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 3
archive 2
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOC limit}}
{{TOC limit}}
== March 2010 ==
== March 2010 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion/archive3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Convention of 1833/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Give It 2 Me/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Give It 2 Me/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Commerce Square/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Commerce Square/archive1}}

Revision as of 14:03, 23 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 Karanacs 14:03, 23 March 2010 [1].

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Nominator(s): Anonymous Dissident, G.W. 11:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe all the concerns from last time have been addressed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No Dabs or broken links (though there's a couple that redirect), but the "Inventory Interface" image doesn't have alt text. --PresN 16:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Oppose. One image lacks alt text. Ucucha 01:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Comments from alt text from a previous FAC that still seem applicable: Alt text present, except for File:Standard_inventory_interface,_Oblivion_2006-12-27.jpg. Much of the remaining alt text is great, but I see a few problems. In the lead image, you seem to be interpreting too much instead of just telling what is on the image (for example, instead of saying it contains "the title of the game", say "The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion" or even describe the visual appearance of the title in a little more detail if you think that is important). The use of "camera" seems dubious in alt text for computer-drawn pictures. Ucucha 18:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the use of "camera" in this context is well-established, especially where it is used in reference to video games. Thus Resident Evil is said to have a fixed camera, early 3D games had difficulty creating a fluid camera system, and so on. This is the sense the word is used in our article on virtual camera systems. I found it the best way of conveying the sense "from the point of view of the player character". The nearest alternatives I can think of are less than optimal: referring to the player character as a material thing seems more dubious to me than speaking of a camera,, I don't believe we are permitted to write something like "you see", and I find constructions that refer to "perspective" or "point of view" very awkward (or perhaps I'm just not good at writing them). I am open to suggestions for improvement, though. Regards, G.W. (Talk) 04:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a small problem and I'm willing to let it go. The other issues stand, though, and I am now switching to an oppose until they are addressed (particularly, the missing alt text). Ucucha 01:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—My concerns about this article were addressed during the previous FAC. I ran through it a couple more times, but didn't spot any significant deficiencies that still need to be fixed. Thus I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Well done and thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Seegoon:

  • "and features the music of BAFTA-award-winning composer Jeremy Soule" – there's a minor ambiguity here. Does it feature music previously composed by Soule, or specially-commissioned work? The current sentence implies the former, I'd argue.
    • I'd argue that it's not an ambiguity, but simply a lack of information. Just as the sentence doesn't provide Soule's birthdate and the type of music he composed, it does not mention whether the music is old or new. This is the lead, so a summary description is desirable. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PlayStation article calls for a capital S. I know it's nitpicky, but this article should really comply with that guideline.
  • "The player is free to go anywhere in the realm of Cyrodiil at any time while playing the game" – this is the first mention of 'Cyrodiil'; it should be explained exactly what that is.
  • "At the beginning of the game, the player select an anthropomorphic race, each of which has different natural abilities, and customize their character's appearance." – should either be "selects" and "customizes" or "the player must/ is asked to...". Also, it may be worth wiktionary-linking to anthropomorphism.

I don't have time to carry on going through; just thought I'd drop by and see what I could see. I haven't come across any genuine problems that would prevent a support, but perhaps the prose could do with a fine-toothed combing, as is the case with any article ever. Seegoon (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media Check: Not Passed - 5 images, 1 audio file. All are fair-use. File:Standard inventory interface, Oblivion 2006-12-27.jpg needs to mention in its rationale this article, not just the gameplay article. Same with File:Oblivion—Horse Armor.jpg. File:ElderScrollsOblivionScreenshot11.jpg, File:Oblivion—Horse Armor.jpg, and File:Forestride.jpg need a stronger purpose statement- to "aid in the description of the game" isn't specific enough to say why that particular image needs to be used. Try using some of what you say in the image captions in the rationale. --PresN 20:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will address this and post here again when finished. G.W. (Talk) 21:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On consideration, the inclusion of both the FORESTRIDE and STANDARD INVENTORY INTERFACE seems a bit much. At the moment, the sole purpose for FORESTRIDE I can imagine is "this game includes horses", which is already satisfied by HORSE ARMOR. As it serves no purpose, I suggest that the image be murdered, leaving only STANDARD INVENTORY INTERFACE in the opening section. I defer to Dissident for final judgment on this matter. G.W. (Talk) 21:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On further consideration, the STANDARD INVENTORY INTERFACE is not necessary here either, since none of its functions (already elaborated in its internal text, for use in the series' gameplay article) are made purposeful in the accompanying article text, and I can see no way in which the article text is demonstrated in the image. The text does not discuss the inventory management in such detail as to make the image necessary, nor does it elucidate the skill and combat systems (which are, with good reason, the focus of the "gameplay" section in which the image is sited). So, um, I would have both images removed. I will again defer to Dissident for final judgment on this matter. G.W. (Talk) 21:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Having played the game, I would argue that the inventory interface is a significant part of the experience (as it is with virtually all role-playing games). I think the role played by the inventory management within the article should be expanded upon, rather than having the image removed.—RJH (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made specific rationales for the other two images. I have also tied the images more clearly to the article text and specified which aspects of article text they demonstrate. G.W. (Talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose.Support. I think this article is really close, but there are a couple of things I would still like to see in it. First, there is no mention made of the developers of the game, who they were, if they were veterans of the series, what the team size was, etc. Some of this information may not be available, but it seems odd to discuss the development of a product without naming any names. Second, the DLC section needs a little fleshing out within the larger context of DLC on the Xbox platform. As one of the first games to heavily pursue DLC, Oblivion was an early test of how other developers would use DLC to enhance products. For example, I imagine the outrage over the horse armor played a role in shaping future concepts of DLC pricing and value. If sources cannot be found for some of this after a good faith effort, I may change my vote, but I would really like to see this addressed. Finally, I took the liberty of removing the section on Limbo of the Lost, since another developer stealing resources from Oblivion really has no bearing on the game itself. Indrian (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Important names are mentioned – Todd Howard and Ken Rolston, for instance. Why should we mention the names of non-notable developers? That registers as useless information. The development team was Bethesda Game Studios; that's enough. I don't know what to say about the DLC grievance. The information you're asking for is very general and possibly non-existent. Still, I'll give it a shot and get back to you. I'm acquiescent to your removal of the Limbo of the Lost section. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The DLC one may be a bit of a stretch due to available sources, so that is not a deal breaker. If you look and don't see anything I will strike that objection no problem. Howard and Rolston are only mentioned in the infobox that I can see, though you can correct me if I am wrong. You are entirely correct that names should be kept to a minimum, but something like "Ken Rolston, who was also lead designer on Morrowind, oversaw a team of X number of people (Moby Games can probably help with numbers if nothing else can) in the development of the game." Nothing to big or cumbersome, just an idea of project scope and an acknowledgement that the same people behind the third game also steered the fourth. Indrian (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Check the toolbox; there is a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Pretty well-written.
  • Concern about NFC. The first pic shows a man on a horse. Does this satisfy WP:NFCC#8? The "Horse Armor" pic: does it show why the content package was deemed meager by gamers? No. 8 again, and overall No. 3. Tony (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think both meet the criteria. The first one portrays the game world, the player character, and a key element of the gameplay (travel); it certainly has contextual significance in the Gameplay section. The second one does show why the content was deemed meagre: what's in the picture is all there is to it! —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now on sources. Found several to be questionable, and other problems.
  • What makes the following reliable sources:
  • Gamingnexus.com; also, the link given doesn't have any article.. comes up blank for me.
  • Theconsolewars.blogspot.com
  • Oblivionsource.com; looks like some kid's home-programmed and self-hosted project. Staff page is blank.
  • Imperial-library.info; by "Proweler"? "[T]he topic titles have been altered to make the conversations flow more smoothly"?
  • Music4games.net; site isn't even running any more.
  • There are inconsistencies in the references. For example, footnote 30 has the publisher listed, but 58 doesn't, even though they are from the same source.
  • You've stuck multiple sources into single footnotes in a few places... Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, but I don't believe that is an accepted convention.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some looking, and refs two and three look irreplaceable. The information they point towards is simply not discussed anywhere but on forums. (For example, that at the edge of the world "You cannot go that way, turn back." is displayed.) What do you think? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand your question. In asking what makes them reliable, I'm saying they shouldn't be used unless we can come up with proof that they meet WP:RS. If you're stating something that is in the game, you don't usually need a source, because the source is the game. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I've not read the article) - I believe that a screenshot of first-person gameplay, either combat or dialogue, would serve the reader a lot better than a picture of a man riding a horse. None of the screenshots actually shows what active gameplay entails. How about taking a screenshot outside the Oblivion gates, or actually in the plane of Oblivion? I don't think the non-free usage is excessive in the article, but do think it could be more effective. - hahnchen 00:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with above. A picture of first person and if possible also a picture with dialogue options would be very helpful to the reader. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The reception section is not of featured standard. Compared to the rest of the article and the other sections, it's quite short. Let's start with something easy - it should contain the sales information (commercial reception) from the article lead. But it's more fundamentally flawed than that - it doesn't flow well, the weighting is wrong, and it isn't comprehensive.
    • You've spent a paragraph nitpicking, pointing out voice acting and levelling - in a game where the response has been almost universally positive, why is this the most significant passage?
    • The sentence regarding Xbox 360 is confusing, because it contains a clause regarding the Windows version, then cuts back to the 360 - I'm not sure how important something related to one SKU on one platform is anyway.
    • The audio reception is disjointed. There's some in the audio section, and some in the reception section. Even the bits in the reception section is disjointed, skipping a paragraph.
    • Why is there a paragraph dedicated IGN's position on the minor criticisms, when IGN's minor criticisms are never stated?
  • In conclusion, I feel the entire reception section needs reworking from the ground up. Each facet of the game should be critiqued, there should be separate paragraphs on the plot, the gameplay, the graphics and the audio. You need to consider what the most important elements of the game are, and analyse what critics thought of it. Right now, I know more about what people thought of the voice acting, then I did of the fundamental gameplay. - hahnchen 23:20, 22 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 14:03, 23 March 2010 [3].

