, and should be marked as such Fixed
  • Italicize "Wired" in the last reference, number 87. Fixed Mm40 (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got everything.  ?EVAUNIT神になった人間 17:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to undermine Evaunit666's good faith effort, but DQShrine is a valid SPS. I realize you are within the bounds to question it, but to say "there is no evidence" when you haven't at least checked our TF page shows you just assuming it fails as I give an explanation there.
"The site was listed in the bibliography in Encyclopedia of Play in Today's Society by Rodney P. Carlisle, a "Professor Emeritus" at Rutgers University."
Beyond that to be specific to address the aspects of the Dragon Warrior (as it was known then) as a RS.陣内Jinnai 21:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't completely understand you, you're saying that DQShrine is reliable because it was used in that Encyclopedia, right? If this is the case, then I'll happily accept it as acceptable. Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by "TF"? Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"TF" is the Dragon Quest task force. --an odd name 22:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the prose still needs some attention. Some examples:
  • If the player's party dies in battle, the group will lose half of their gold and the leader of the party warps to the nearest save location." If the party has died hasn't the leader died as well? Or do you mean "if a member of the player's party dies"? What's a "save location"? Also, the subject here is the singular "group", so it should be "the group will lose half of its gold", or better "the group loses half of its gold".
  • Inconsistent spelling of "spinoff", sometimes spelt "spin-off".
  • "To save one's progress, the player must visit a Church ...". Subjects don't match ("one" and "player").
  • "... including the Alefgard seen in the first game". The definite article is a bit of a puzzle here. What is "Alefgard"? A country? A region? A place? Why was there no definite article used when it was introduced shortly before this sentence in "the hero who freed the games' setting of Alefgard from darkness." I'm not really sure what the phrase "the games' setting of Alefgard" means in any event.
  • With the merger of Square with Enix ...". Should be "Square and Enix.
  • "The tenth installment of the main series is currently in development for the Wii." Currently as of when? 2010?
  • "The games themselves feature a number of religious overtones – saving the game (in later games) and reviving characters who have died is performed by clergy in churches." What's religious about saving the game?
  • "Each of the Dragon Quest soundtracks were composed and arranged ...". The subject here is "each", so it should be "each ... was composed".
  • "The spinoff titles of the series have received adaptations of their own". They haven't "received" adaptations, they've been adapted.
  • "In 2006, Japanese gaming magazine Famitsu readers ...". If Famitsu is the name of a magazine then its name should be given in italics. The way it's written make it look like the magazine name might even be Famitsu readers.
  • "Although the series is a phenomenon in Japan, as of 2002[update], the games have not garnered as much attention in North America." Seems strangely dated, that was eight years ago.
I know the Gamasutra article about the history of Dragon Quest by Kurt Kalata mentions that all the games up to 8 haven't been as popular in America.  ?EVAUNIT神になった人間 00:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The stories avoid melodrama and feature more simplistic characters than Final Fantasy's Squall Leonhart or Tidus who have been sources for contention." Don't understand that at all. "Sources for contention"?
    • Not sure what to do here. To me its obvious. The stories [of Dragon Quest games] avoid melodrama and feature more splistic characters" is pretty of obvious. The others are comparisons to games that don't from the cited source.陣内Jinnai 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnai, can you please ask Laser brain/Andy to return to look at the images? And see if Malleus's objection is satisfied? Karanacs (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I've already asked Laser Brain and he still opposes, saying that he still doesn't understand why the other two pictures are in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any possibility of replacing those images with free ones?  ?EVAUNIT神になった人間 04:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. As its a specific subject and the material is copyrighted, it cannot be without SE releasing DQ into public domain, which isn't happening.陣内Jinnai 04:11, 4 March 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 00:34, 5 March 2010 [4].

County Route S18 (California)

Nominator(s): Pzoxicuvybtnrm 04:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because of its great quality despite low importance. Many people do not know about county routes, making it a way to inform people about unknown roads. Pzoxicuvybtnrm 04:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Images lack alt text, as required by FA criterion 3. See WP:ALT for advise on alt text, including the special section on maps. In addition, there is a link to the disambiguation page Eastern Toll Road (California), which should perhaps be solved by making that page into a full article. Several links are dead, as listed in the toolbox to the right. Much of the article depends on Google Maps as a source; is that a high-quality reliable source as required by criterion 1c? Last, there are prose issues like "In addition, an Adopt-a-Highway program is considered to be implemented along the route in order to maintain its safety with the local environment" and "Eighteen years later since the formation of CR S18 in 1970". (I will strike this oppose when these issues are resolved.) Ucucha 04:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick fail currently GA means nothing, this was created by a user that did not follow WP guidelines relating to style (that is also now banned), has not gone through any "FAC-vetting" process such as our own ACR or through PR, etc. --Rschen7754 05:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick fail per Rschen7754—currently this article is the product of one user (which has since been banned) and is far from ready for FA. (No The article has not been submitted to the U.S. Roads Project's ACR, so not even members of the relevant WikiProject have looked at it in-depth. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – this article fails to meet the criteria 1a (it's not well written), 1c (there are self-published sources and an over-reliance on Google Maps), and 3 (lack of alt text). While taking the article through the project's ACR is not required, it is highly beneficial. I suggest that the nominator withdraw this nomination to work on the issues raised. He should consult all of the featured article criteria before renominating the article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:17, 4 March 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 17:37, 2 March 2010 [5].

Early life of Ricky Ponting

Nominator(s): —Aaroncrick (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Ricky Ponting is Australia's leading run-scorer and century maker in International cricket. This article documents Ponting's life — including his early First-class cricket career with Tasmania — up until his first International match in 1995. —Aaroncrick (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry. This is not FA standard. Much seems to have been taken from the main article, which is much better. The prose is often poor. This sentence from the Lead is a mess and is an example of many problems throughout the article. The eldest of three children, Ponting emulated the feats of his father, playing cricket in summer and Australian rules football in winter, before breaking his arm while playing the latter sport for a junior North Launceston Football Club team as a 14-year-old. There are too many facts crammed into too short a space. This gives rise to disjointed, non-professional prose that lacks logical flow. It is difficult to understand why a separate "Early Life" article is needed, let alone a featured one. He's only 35 for goodness sake! I cannot envisage this contribution achieving anything other than GA and would prefer it to be merged with its parent article, which shows much more promise. Graham Colm (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I agree with Graham's comments. Here are a few of my own:-

  • I think the abrupt ending rather advertises that this article belongs more naturally within its parent—why was it thought necessary to create it separately?
  • As to the prose, apart from Graham's criticisms there is too much use of cricket-speak clichés like "he struggled to trouble the scorers" and "He eventually reached three figures", as well as sports journalese like "he bounced back".
  • There are also far too many verbatim quotations, which give the article a decidedly non-encyclopedic feel.
  • There is confusing, careless writing such as "Set 366 runs to win in 102 overs, Ponting joined Dene Hills at the crease with the score at 2/35." That reads as though Ponting himself was set 366 to win.
  • The term "crease" remains unexplained even though this was specifically raised by the peer reviewer.
  • Why is "Fiercely contested" in quotes, in the Birth section, and what is the relevance of the last sentence of this section to the early life of Ricky Ponting?

Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – A comparable FA exists: Early life of Keith Miller. That page has much more to say than this one, is a justifiable content split from what had been a massive main article, and had a defined endpoint. All three departments are lacking here. I know getting a major athlete to FA is very difficult, but this article is just too forky for me. Also, the comments above leave me concerned about the prose. The excessive use of quotes jumped out at me immediately, and almost strikes me as an attempt to make the article appear more substantial than it is, in terms of having its own entry. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:34, 2 March 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 17:37, 2 March 2010 [6].

Jeannette Piccard

Nominator(s): SusanLesch (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Jeannette Piccard, the first woman in space and one of the first women to be ordained a priest, must be a natural for a featured article. I am nominating this because it 1) meets the featured article criteria, and 2) a new source (DeVorkin, the best yet) appeared during GA sweeps that allowed me to complete her story. Thank you. SusanLesch (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. One dab link, to Gordon Bennett Cup. External links appear fine. Some problems in the alt text: the first image should give a more detailed description of Piccard, so that readers know what she looks like. The alt texts for the diagram and map should convey the essential information that the images give to readers who can see them; see WP:ALT#Diagrams and WP:ALT#Maps. Ucucha 19:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely. David DeVorkin's Race to the Stratosphere which covers almost the whole story. I deleted what I could not source. ("Jeannette later flew helium and hot air balloons, the former with her son Don in 1964.") -SusanLesch (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh boy, thank you, PresN. Jeannette Piccard and the balloon must be copyrighted. I marked them both for deletion. When I started this article about three years ago, someone thought that photos from the Smithsonian were in the public domain but the issue was never resolved—Certainly the source of those two was not good (there might be other sources). Non-free use template was added to Jeannette and Jean, with a little better rationale. I wound up replacing this one with a slightly reduced resolution copy. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlimVirgin, I took the photo of the photo myself and saw the NASA stamp on the back with my own eyes (so she must have brought it with her to NASA). The photo wasn't labeled or titled, which says we don't know for sure what landing it is, but that's what her son told me and I have no reason to doubt him. -SusanLesch (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Susan, to claim PD for an image, we need to know something about it e.g. who took it, and particularly when it was taken, and if it's not old enough to be PD, what makes us believe it has been released. A NASA stamp just means someone placed a NASA stamp on it for some reason, perhaps because it was a copy in their archives. NASA didn't exist for another 24 years; she wasn't involved with NASA for another 30 or 40 years, or thereabouts, so NASA really has nothing to do with it. What matters is who took the photograph, because that person or their family holds the copyright, unless you can show they have explicitly released it, or they were govt employees taking it in the course of their work, for example.