Convention of 1833

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I bring to you another example of crazy Texas politics. Illegal political convention? Check. Crazy politicians who want to secede? Check. Racial tensions? Check. Ringleader arrested for treason? Check. Government bowing to demands from said crazy and treasonous people? Check. Alt text? Check. Still wondering how on earth Texas managed to successfuly separate from Mexico? Me too. Karanacs (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I expanded the lead a bit, but since the article is so short I don't see much point in expanding it much beyond this. If you feel I've left out anything in particular, please let me know. Karanacs (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with regard to Criterion 1a - I never knew American history could be so interesting, given that they haven't got much (joke). An engaging and well-written contribution, I have taken the liberty of making a few edits rather than list a load of nitpicks here. If my suggestions are not helpful, please feel free to revert them. Graham Colm (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look good, though some are a bit old.
    • I don't think you need the (month year) in the citations, as it makes it look a little inconsistent, but that's minor and your call.
    • Refs 16 and 19 aren't consistent (do you want to parenthesize "Texas States Historical Association" or not, and what date do you want, numbers or spelled out?) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fixed the ref formatting issues. I generally follow the month-year format for journal articles in case I come across another journal article written by one of these authors in the same year (this has happened a few times). Much of the research on this convention was done a long time ago, which is why the sources seem so old. My recent books, for the most part, don't include most of the details. Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Are you gonna sort those refs chronologically as well as alphabetically? Missing refs: Barker (Oct 1952) [which one is the typo: '02 or '52? Both are in the notes. My money's on the former, but the latter is what shows up in the sources], Henson (1982). • Ling.Nut 14:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose needs work. It's a worthy candidate, but an independent copy-edit is required throughout. I've looked through bits of it, especially at the top. More is needed.

  • MoS breach at opening: please see WP:MOSDASH concerning the spacing of en dashes. Here, 1 and 13 are the elements.
  • "whose" is awkward here, standing for "the Convention's". I take a soft line on getting around this engineering fault in the language, but this is too exposed, IMO.
  • Two "also"s in a short para (lead). Consider tossing the second one.
  • Consider trashing "some"—"After initial successes"?
  • Wrote the letter to whom?
  • "including allowing" ... ing ing.
  • "comprised of". Nope: "comprising" or "consisting of". Use the former if you want to emphasise wholeness.
  • Number of Americans blossomed? Just plain "increased" might be better. Or "rapidly increased".
  • "The proposed document"—the document itself wasn't proposed; it existed.
  • Another para with two "also"s. I think the one before "be interpreted" could go. And then the same in the para starting "A few of". Please audit for "also-itis", a disease. Again, the second of the two could probably go (you've already got "Going a step further", which does the job of connecting with the previous sentence). Every sentence is, by default, an also.
  • A few stubby sentences, which could be joined with semicolons, or here, subject to more major surgery: "This was a novel idea.[27] Spanish law did not prohibit such punishment."
  • "an uproar"; consider removing "an". Tony (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple refs with same content, recommend using named ref:
  • Henson (1982), pp. 47–8.
  • Davis (2006), p. 92.
  • Barker (1985), p. 351.
Multiple references with the same name, causes improper linking (note overlap with previous issue):
  • henson47and48
  • davis92
  • barker351
  • ericson459
Multiple use of same author with {{citation}} causes duplicate id; see Template:Citation#IDs_must_be_unique and W3C markup validation for Convention of 1833
{{citation|last=Steen|first=Ralph W.
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:01, 22 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 00:17, 21 March 2010 [4].