    The best thing would be to download it from the Commons and claim fair use for it, though I still have a concern about saying it was the Ohio landing when we don't know that. It might be best to say on the image page that it was the Ohio landing according to a private conversation with her son in year X, and in the caption just to say it's an image of her. Sorry, I know these policies are a pain. But this is just a question of which tag to use, and whether it should be on the Commons—there's no actual problem with you using it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 08:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No I can't scan the back. I had one chance to get a shot and chose the front! The stamp on the back only concerned copyright. I think you are making a big deal out of what you don't know, instead of making a big deal about what we do know. The stamp released the photo from copyright into the public domain. When that occurred doesn't matter. Obviously it was after the fact. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only person able to release the image is the person who took it, unless they were employed by the govt at the time. The problem is that you don't know who took it. If it was a family member, then perhaps the son owns the copyright. But it could have been a journalist, or anyone. If you know how to contact the person who owns that copy, perhaps you could ask them to scan in the back of it for us, or tell us what it says. FAs have to stick to the image policies, and they're quite clear on this point—works of unknown authors or where the author's death date is unknown are copyrighted for 95 years since the date of first publication, or 120 years since their creation, unless they were published before 1923; see WP:PD. But as I said, you can still use it; it's just a question of downloading it from the Commons and claiming fair use. A claim of fair use will be fine given that she's deceased. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I actually agree with you that the photographer is unknown and I will replace the image with a fair use copy. I would ask for a photo of the back, except that would do us no good--a NASA stamp that says it is not copyrighted (which is all it says) would not satisfy the question of authorship. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, that looks fine. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
  • You call her Jeanette at times but Piccard at others, even in sections where there's no conflict with her husband's name. Piccard would be best, in my view, if it can be done without confusion, but either way it would be good not to jump around so much.
  • At GA, the confusion was the other way (the article used to say Piccard everywhere).
  • Piccard is better in case it sounds as though she's being patronized. But that can get difficult when there are other members of the same family. Whichever you choose it needs to be consistent.
  • Switched everything back again. Two occurrences left of "Jeannette": in the "Family and education" section, "Born in Chicago, Illinois, Jeannette was one of nine children...", which then avoids having to ever call her "Ridlon", and in the "Planning and pilot's license" section, "The Piccards planned a flight to the stratosphere, Jean concentrating on the science while Jeannette piloted the balloon." Are these all right now? -SusanLesch (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't say the father was "noted" without a source.
  • The statement has a source ("an eminent orthopedic surgeon") in the article.
  • This is where the link leads. [7]
  • OK, you're right. Fixed that link to point to item 1 at LoC. Also added another source that says Dr. Ridlon was president of the American Orthopedics Assocation during the late 1890s.
  • The source for "eminent" seems to the family. It's a small point and it's up to you, but I wouldn't use a word where the meaning is unclear: noted for what and by whom? I would simply say that he was Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at Northwestern University, or that he became that, depending on what he was when she was born.
  • I don't think "eminent" is sourced to the family. Rather, it's sourced to the people who processed the papers. The other source says "The AOA, the prestigious organization of the leaders of orthopaedic surgery in this country, was founded in New York in 1887." Dr. Ridlon was president the year Jeannette was born. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say more about the foster children if more is available.
  • More is not available.
  • It looks odd the way it reads. This is a busy couple, a woman who wasn't a housewife. And yet she has time not only for three children, but for foster children too, which is quite an accomplishment. Is nothing at all known about them?
I wish there was, but no more is available until the day somebody writes a biography of Jeannette Piccard. They are mentioned by the processors of the family papers at the Library of Congress, but without going to Washington, D.C., I don't know what the letters say.
I would flesh that out for the reader, something like, "The Piccard family archive in the Library of Congress mentions correspondence from foster children that the Piccards took in, although nothing seems to be known about them," so long as you're fairly sure nothing is known.
Added. Thank you. Is this all right now? -SusanLesch (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say a little bit more about the brother on first reference; as it stands it looks a bit odd. "Historian David DeVorkin wrote that Jean lived his whole life "in the shadow of his brother"[6] Auguste, who was his twin and who, with his assistant Paul Kipfer, was the first human being to reach the stratosphere."
  • What would you like it to say?
  • That's up to you. It's positioned oddly, moving from Jeannette and her husband, the three children, the foster children, then suddenly introducing the brother for the first time. It just needs fleshing out a bit, to make the narrative flow.
  • I would delink ordinary terms and names, per WP:OVERLINK.
  • Unlinked "bachelor's degree". Anything else?
  • OVERLINK says "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, common units of measurement,[3] and dates ..."
  • The quote "race for supremacy in the stratosphere" needs in-text attribution.
  • Added.
  • I think you need to say more about why Jean was difficult to deal with, if you mention it at all.
  • I handled Jean's problems as I saw fit. First introduced DeVorkin's overview, then mentioned he was difficult, and finally that they were both fired. You would like to see this in some other way. Unfortunately I can't be you. I put the first one (DeVorkin's) in a footnote. Does that work?
  • The section called Balloon is a little confusing; not clear how Jeanette fits in, especially, "The balloon then belonged to Jean and Jeannette[20] but the armed forces again decided to use it." Not clear what that means, or what the connection is to the next sentence.
  • Agree. I will attend to this with review this weekend.
  • Do you have a source for "The National Geographic Society refused to back a flight piloted by a mother, and longtime Piccard family backer Goodyear were also reluctant to support a female pilot"?

SlimVirgin TALK contribs 04:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. Source added (I don't know what happened to that, thank you).
  • The source is actually Jeanette herself, which the article should make clear. The source you added says: "As Jeannette characterized it, 'The National Geographic Society would have nothing to do with sending a woman—a mother—in a balloon into danger.'"
SlimVirgin TALK contribs 21:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you are right, the source there is Jeannette.

Hi Susan, I think you need to go through the article again and read it from the perspective of someone who hasn't read it before, and who knows nothing about Piccard. The aim is to tell the story as smoothly as possible, so there's nothing that will surprise the reader, or make them wonder what's being said. There are quite a few parts in it where it's not really clear. Just to take one example:

Jeannette and Jean became consultants to General Mills during the mid-1940s.[48] They were annoying to the complex Navy project Helios,[49] and at one point Jeannette threatened to break off ties with the Navy and General Mills unless she was allowed to fly with Jean.[50] They were both too critical of General Mills' Otto Winzen,[51] and they were fired in 1947.

There's no indication what General Mills is. I know it's linked, but it would help to say what it was, and what kind of consultants they were. How were they annoying to the Navy project Helios, and what is the connection between General Mills and Helios i.e. what is the connection between these sentences? Why would they have to break ties to be allowed to fly together? In what way were they critical of Otto Winzen, and who is Otto Winzen? Why were they fired?

There are quite a few places like that in the article, where just the bare minimum of information is given with little to link the different points. Some fleshing out for flow would help a lot. Feel free to ping me if you want me to take another look. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I can go through the whole thing this weekend. Thank you for your comments. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote this paragraph and changed a few other places. Does it read okay now? -SusanLesch (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph is a little bit better, but still not really clear:

The Piccards became consultants to General Mills (the cereal company) who developed cluster balloons with the Navy on a government contract during the mid-1940s.[47] Jean was named a project scientist, but he functioned by title only and annoyed his colleagues who had to work around him. Piccard, who became annoying herself, threatened to break off ties with the Navy and General Mills unless she was allowed to fly with Jean.[48] They were both were fired in 1947, for they were too critical of General Mills staff.

Why was a cereal company developing cluster balloons; in what way did he annoy his colleagues—just by not pulling his weight? How did Piccard becoming annoying? Is "annoying" the best word; in what way were they critical of the staff; and who is saying all this? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Break 1

Hi, thanks for putting all this extra work into it, Susan. The problem I'm having with the article is mainly twofold. First, you're not mining your sources for colour about her. Not that much detail is known—the kind of detail that paints a three-dimensional picture—so to bring her alive you really need to suck everything out of the sources. I've written out one example to show you what I mean. This covers the issue of the foster children and that she attended Jean's lectures. Using two sources for those two points, New Mexico space museum and Gilruth, you wrote (this was when I first looked the article):

The Piccards had three sons, John, Paul, and Donald, as well as foster children. Historian David DeVorkin wrote that Jean lived his whole life "in the shadow of his brother"[1] Auguste, who was his twin and who, with his assistant Paul Kipfer, was the first human being to reach the stratosphere.[2]

The Piccards taught at the University of Lausanne from 1919–26. In 1926 they returned to the United States, where Jean taught organic chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[3] The couple lived in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania before settling in Minneapolis in 1936 when Jean joined the faculty of the University of Minnesota; Jeannette attended many of his lectures there.[4]

Using the same two sources, I'd have written something like this (I'm leaving out the issue of his being in the shadow of the brother, which I think I'd have placed elsewhere):