Give It 2 Me

Nominator(s): --Legolas (talk2me) 08:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe this is a complete article on a song, including its background story, its music composition, the critial reviews, the commercial acceptance, promotional tools, charts etc. A complete and comprehensive article on a song, and it is in accordance with WP:FAC also. The article passed its GAR long back, and has been updated much from that point. Hence I am nominating the article, hoping that it would pass its FAC. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check: Passed - 5 images. 2 Fair Use, 3 free use. 4 images. 2 Fair Use, 2 free use. File:Give_it_2_me-Madonna_Lola.jpg, while marked as a Flickr-transfer on Commons, has not been verified by a Commons admin. File:Give it 2 me.jpg, while verified by OTRS, still has a copyright watermark on it. Those two images are also almost identical, so from an editorial standpoint I don't see why the article needs both. The fair use ones are the album cover and a scene from the music video, which is briefly mentioned in the text, though I'm not seeing the "backgrounds" or her clothing which is discussed, so I think the image could be replaced with a better one from the video if possible. --PresN 19:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Give it 2 me-Madonna Lola.jpg has been passed. File:Give it 2 me.jpg ofcourse has the copyright watermark on it, if you read the Ticket. The ticket claims that the owner's or rather the photographer's name is acknowledged in the images. As for identicality, that can be resolved by removing it which is done. As for the music video image, it is clearly described regarding the retro-chic look that Madonna took on in the dressing style and the photoshoot. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns taken care of. That image should, per the tag on it, have the copyright stamp cropped out or colored out, but as it is no longer in the article it is no concern of this FAC. Thanks! --PresN 17:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry but the article could have pass through a peer review before the nomination, the attention to details is quite poor, for example in the lead it said "Madonna's thirty-ninth number one single", and the same line in the chart performance have it with a hyphen, then some of the information in the lead are not in the article: the cowbells, the Grammy nomination. The music terminology is also incorrect, the flat symbol must be "♭" not the letter, and the sharp symbol must be "♯", not the number sign. The references from Amazon and itunes, don't know if they are allowed to be used, other are in other languages:German, Czech, French. I think it should be mentioned, also I believe the publisher parameter in the template is for the company not the person, so Jann Wanner should be replaced in the Rolling Stone reference, the same with the PopMatters reference. Some of the wikilinks are incorrect for example the Dutch Top 40 have its own article, why does it links to the MegaCharts, the same with the key of the song, it go to the letter G, why is that wikilink helpfull. Like I said before, despite the fact that is not a requierement, this article should go to a peer review first.190.234.198.27 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cowbell information is definitely present in the article, please see the Boston Globe review. And what are you talking about? Where is the wikilink taking you to G? And publisher is generally the owner of the company, in case of Rolling Stone its Jann Wenner, hence that is used. And it is perfectly logical to to use MegaCharts in place of Dutch Top 40, both article are unsourced anyways. References from Amazon and iTunes are reliable and have been discussed at [WP:RSN]]. Please make yourself familiar with such matters before making baseless comments. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support. The article is very well written, sourced and formatted (great job Legolas!). but, just nitpicking here, maybe could the photos used throughout the article be a bit more bigger, and, similar to 4 Minutes (Madonna song) (FA), could the quote pertaining to the songs inspiration be a block quote? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 05:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely :) --Legolas (talk2me) 05:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Writing and inspiration
  • The title of the song was initially decided by Madonna, to be used as the main title, for the then unnamed album. This reads a bit odd. How about something along the lines of: Initially, Madonna had decided that the title of the song was to be used for her then-unnamed album.
Critical reception
  • ...[the] West-African inspired percussion bridge–airdropped onto the album and randomly landing at this point—completely disrupts the song’s full potential. This probably shouldn't bother me because this is what the review used, but shouldn't the text in bold be separated by an em dash (—) as opposed by an en dash (–)?
Chart performance
  • ...becoming the highest debut, but dropped off the chart the following week. Madonna's highest debut? Highest debut of that week? This should be clarified.
  • This debut was due to digital sales only, and it debuted on the... Gets a bit repetitive with "debut".
  • ...but could not top its debut peak of eight.' Maybe change "could" to "did"?
  • In August, "Give It 2 Me" debuted at number...' In August of what year?
Music video

Comments from Ipodnano05

Everything seems to be in order, except a few minor prose errors. I will be listing my comments: *Maybe the second and third paragraph in the lead should be merged into one paragraph.

That's pretty much it. The article is well written and has all the foundations and requirements to become a Featured Article in Wikipedia. If these comments are dealt with, then there should be no problem in listing it. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 00:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you please add year end charts. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Year-end charts are not available for "Give It 2 Me". The single performed moderately everywhere. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, since top tens are usually on year-end charts but its perfectly reasonable. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 04:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well "Give It 2 Me" did reach top-ten, but frankly, did not have any longetivity on the charts. Hence the absence from year-end charts. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Now that all my comments were addressed I support for this article to become an FA in Wikipedia. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

* On the 'procession and succession' there are "Türkiye Top 20" and "Romanian Top 100", but both are not mentioned on the charts table. Can this be clarified? Remove them or add to the chart table.

Overall, I think it is a very nice article. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Bluesatellite (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent)You cannot assume that they are using a different key just because its the stage band arrangement. Also, the product itself states Alfred Publishing Co., Inc. presents "Give It 2 Me, As performed by Madonna on the album Hard Candy". This product contains music composed by Pharrell Williams. I see no reason to not use it. Thank you. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor can you assume they are not using a different key. We'll have to agree to disagree. There's no way I'm going to accept a concert band arrangement of a song as a source for facts about the album recording of the song. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. It's not my assumption that I am using. Musicnotes.com is reliable and cite Warner and Alfred Publishing, hence I will go with them, rather what you think. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Support. Well written and sourced article, on par with previous FA, "4 Minutes". --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)
  • "although appears to be about dance and sex" - should be "although it appears to be about dance and sex"
  • "spanning for three decades" should be just "spanning three decades"
    • Corrected
  • "while it attained top-ten positions on the charts of the rest of the European nations" - it did not achieve a top ten position in literally every other European country, so "while it attained top-ten positions on the charts of many other European nations" would be better
    • Corrected
  • "However, she criticised the "Get stupid" interlude" - this implies that readers will know what this "interlude" is, but it has not been mentioned/described in the article. What is it.....?
    • Already present.
  • "Pete Paphides of The Times noted how differential Madonna sounded" - "differential" should simply be "different"
    • Corrected.
  • "The video was shot during Madonna's photo shoot with Elle magazine, for its May Cover Girl issue" - "cover girl" is not capitalised in the lead, please be consistent in how you write it
    • Corrected.
  • "The video concludes, with an exhausted Madonna" - no need for the comma after "concludes"
  • "Bill Lamb of About.com, complimented on" - no need for comma after About.com, and no need for the word "on", you don't compliment on something, you just compliment it
  • "while putting up their hands in the air" => "while putting their hands up in the air"

Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm willing to support if you can address the prose problems, and the source problem Andy raised above, plus the other issues. Otherwise, this is not ready yet for FA status. I've included comments below. These are examples of problems, not meant to be considered an exhaustive list. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is nothing wrong with the source above pointed by Andy. He is just interpreting his own original research, which I cannot accept. I will go with a reliable source like Musicnotes.com. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Legolas, I don't believe you understand the nature of my opposition. Musicnotes.com is not a source. It's just a commercial web site selling sheet music. How is that a source? Additionally, you are attempting to glean information about the recorded arrangement of this song based on a concert band arrangement. If you knew anything about music, you would know this is impossible. Please stop incorrectly characterizing my position. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
    • Jargon.
      • What jargon?
    • Prose — word choices: similar named song should be similarly named song. Also, Daily Mail called the video "kinky" and felt that "[Madonna] has no plans to tone down her racy image..." Daily Mail felt? oh please, how about Daily Mail suggested, or something. Felt is soooo new age.
      • Similar named song works just fine. I changed it to similarly. Whatever works for you. Changed the word to "wrote", because they really wrote it. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • verb/noun agreement. Another: At the "Get stupid" interlude, Williams is shown dragging a bag along the floor behind Madonna, thus portraying that he is stupid. I don't understand the connection. Is this someone's interpretation? How does a guy dragging a bag indicate stupidity? Another: "Give It 2 Me" also peaked within the top ten of the official charts of Austria, Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia)... etc. also peaked among the top ten songs of the official charts. This suggests, doesn't it, that this song was more popular in Europe than the US?
      • comma faults: yes. multiple.
      • comma faults AND verb/noun agreement: According to MTV, elements from Madonna's 2006 Confessions Tour, was included in the dance choreography..... According to MTV was included in the dance choreography? No, According to MTV, elements from Madonna's 2006 Confessions Tour WERE included in the dance choreography.
      • weak verb choices: The song was performed during the promotional tour for the Hard Candy album, and the 2008–09 Sticky & Sweet Tour; both performances were similar. In the promotional tour, "Give It 2 Me" was performed as the fifth song of the setlist. Madonna wore a shiny black dress with black tails, Adidas track pants and high-heeled, lace-up boots.[45] Every time the chorus was played, Madonna and her back-up dancers jumped up and down, while putting up their hands in the air. was performed. was played. How about played, performed? Don't know how to classify "while putting their hands in the air not even sure what it means. Do you mean raising their hands? Waving their hands? Was this synchronized, was it supposed to mean something?
        • "Was performed" is a correct form of the verb, being used as Past Perfect tense. Changed the later to just "played". According to your suggestion the line would have become "Give It 2 Me performed as the fifth song of the setlist" which frankly doesnot make any sense. And changed the later line to "waving their hands up in the air". --Legolas (talk2me) 04:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • punctuation (aside from comma faults): punctuation sometimes inside, sometimes outside the quotation marks.
        • When a full quote is written, the quote marks is placed outside the full-stop. When only a part or a phrase is used, the quotes are placed before the full-stop. This is the normal way of writing. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be kind to Madonna. This quote: "['Give It 2 Me'] is basically [opposite in meaning]. I'm not [...], 'give me all you got' [kind of person], so it's quite a sort of tough stance." ... is unintelligible. What is she saying? Are you deleting the f word? If you are, then perhaps paraphrasing her quote to those of us less familiar with her to make sense of it.
    • The original line stated "According to her, ['Give It 2 Me'] is basically you know I'm not you know, give me all you got, so it's quite a sort of tough stance". She basically meant that she is not a kind of person, who will be saying 'give it to me' to somebody, hence its an opposite attitude. If you want, I can write it in prose, instead of quoting it, however, the original quote was unintelligible. I believe I improved upon it further. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • continuously repeated within the song....well you could say continuously repeated again and again, but perhaps repeated is sufficient. this whole sentence is structurally problematic, but that would be a big help. Madonna explained that a prominent theme of the Hard Candy album, was about incorporating the image of a boxer, an idea which has been continuously repeated within the song There is also a comma fault in this sentence.
      • and so on.... I cannot support at this time. Perhaps a prose review is in order, overall? Did you have a review done in the project? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:52, 18 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 00:17, 21 March 2010 [5].

Commerce Square

Nominator(s): Mephiston999 (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has just passed GA nomination and I think it is ready or close to ready to become an FA. Mephiston999 (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links; alt text was not present but I added it. Ucucha 14:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments While I wasn't planning on bringing Commerce Square to Featured Articles I do feel the article is complete, using all the references I could find. Medvedenko (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Fixed; thanks. The footnote wikilinking is busted; please fix this. There are two references to footnote [a] but the backlink from footnote [a] points to just one of the references. This hurts navigation. A symptom is that the article contains invalid HTML; see Help:Markup validation #ID already defined. Eubulides (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - The prose, particularly the lead, does a good job but I'm not convinced it's completely at an FA level as of yet. The mistakes seem to be a lack of attention to small details, which isn't necessarily bad, but is a slight problem (not one to worry about). Here are some examples.
  • Commerce Square was part of an office building boom in the late 1980s that saw numerous skyscraper construction in the West Market Street neighborhood of Center City, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[3] - grammar?
  • The $US300 million development of Commerce Square was led by Robert F. Maguire 3rd, co-managing partner of Maguire Thomas Partners of Los Angeles. - Robert F. Maguire III; add the after that for a slightly more formal tone.
  • With a design by IM Pei & Partners, now called Pei Cobb Freed & Partners, Maguire was able to bring in IBM as a joint partner in the development. - these two ideas shouldn't be together in one sentence
  • IBM also served as the lead tenant for One Commerce Square, making about half the building its headquarters for the Mid-Atlantic region - the lead tenant?
  • Commerce Square would be split between two buildings, with One Commerce Square being built first, and the second tower, Two Commerce Square, being built later once a lead tenant was secured. - with One Commerce Square...
  • Plans for Commerce Square were officially announced on November 16, 1984 at a press conference at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel. - whose press conference?
  • In 1987 the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) began indicating it wanted to consolidate its offices... - began indicating needs to be replaced
  • After the office building boom of the 1980s, the 1990s saw an office glut resulting in numerous vacancies and lower leasing rates. In 1993 IBM was struggling and it was shrinking its workforce and consolidating its operations, moving some of its employees out of the city. IBM started with occupying nearly half of One Commerce Square, but by 1993 it was using only one-fifth of the building.[14][15] - This should probably be reorganized in a format that flows better, particularly the second sentence.
  • Commerce Square takes an entire block, between 20th and 21st Streets and Market Street and John F. Kennedy Boulevard. - It takes up an entire block; covers an entire block; etc.? Be more clear.
  • I see there is criticism in the architecture section: perhaps there should be an entire section dedicated to that?