The Piccards had three sons of their own, John, Paul, and Donald, and appear to have opened their home to foster children too—the Piccard family archive in the Library of Congress mentions correspondence from foster children, but nothing seems to be known about them.[5] Robert Gilruth of NASA recalled having breakfast with Jean and Jeannette in a hotel when they went to St. Cloud for a balloon launch, and said they had lots of boys sitting around the table with them, the youngest dumping a cornflake box on his father's head at one point. Gilruth remembered Jean as a very gentle man—the epitome of a scientist who paid no attention to his hair or his clothes, but who focused only on his work—and that it was Jeannette who was in charge. She was at least half the brains of the family, he said, technically and otherwise.[4]

Jean and Jeannette both taught at the University of Lausanne from 1919–26, returning in 1926 to the U.S. where Jean taught organic chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[6] They lived in a number of places—Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania—before settling in Minneapolis in 1936 when Jean took a teaching job at the University of Minnesota. Jeannette didn't work there herself, but Gilruth said she was almost always in the room when Jean was lecturing. "She was something," he said. "She was good."[4]

I'm not suggesting you have to write it that way, of course. You have to use your own style. But I think you do have to take as much as you can from the source material, given how little of it there is.

More added. Sorry to follow your example so closely! Is this better? -SusanLesch (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly the right way to do it. You didn't really follow my example that closely. It's clearly your own. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second problem is related. It's not clear the sources are being used completely accurately. One example: When I first saw the article, it said of National Geographic's failure to sponsor the flight, "The National Geographic Society refused to back a flight piloted by a mother ..." with no source. I requested a source and you added a footnote to this webpage, but it didn't say that; it said Piccard herself claimed it. I pointed that out to you, and you added "Piccard remembered that the National Geographic Society refused to back a flight piloted by a mother ..." [8]—but you don't know whether she remembered it, or misremembered it, or exaggerated it, or made it up. And yet the thrust of that whole section, "Overcoming prejudice" (typo in the header, by the way), seems to rest on Piccard herself.

If you look at the Gilruth interview you use as a source, he addresses this issue. There's no mention of her being discriminated against because she was a woman. Rather both she and her husband felt discriminated against, but didn't know or wouldn't say why.

GILRUTH: Yes, I remember that [Jean] Piccard was very, very hurt by the National Geographic that would not give them a dime, and they gave so much to these other people. [snip] ... Both he and Jeanette said that they were discriminated against by the National Geographic. That's not a good word. They were not aided in any way by the National Geographic, and they felt it was not really warranted. They felt they should have gotten some help from them.
DEVORKIN: They never said why.
GILRUTH: No, he didn't say why, but they certainly didn't feel they'd been handled fairly. [9]
You're right about this! DeVorkin didn't mention discrimination either. I renamed the section and added a quote from Jeannette, and then Gilruth. Is that better? -SusanLesch (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's very good now. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you need to go through the sources again, and do two things: make sure that everything relevant is in the article, with in-text attribution where it makes sense (and I think that's going to mean rewriting bits of it); and at the same time make sure it's all presented very accurately. I'm sorry not to be more positive about it at this point. It has the potential to be a gem of an article. I just don't feel that it's there yet. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, your comments are wonderful. Unfortunately I am not a good writer. I don't think that I will be able to correct this to your liking. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, Susan, I think you will. You just need to step back from it a little. I think what you are doing is trying to force too much of a structure on your sources, summarizing them too much. Read the sources again, and try to step back mentally when you write: let what they say flow through your fingertips, if I can put it that way. Let the reader see what you are seeing. Who is saying it, when are they saying it, what did they say, was it in an interview etc. It just needs fleshing out so it's clearer to the reader how much you know. Don't give up! :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've got it going now. Last night I was about ready to give up, and now it doesn't seem so impossible to do. One thing though, there needs to be a way to explain Jean's position. The DeVorkin quote about being under his brother's shadow said a lot to me. But now it's in a footnote. Possibly a part of the newly named "funding" section would work, to say he needed a job in science? -SusanLesch (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's important too, though the article shouldn't make more of it than the sources do. If a source says he needed a job in science because he felt under the shadow, then good, but otherwise we should just have it as part of a character analysis. Also in that section, the source doesn't say that the other companies didn't want to support because she was a woman, so that needs to be removed. I would include Gilruth as the source for this too: that several companies didn't want to support, and Jean and Jeannette felt discriminated against, though Jean never said why. Jeannette later said it was because she was a mother, in her view etc. Something like that. Again, be guided entirely by what the sources say, and name them where appropriate. Don't hold back on telling the reader what you know, and how you know it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 10:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction made. You're right again about this source. Gilruth, however, said nothing about any other organization than National Geographic. There are several questions for you above. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But you can use Gilruth as a source combined with the others to produce a more general statement about the lack of sponsorship. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I see you've done it already. It's much better. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her name again—sorry, I think it might be better to call her Jeannette throughout. I know you've gone back and forth on this one, but I've just noticed this, for example: "Piccard was the mother of a house full of boys. Robert R. Gilruth, one of Jean's students and collaborators, said later in his oral history, that he remembered a breakfast he had with the Piccards in a St. Cloud, Minnesota hotel before a balloon launching, "I don't know how many there were. It seems like there was a dozen.... I remember the youngest one took the corn flake box and dumped it on his father's head. Of course, Piccard just brushed it off his head and said, 'No, no.'" It might be clearer if you just plumped for Jeannette. It's up to you, though, whichever you feel easier with. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed back to Jeannette. Because this was a suggestion from the very first GA review, I think we ought to stop changing it back and forth now. The priest section maybe isn't as good this way, but it is less than half the article. So, done. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine but you had better add it to the article. The lead should summarize the article. Also someone (not you) has added four dubious sources about the Concorde and, as long as I'm complaining, I'm having trouble removing them (they are formatted differently than the article's sources). -SusanLesch (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Things in the lead don't have to be in the article too. The lead should sum up the subjects that are covered in the article, and it does that. Anyway, it's up to you entirely—if you want to remove anything, please feel free. I'm wondering if maybe this FAC should be withdrawn so you're not under so much pressure. You could then check all the sources and expand or polish at your leisure and resubmit in a few weeks. Again, just a suggestion. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, are you saying that you cannot forsee supporting this now? I thought that the article was so much improved that you would. For heavens sake, thank you for your help! -SusanLesch (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Break 2