Sorry, but I'll have to oppose weakly for the time being. Best wishes for making this article into an FA! ceranthor 23:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the issues you mentioned plus a few others I noticed. I also clarified and expanded the information related to your third note. Medvedenko (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks great. I will try to read over again this weekend and maybe throw a support behind it. :) ceranthor 00:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Emporis is a commercial company that specializes in building information. The sourced part, the free database, is monitored by editors and data must have a reference when submitted before it is published on the website. The New York Times link seems to work for me. Medvedenko (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave emporis out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. I've only read the lead, and already it's not good enough.

  • If you are using convert templates, don't: "two identical 41-story, 565 feet (172 m) office towers that surround a 30,000 square feet (2,800 m2) paved courtyard". It's "-foot" in both cases as an adjective before, and a raft of hyphens is required. Reverse the order, as suggested by the MOS: "two identical 41-story office towers 565 feet (172 m) high that surround a paved courtyard of 30,000 square feet (2,800 m2). I thought we'd made this clear for a number of architectural FACs.
  • "office-building boom". "two-year search".
  • What does this mean? "Two Commerce Square officially ended the skyscraper construction boom of the 1980s when it was completed in 1992."
  • "In the 1990s Commerce Square's lead tenants shrunk their presence dramatically in the towers." It's "shrAnk" or "have shrUnk". Strange word to use, anyway. "Reduced"? Optional comma after "1990s".
  • The complex designed? "The complex was praised mainly for its design of two towers surrounding a plaza."
  • "strange"—period after the quotation marks. Tony (talk) 10:34, 20 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 00:17, 21 March 2010 [6].

Sherman Minton

Nominator(s): —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Sherman Minton: New Deal Senator, Supreme Court Justice during the Cold War. An interesting man who was involved in alot of interesting things. After several weeks of improvement, a GA review, and thorough research, I believe this article now satisfies the FA criteria. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 16:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do, so long as it qualifies there. Are disclaimers such as this required? If so I will be sure to add them in future nominations. Please note that my editing patterns are the same as when I was not a participant in the cup, and I am not part of the so called "award culture". :) I will withdraw from the cup if nomination such as this are not acceptable to the FAC community (as there is negativity towards them as of alate). My primary interest is in improving articles. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 16:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I place this notice on all FACs nominated by WikiCup participants according to this discussion. It's nothing for you to worry about, just a piece of information. Ucucha 16:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Generally quite good. I'd like to see a number of issues cleared up, though.
    Lead photo: Once someone gets around to an image check, this is going to be trouble. US government is not a source. What is the photographer's name and when was it taken? I know from experience with the Scalia article that official photographs are not always taken by a federal employee; neither of Scalia's has been. No idea how it was in Minton's day.
    "seventh circuit court". Odd phrasing! I would either give the Court its full title (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit) or else say "a Federal appeals court".
  • Early life
  • Earliest American settlers to Indiana. Perhaps puffing on the part of the source? According to our History of Indiana article, Indiana Territory had a population of some 70,000 only a couple years later.
  • a regional New Albany and St. Louis Air Line Railway. I'm a bit confused by this. Were there several by this name?
  • "a heat stroke". Perhaps just "heat stroke"?
  • "bicyclers" Surely "bicyclists"?

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead photo was scanned from one of my source books, and that book is listed as the source on the image page. US Government was listed as the author. The image caption notes it as his "official photo" and the date taken, but gives no info on who specifically took it. I've checked the LOC for a similar image but could no locate one. Changed "earliest" to "Early". source indicates they were in the territory well before they settled in Georgetown. Population of the territory roughly tippled between 1814 and 1816 because of the end of the war of 1812, land grants, etc. All else is fixed. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, except "Congressional Quarterly", that is ref # 164 and 165. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments If the image becomes in issue, you might want to contact the Supreme Court Historical Society. Also, heck of a good image of Minton here if you could figure out the sourcing. Also check this out, Senate passes are printed by the GPO and taking a photo of one gives you no copyright. Just ideas. And to continue:
    graduate school: Am I reading this correct to see that he never took an undergraduate degree? There's no mention of one.
  • Pardon my possible ignorance here, he received a masters at Yale, and a bachelors at IU Law. Would that masters be what you are referring to as an undergraudate degree? That is noted towards the end of the paragraph, "he earned a masters degree". None of my soures mention any degree from the Sarbonne. Side note: he was the most educated justice on the Supreme Court at the time of his appointment. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there he was lectured by". I usually take the verb lecture to mean a dressing down, reading the riot act, etc. I don't think that is what is meant here. Perhaps "attended lectures by"? Also, I'd pipe to "President" and "Chief Justice", the full titles slow down the reader and tell him nothing he didn't already know.
    "He continued debating ... too many ands in that sentence.
  • Legal career
    William Jennings Bryan. I think this sentence would be much stronger if you put it in the active voice with Bryan as the subject. Perhaps "During one lecture circuit, he met Williams Jennings Bryan. The three-time Presidential candidate advised the young Indianan about politics, inspiring him to consider a career in public life."
    "none was awarded". Ambiguous. Did he fail to earn one, or did the Army not award any to those who finished the course?
    (long stretch where I have no comments)
Lobby
  • blanket subpoena. What's that?
  • That is the term used in my source Gugin. I think it means that they issues supeanoes for anything and everything like "every communication between X and Y", but after the suit could only issue specific supeanoes, like "the communication on March 1 between X and Y purported to say ABC". —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Senator Black. Probably worth mentioning that he was appointed to the Supreme Court, after all he served with Minton there.
  • "fomenting a dictatorship". Perhaps worth a rephrase. I'm afraid that most people would think "fomented" is how you'd describe beers after a six pack.
  • "improperly". I'd move this before "accepting". Incidentally, is it necessary to mention that Rural Progress is a rural newspaper? Kinda goes with the territory, no?
  • "Minton did not realize". This sentence is unclear as to who was doing the suffering. I would guess Minton. That's just a guess.
  • "Dickinson". Probably worth mentioning his party.
Court packing
  • unconstitutional: I'd throw in a pipe to United States v. Butler.
  • "in response" If I'm reading this sentence correctly, we're talking about Minton's response to Minton's speech?!
  • "allies or the axis powers". Links and capitalizations are in order here.
  • "the deciding factor" that is so close to a matter of opinion that I'd inline attribute it.
  • "impactful" Not a word I'd use. Perhaps significant?

I will finish up later or tomorrow. I have taken the liberty of correcting minor errors, you might want to doublecheck.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I commented back on a couple. The rest are resolved. Thanks! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • Judicial career
  • Timeline for swearing in. It reads at present like Minton didn't resign his post in the Administration until after he was sworn in.
  • including challenges to ... strikes me most of these can be linked.
  • deferred the decisions of the district court ... perhaps affirmed? Even "summarily affirmed", if they didn't bother with opinions. Similar usages in paragraph, which I would go over carefully.
  • "unique position of adjudicating cases" What about Hugo Black? And there must have been other congressmen who were appointed to the courts.
  • 'switch'. While it is not usual to link within quotation marks, consider that a pipe to The switch in time that saved nine might be helpful to the reader.
  • "The editors of ..." I would rewrite this sentence, it makes little sense.
  • "twelve dissenting opinions". Now that you've given his stats, is it really helpful in the prior paragraph to have the language about him being mostly in the majority?
  • "simplistic". I don't think you intended to use this word, which would be highly uncomplimentary to Minton.
  • Actually.. Shwartz in particular accuses Minton of being a simpleton and over simplifying complex issues. However, that is not what Gugin meant, so I rephrased it.
  • "later overturned that decision". If there is an article on that decision, suggest a pipe.
  • Modernistic candies Any chance of a blockquote from this opinion?
  • Will need to look this one up too for direct quote. Minton talks about how he and his fellow justices gamble regularly, but understands how children could be ruined for life by a 1 cent gumball gambling machine. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish up later with the Supreme Court material.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)a bit more[reply]

OK, here we go.
  • Supreme Court
  • Might not hurt to note that it was not then customary to have a SC nominee appear before the committee, I don't think it was until the early Seventies. Your source may say.
  • See, Harry S. Truman ... Why is this here? It contains almost nothing on Minton, and what it is, is already in the article. Probably nothing to do with you, but I'm startled to see the 11th circuit on the map in that list, given that it wasn't established until 1982...
  • William E. Jenner. You mention him as a leading "former Senate opponent". He never served with Minton.
  • "but the measure was defeated 45–21." A motion to recommit is not a measure. Perhaps, "but the attempt failed, 45–21".
  • "last member of Congress". You might want to add "sitting or former".
  • court. I don't know what the MOS is on this, but I tend to refer to the Supremes as "the Court". No one objected on Scalia, so I guess it is OK.
  • Now I'm a lawyer, and I appreciate cites to the United States Reports, but to most people, they are so much gibberish. You might do well to put the cites into footnotes.
  • "Much of his judicial philosophy revolved around attempting to ascertain and uphold the original congressional intent behind legislation" Too wordy.
  • That whole section was kind of bumpy. I reordered things a bit to flow better.
  • (next sentence) "However" Why however? Brown had nothing to do with statutory intent.
  • "the defendant's position" Who was the defendant? McGrath was the attorney general, I know that much. The Joint Committee? Suggest a rephrase here.
  • loyalty tests. Is this the same as "loyalty oaths" (I am not now nor have I ever been ...)? Loyalty oath might be helpful here.
  • I am positive here. I think there is a difference between the test and the oath. I don't believe an oath was the issue (which they might have), but the issue was about how they applied a test to confirm their loyalty, and then terminated the employees based on the result of that test. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I read that paragraph correctly, Minton supported loyalty tests. His position then drifted to have him supporting loyalty tests. Am I missing something?
  • "fundamental fairness" A pipe to Palko v. Connecticut might be good. I hesitate to call a "doctrine" a "precedent" though. Perhaps "test" instead of "precedent"?
  • "Minton upheld decisions". Probably not. Probably the Court did. That whole sentence is a pain, all the information is coming at the end. What about "In United States v. Rabinowitz, Minton wrote the Court's opinion upholding a lower court ruling which allowed police to search automobiles without a warrant, provided there was probable cause to justify the search."
  • alien trials. We're talking about immigration matters, I'd assume, not criminal trials. I'd clean that up. Shouldn't this go into the 7th Circuit section? Also, if you are going to refer to a Judge Douglas, I'd pipe to his article and list his first name to avoid confusion with Justice William O. Douglas.
"a 1954 letter" Truman wasn't president anymore by 1954. Hmmm.
"contested primary". I assume we're talking about New Hampshire? Might want to say so.
"Indiana University School of Law — Bloomington." Is that the official name? Surprised by the inclusion of the city name when the school was mentioned earlier in the article without the city name.
  • "another Indiana senator". Suggest piping to that senator's article.

And that's about it. Work on these, and I want to give it another read through. I'm not thrilled with the prose, but I think I will wind up supporting, but it may take more tweaking. I will probably be on only very limited time the next two or three days. But I think that with some attention to the prose (I've taken out some careless errors), I'll support his as a worthy addition to your Hoosier stable!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed most of these concerns, I've replied back on a few. I need to look a couple things up as well which might take me a day or two as I've returned one of my sources to the library. Thanks again for your thorough review. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I've fixed those items, they were not sourcing anything of significance. They've been moved to external links and their text removed from the article. The one from michealariens.com I pared down to match what another source says. I think that site may be reliable though - he is a legal historian and university professor and author. No matter now, its removed. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:54, 16 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 23:01, 20 March 2010 [7].

Hanoi

Nominator(s): Newone (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has all nearly enough information about the article. Newone (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, recommend immediate withdrawal. This is essentially a drive-by nomination (nominator has 8 edits). No serious work has been done to prepare the article for FAC. Thus the lead is inadequate, much of the prose is substandard (sample sentence: "In 1802, when the Nguyễn Dynasty was established and then moved the capital down to Huế, the name of Thăng Long (昇龍, "ascending dragon") was modified to become different Thăng Long (昇隆, to ascend and flourish)."), there are sections made up of bullet-point lists, there is serious image clutter, and much of the article is uncited - there are a few citation tags, could be many more. There is the basis for a worthwhile article here, but it needs a tremendous amount of committed work before being brought here again. Brianboulton (talk) 14:14, 20 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 DrKiernan 12:24, 19 March 2010 [8].