Susan, you've improved it a lot, but there's still a fair bit of work ahead. The problem is that you fix whatever I mention, but you have to go on to fix the rest of it in the same spirit. :-) The article has to be comprehensive about her life (the technical stuff about other flights matters less, in my view), and there can't be anything confusing in the text. I'm concerned that things are still appearing in sources that weren't in the original text e.g. that she was the first of the first 11 to be ordained—it's a small detail but it's the kind of thing a good bio hangs on, because that must have been a very emotional moment for her, especially for a woman who wanted to be the first this, the first that—and there may be other material like that out there.

The notes and refs are a bit untidy looking, with some sentences having multiples refs or notes after or inside them e.g. "That same year she met and married Jean Felix Piccard,[nb 1] who was teaching at the university.[nb 2]" The untidiness apart, both of the things in notes would benefit from being in the text. And why would this sentence—"On November 20, 1933, with only a few hundred onlookers this time, Settle and Maj. Chester L. Fordney of the U.S. Marine Corps flew the Century of Progress balloon from Akron, Ohio, reaching 61,237 feet (18,665 m), a new Fédération Aéronautique Internationale altitude record.[21][28][29][nb 3]"—need three refs and an additional note after it? Ideally, you shouldn't have refs inside sentences or multiple refs after sentences unless they're really needed. There are no hard and fast rules, but when you're adding multiple refs and notes like that, always be asking yourself how necessary they are, because they do force the reader's eye toward them and away from the text. I see you had a few multiple refs before you brought the article to FAC, [10] but they've increased as you're trying to add and pin down material.

Some of the writing is still unclear e.g. "Jeannette reportedly made "unplanned and impulsive manoeuvres" resulting in an incomplete record of their actions during the flight"—why would that result in an incomplete record? "Auguste turned the project over to his twin brother Jean ..." but in what sense? He didn't fly, but was he otherwise involved? "The balloon then belonged to the Piccards[27] but the armed forces again decided to use it." Belonged to them in what sense? Did they not want the armed forces to use it? "Henry Ford offered the use of his hangar and brought Orville Wright to observe a flight in 1933." Observe what flight (one of hers?), and would it be better to explain who Orville Wright is? You don't include a lot of Time's details [11] e.g. that Henry Ford was there for the 1934 flight, or that Time regarded it as basically a stunt.

Also, is everything carefully sourced? E.g. "Auguste turned the project over to his twin brother Jean,[18] who, with Jeannette, was to be given the balloon and gondola ..." Does the source say "with Jeanette"?