Montague Druitt

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because since the last nomination the article has been expanded by 50% to include even more homosexuality, conspiracy theory and cricket. DrKiernan (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I am leaning towardsSupport for this engaging and comprehensive account, but I have a few issues all issues listed below resolved to my satisfaction. (I have also made a few editing tweaks). Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved
  • Overuse of commas: Sentences like "Montague had six brothers and sisters, including an elder brother William, who entered the law, and a younger brother Edward, who joined the Royal Engineers" seem over-punctuated, in this case with at least one too many commas.
  • Family and education: Second para, why has he become "Montague John"? Surely, "Druitt" would be appropriate from now on?
  • Career: Are two monetary equivalents in the same paragraph really necessary? We get the idea from the updated value of £500.
  • Link "codicil"?
  • Cricket:
    • Since cricket was a pastime not a career, I think the details of Druitt's cricketing career are somewhat excessive and could be cut down somewhat. This is not, basically, an article about a cricketer. The point that he played the game to a good standard, alongside well-known players, could be established in maybe half this amount of prose.
    • Perhaps the list of players (Webbe, Crowdy etc) should be introduced as "...included first-class cricketers A.J. Webbe (etc)"
  • Death: again, two current values close together is probably unwarranted. Whatever Measuringworth.com may claim, estimating the current values of Victorian sums is a very inexact science; one spends money on so many different things today. Perhaps the updated value of Druitt's estate at the end of the section is of valid interest, but I think I'd leave out the earlier two.
  • There is some very awkward citation placing at the end of the penultimate paragraph of the Death section, with citations sandwiching a bracket, thus: [13]).[67] Would it be possible to rearrange these?
  • Conspiracy theories
    • More overpunctuation? "Druitt was a favoured suspect throughout the 1960s, until the advent of the 1970s conspiracy theories, such as those promoted by Stephen Knight in his 1976 book, Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution. Look for other possible instances.
    • I got a bit lost in he main paragraph of the Conspiracy section, perhaps due to an overload of names. The paragraph needs a bit more direction, perhaps with a sentence inserted after the first, along the lines: "Conspiracy theorists have attempted to link Druitt with these suspects, through a network of mutual acquaintances and possible connections."
  • Images
    • Druitt: According to UK copyright law, "the duration [of the copyright] will be 70 years from the end of the year that the work was first made available (my emphasis). I take this to mean 70 years from the date of first publication. Do we know when this was? And does this stipulation affect US copyright, which is the most relevant factor here?
    • Sims image: source information needs full publication details.

These seem relatively straightfoward fixes, and I look forward to supporting the article soon. Brianboulton (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for another comprehensive review and improvements to the prose.
  • Commas removed.[9]
  • "John" removed. I'd prefer to keep Montague in this sentence to distinguish from the other Druitts in the previous sentence.
  • I think having only one equivalent looks funny, as if it's been missed out by accident on the second instance. However, I've put the two closest equivalents together.[10]
  • I've shortened the cricket section a bit but the key reason the previous nomination failed was because of concerns over comprehensiveness, so I would rather not cut material.
  • "first-class cricketers" added.
  • Reference moved.
  • Comma removed.
  • Sentence added.
  • The public domain rationale is explained on the image page. Images first published more than 70 years after creation are in the public domain. This image was created in around 1879 and was first published after 1965.
  • Are you sure about this? This link to the UK Copyright law factsheet (to which the Druitt image is also linked) says: "If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created, although if it is made available to the public during that time, (by publication, authorised performance, broadcast, exhibition, etc.), then the duration will be 70 years from the end of the year that the work was first made available." Thus the 70 years after creation is qualified if the image has been published, which this clearly has. If the image was first published in 1965 it enters the public domain in 2036. Please tell me if you think I am misinterpreting, but I can't see how the above clause can be read in any other way. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture is believed to have been created around 1879 and must have been created before December 1888. So, as an unpublished anonymous image the UK copyright would expire 70 years from creation: around 1 January 1950 for the supposed date of creation and by 1 January 1959 by the very latest. Consequently, at the time of first publication, which was after Cullen's book in 1965, it was already in the public domain in the United Kingdom. As it was then published in the United States in or before 1987 without a copyright registration and the copyright in its home country was already expired, it is also public domain in the States. DrKiernan (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Very interesting article, and I'll be inclined to support it once these are looked at and the one photo is okayed. Only found a handful or so of nit-picky things to point out.

  • In a few instances, there is a reference inside parentheses. Not sure what the MoS says, but I think it should be outside. (Oddly enough, one instance later does have this).
  • Jack the Ripper suspect: "During September, three more women were found dead with their throat cut". Pretty sure "throat" should be plural since it describes three women.
  • Comma after "pathologist Thomas Bond".
  • Conspiracy theories: Little repetition in the following bit toward the end: "Reginald Acland, the brother of Gull's son-in-law, had legal chambers adjacent to Druitt's. Druitt...". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out those errors.
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 29 (Blackheath ..) lacks a publisher. Note that I brought this up at the LAST FAC.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Disappointed to find so much to fix at the top; but I think this one is worthy.

  • "Outside of"? Remove one word. Comma after "including".
  • "and he was playing cricket miles away from the crime scenes on the same weekends that some of the women were killed"—remove two redundant words. And does a cricket match last 24/7 through an entire weekend? How could it otherwise be an alibi?
  • I see increasingly the linking of UK counties after the more specific link. Please don't.
  • Possible to brighten the pic of Winchester College?
  • "He was very active in the school's debating society, and his interest in debate may have spawned his desire to become a barrister." It's the "and" as connector that is problematic (and the "debate" should be "debating", yes?). "His interest in debating, which may have spawned his desire to become a barrister, was shown by his active involvement in the school's debating society."
  • No comma necessary after "republicanism".
  • The commas do make it clear after you read it twice, but why not make it easier for the readers: "Two years after graduation, on 17 May 1882, Druitt was admitted to the Inner Temple, one of the qualifying bodies for English barristers." -> "On 17 May 1882, two years after graduation, Druitt was admitted to the Inner Temple, one of the qualifying bodies for English barristers."
  • "Codicil" is probably a candidate for a link to Wiktionary. I generally discourage such links, but here, do many people know what it means? Also, what is a "special pleader"?
  • I hope the claim that only one in eight barristers could make a living from the law is authoritative. I see that it's a third-party reference, which is usually avoided where possible. However, I see it's actually quoted by two separate sources. Tony (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the careful reading. Copy-edit changes: [16]; Removed "provided alibis for Druitt by examining where and when he was playing cricket" and added "could have travelled by train between his cricket engagements and London".[17] DrKiernan (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm concerned that, as with the last FAC, a case is being made that Druitt was not involved rather than just telling the story. For example, the lead doesn't mention that Chief Constable Sir Melville Macnaghten actually named Druitt as the murderer. It just refers to "private suggestions," and even though I believe Macnaghten didn't work on the investigation, would it not make sense to name him in the lead as the person with the suspicions? Discussing Druitt's alleged involvement in a section called "conspiracy theories" poisons the well somewhat—do reliable sources refer to the suspicions about Druitt as conspiracy theory? Also, the two sections about the Ripper issue should probably be subsections.