I'm happy to support if you can sort out the issues, and I take my hat off to you for sticking with it, but I'm thinking you might feel under less pressure without an open nomination. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 08:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan, I thought it might help if you were to read some other bios of non-living women to see how they deal with chronology versus other ways of structuring, and how they lay out refs. Some FAs about women as examples: Alice Ayres, Emmeline Pankhurst, Mary Toft, Ima Hogg, and Harriet Bosse. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 09:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the examples. I've read Pankhurst's before but not the others.
  • Most of the refs are combined, so they don't interrupt the reader. There are a couple remaining, like "a claim allowed even by Valentina Tereshkova."[39][nb 4]" which could be eliminated with more tricks. But combined refs are getting pretty complicated—other people may want to edit in the future. What do you think? Do they look all right now?
  • The Time story is interesting for calling it a stunt. The article does mention DeVorkin's point that "manned balloon flight" was basically wrong-headed, but only once. I could expand on this sentence (it's at the end of "Legacy") if you like.
  • Yes, the source says "with Jeannette".
  • I added to the "Balloon" section.
  • "The problem is that you fix whatever I mention, but you have to go on to fix the rest of it in the same spirit. :-)" Yes, but actually I did quite a lot of this and in the same spirit. Yesterday you added quotes to the lead, that weren't in the article the day before. Two more new quotes added to the "Planning and pilot's license" section today.
  • Speaking of which, Time is the only source for her being the "first licensed woman balloon pilot". I panicked for a second, failing to find my source in Google. But Time should be okay.

Made quite a bit of progress today. Do you have other issues? Thank you for hanging in there! -SusanLesch (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting much better, including the refs. Bear in mind that not everything that's in the lead needs to be repeated in the article, quotations particularly. The point of saying the lead needs to reflect the article is just to make sure you don't add something like, "And in 1945 she sailed off the top of the highest building in New York," but then fail to elaborate in the text. :) It doesn't cover every detail or quote, or things added for colour. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 14:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the encouragement. (Yes, you're right. I used to conflate WP:LEAD and WP:SUMMARY into a made-up rule for the lead being a summary. This was mistaken although it might have helped stop front-loading in some articles especially about politicians.) I have the whole day today free after lunch. Do you you think we are there or do you have any more issues I can work on? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a question of making sure everything that's known about her is in the article, or that you've decided not to include it—but there shouldn't be anything significant that you don't know about. And then polishing, polishing, polishing to create a smooth read, to make sure there are no jagged edges in the sentences, or in the way the story flows. Make sure that each sentence flows into the next, that they all make sense as stand-alone sentences, and that each paragraph flows into the next. The reader shouldn't be left feeling puzzled or surprised. Ask yourself whether you've explained everything clearly. What happened to Jean being difficult to worth with, by the way? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jean's problems are in the scans I sent you. From my talk page, I thought you were going to write that section? Also, I thought that the goal of what I am doing is for you to support this article. It is surely a better article since you commented, and if there are no other issues, then it would be great to see a supporting vote. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That was the General Mills paragraph I was going to look at; sorry I haven't done it, but I wasn't expecting to have to read 18 pages to find it. :) The thing I was talking about above is that you referred to him being difficult in an earlier version of the balloon section, but it's gone now. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added some generalities in the "Balloon" section. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You added, "Historian David DeVorkin wrote that Jean lived his whole life in the shadow of his brother, which made him difficult for the fair organizers to deal with."[7] But it again begs the question of what kind of difficulty, and what the link is between that and his brother. And later when you say he caused misunderstandings and annoyances—what kind and how? The picture you're painting isn't coming alive for the reader. For example, look at the first and second sections. There's no narrative link between them explaining how Jeannette became a balloonist and why. Why did the organizers of the 1933 decide to give Jean and Jeannette the balloon: what was she doing that made her part of the picture? If we don't know, that's fine, but I'm wondering if there are sources out there that explain. And later on, what did she do to become an inventor of the plastic balloon?

I wonder whether your taking a break from reading or editing the article would help. I know I've been in situations with articles where I've read them so often that I stop being able to see the problems. A short break can make all the difference. I'm really sorry I can't support it at the moment. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 21:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update. I undid the above additions. Two quick things.

  • There is no source that I know of for why Jeannette became a balloonist, but it must have been her association with her husband. (This becomes original research which we don't do here.) Instead of making that up, there is now a quote from DeVorkin at the end of the "Family and education" section. It works as a transition.
  • There is no source for why Jeannette invented the plastic balloon. Unfortunately I will need to drop this paragraph because I myself have not seen the book to which it refers. I asked Don Piccard who told me this, specific questions about the invention. But Toledo, DeVorkin would have mentioned it if it were literally true. One has to be very careful on Wikipedia not to assign "firsts" and "inventions" because of the broad base of input. Safest I think to completely drop it.

I expect to continue work on the "Later life..." section today, which will relieve SlimVirgin from having to read 30 pages of scans of detailed source. Thanks very much for the offer. _SusanLesch (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have a whole new article and to celebrate I named a section "Auguste and Jean" followed by "Balloon and Thomas Settle flights". I don't think that we need to go into any more detail about the General Mills consultancies, and I added only the name of Otto Winzen who made the proposal behind them. I will keep working on the English and punctuation while waiting for some feedback. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting much better. The writing is more professional, and the story's starting to flow. Still a few spots that aren't entirely clear. For example, "Unfortunately, Jean became a major annoyance when he tried independently to find funding from DuPont, and when he sought to go over the flight organizers' heads by contacting the president of the fair (who was a friend of Jeannette's father)." What does the source say exactly? You cite DeVorkin, pp. 59, 74, 76. Specifically I'm wondering why they would have objected to his finding funding himself, and what he tried to go over their heads about.
The first isn't really explained well. "Unfortunately, Jean became an annoyance. When he tried independently to find funding from DuPont, he told them the flight from Soldier Field in Chicago could be dangerous, and was turned down." What is the flight from Soldier Field; is it the balloon flight? And how could it not be dangerous? What does the source actually say about these issues (and the contacting of the president)? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 04:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further down, who were the two Nobel Prize winners? Also, you mention the Piccard-Compton flight before you've mentioned Compton. And "During the negotiations, the organizers agreed to give Jean and Jeannette the balloon and gondola after its initial flight, in exchange for Jean remaining on the ground." Why would they have to do that? If the Piccards were annoying them, were not flying, and were not allowed to find independent funding, what did the organizers want from them that caused them to promise the Piccards the balloon? And, "Eventually, Jean was demoted from science observer to not flying at all." Is a science observer necessarily someone who flies?
  • Nobel prize winners omitted for now. (They were Compton and Millikan.) In their place, the article might answer your next question now (the name Piccard was that famous). Does it answer?
  • If not I'll go back the other way (but it seems like wasted energy). Do you think Compton followed by Compton is still a problem? If so, that requires surgery.
  • Added "inflight" before "science observer". Sorry for the mixup. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You suddenly introduce this quote at the launch—"The sportsmanship and unselfishness displayed by Dr. Jean Piccard in surrendering his place in the balloon so that a greater altitude may be achieved through the lessened weight of himself and his equipment—is a note of sacrifice that will not be forgotten"—without having mentioned before that he was giving up a place to make the balloon lighter. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Jean ever gave up. But you're right, this was abrupt. Added a bit about an MoU that Jean signed (but I risk putting something else out of order). How does it look? -SusanLesch (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But you don't mention the issue of the balloon needing to be lighter. You say they didn't want him to fly, but not why. And you give the impression he was fighting to stay in the balloon, not that he made a grand sacrifice. So was the quote at the launch just politics? These things all need to be explained. You're introducing material out of the blue, that's the problem. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 04:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but 'Jean signed a memorandum of understanding with the organizers that said he would remain on the ground, "permitting Commander Settle to go alone. The reduction in weight thereby produced will most assuredly enable Commander Settle to reach a higher altitude".' seems to be a direct answer to your question. What am I missing? Or are you missing? -SusanLesch (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You talk all the way through about he wanted to fly, thought he was flying, had to be promised the balloon so that he'd agree not to fly. Then you suddenly tell us that, at the launch, he was thanked for an act of self-sacrifice, the point of which was to make the balloon lighter. But the launch (or now the memorandum) is the first time you've mentioned the weight issue. Also, this sentence needs to be fixed: "After battling with an associate of the fair's director of concessions who wanted Jean out of the picture and then wanted Auguste to return to the U.S. to fly, the Piccard name (which bore considerable publicity value) was kept prominently ..." This says that the Piccard name was battling. I assume it was Jean who was battling. But that again raises the question about the sacrifice issue. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 04:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I've been hoping this could be sorted out, and it is indeed improving, but progress is slow and I don't see it being fixed for quite some time at this rate. The issues are 1(a) prose problems—the writing is unclear in places, sentences are disjointed, names and events are introduced without prior explanation, and the connections between people and events are often confused. 1(b) I'm not confident that the article reflects everything that's out there, or that the sources that have been used have been consulted thoroughly. 1(c) I have concerns that the material isn't staying true to the source material.

    I was also concerned yesterday to see that, after 14 days at FAC, there was still original research in the article (about Jeannette being the inventor of the plastic balloon, something the nominator was told privately) [12] and it only came to light because I asked about it. That makes me wonder what else is not properly sourced. I'm sorry, Susan. I'd advise you to try to work on it some more, then take it to peer review. I'd be happy to help review it there if you wanted me to. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 04:25, 2 March 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.
  1. ^ DeVorkin, p. 363
  2. ^ DeVorkin, p. 2
  3. ^ "Jean Piccard". New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs: New Mexico Museum of Space History. Retrieved January 17, 2010.
  4. ^ a b c Gilruth, Dr. Robert (May 14, 1986). "NASM Oral History Project, Gilruth #2". Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. Retrieved January 27, 2007.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Item1-LOC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ "Jean Piccard". New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs: New Mexico Museum of Space History. Retrieved January 17, 2010.
  7. ^ DeVorkin, p. 363
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/March_2010&oldid=348194379"