    Where the article says, "There is no real evidence against Druitt,[111] and most authorities today do not consider him a likely suspect[112]," what do the sources cited actually say on that point, and are there any similarly reliable sources who say otherwise? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 07:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Macnaghten did not name Druitt as the murderer. He named him as the most likely of three suspects. It would be POV to mention Macnaghten's thoughts on one of his suspects in the lead but not, for example, Abberline's refutation of those suspicions. All this would lengthen the lead unnecessarily.
  • The term conspiracy theory is used within the field extensively, see Casebook for examples.
  • They say, for example, there is "no direct evidence against him" (Leighton) and "Hundreds of books have been written...One actually indicted him...It is now seen as flawed" (Leighton). The article reflects the balance of sources, accurately reports prevailing opinion, includes contrary viewpoints where they exist, and does not contain any original research. DrKiernan (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that when I read it, I feel the writer is trying to persuade me of something, rather than simply educate me. I think if you could do something to remove that feeling it would help a lot. For example, you write "most authorities today do not consider him a likely suspect" and you cite Leighton, pp. 149–162 (that needs a more specific cite); Woods and Baddeley, pp. 126, 246. Can you quote here what they say that supports that part of the sentence, and perhaps add those quotes to the footnote?
As for the lead, it's quite short, so it could take another sentence or two. I think it's important to make clear that the suspicions were more than just "private suggestions," which makes it sound as though it was nothing more than casual gossip.
Also, you didn't address two points: (1) is there a reason for not having the two Ripper sections as subsections? and (2) to call one of the sections that discusses his involvement "conspiracy theories," there would need to be multiple reliable sources that described the allegations against him in those terms, and none who disagreed. Even then it would be better to have a neutral header.SlimVirgin TALK contribs 08:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leighton examines other authors' works in those 12 pages and shows that the majority of authors do not support the thesis. So, I see no need to restrict the page range further. I have returned Woods and Baddeley to the library, but from memory they say what I have written: it is only loosely paraphrased if not a near copy. I have already quoted part of Leighton.
Yes, it is casual gossip. That is why it is inappropriate to make out that it is something more than that.
I have no opinion currently on whether they should be sub-sections. I have taken out some of the uses of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists"[18] but, as I've already said, the term is in very wide circulation throughout the field. Just do a search for "conspiracy theory" and "jack the ripper". I am not aware of any source that explicitly says "this is not a conspiracy theory". DrKiernan (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do the sources use "conspiracy theory" in relation to Druitt? And which authorities today do consider him to be a likely suspect? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vanderlinden (ref. 109) says in his review of Montague Druitt: Portrait of a Contender: "Leighton has taken every crackpot supposition and distortion of fact ever written in connection with the Ripper Royal Conspiracy theory...". I identified the sources that consider Druitt likely at the last FAR Spallek, Cullen, Farson, Howells, Skinner and Wilding. DrKiernan (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded this image of the MacNaghten memorandum in case you have any interest in using it. I found it as I was reading around about this on Google books, so I thought I might as well grab it. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty is that when I read the article I feel the writer is trying to persuade me of something. I've never interacted with you apart from over this FAC and the previous one on the same article, and I have no knowledge of Ripperology and no POV about it, so I can't see anything that might be colouring my judgment here. But I do come away with a strong feeling that I'm being advised what to think. Rather than saying things like "no authoritative scholar believes that x," would it not be better to lay out who is saying what, and let the reader reach the conclusions for herself?
The only significant difference that I can see between this version and the previous one at FAC is that you added a "conspiracy theory" section, which seems to make the POV even stronger with a header that poisons the well. The section is written in quite a confusing way, and I'd like to see quotations being properly attributed, rather than things like "considered 'outrageous fantasies' by reviewers" and "reviewers considered it an 'exercise in ingenuity rather than … fact'" which makes it appear that several reviewers are using the same expressions.
I think you need to provide in-text attribution for this paragraph (and anything that implies the same):

The conspiracy theories and the accusations against Druitt also draw on cultural perceptions of a decadent aristocracy, and depict an upper-class murderer or murderers preying on lower-class victims.[112] As Druitt and other aristocratic Ripper suspects were wealthy, there is more biographical material on them than on the residents of the Whitechapel slums.[112] Consequently, it is easier for writers to concoct solutions based on a wealthy culprit rather than one based on a Whitechapel resident.[112] There is no real evidence against Druitt,[112][113] and most authorities do not consider him a likely suspect.[114]

And I mean in-text attribution of the kind, "X writes that most authorities do not consider him a likely suspect," because without that, you're the one who's judging which sources count as authorities. I think you also need to name the people who think Druitt was involved, and tell us what they say exactly, without cutting it short and saying that reviewers think it's nonsense. By all means do tell us who says it's nonsense (with names), but you first of all need to lay out the theories in a disinterested way. Bear in mind that the only reason Druitt is notable is that he was a suspect—he's otherwise just a schoolteacher who committed suicide—so an article about him has to explain (fairly) how his notability came about, and whether anyone still clings to the suspicions.
Also, I'm not sure you've specifically addressed Dreamguy's points in the last FAC. Dreamguy is very knowledgeable in this area; if I were writing an article about this I would take his views seriously. He wrote that you were presenting some claims as though they were facts, and that some of the sources you use are fringe, whereas other reliable authors aren't cited. He wrote of the authorities sentence: "... footnoting some book by some not very well known or respected authors to try to back up the claim that "most authorities today do not consider him a likely suspect" is pretty POV-y. Woods and Baddeley do not speak for the entire field, and most authors and researchers do not consider them anywhere near the top writers in the field. That's not to say that they are wildly out of touch on this particular statement, necessarily, but any sort of presentation about what a majority of anyone says in this field needs very solid sourcing, and that does not cut it."
He also wrote: "One of the most well respected modern researchers on Druitt is conspicuously absent. Andrew J. Spallek's articles in the Ripper periodicals should be used as a source above about half of the books being cited. Spallek uncovered evidence strongly suggesting who first thought up Druitt as a suspect and passed the name along to Macnaghten, for example." You replied to Dreamguy that you don't rate Spallek highly, but the point is: do others? And in this new version you still don't make much use of him, and none at all with in-text attribution, even though he's the author of a recent article about this very issue: "Montague John Druitt: Still Our Best Suspect," in Ripper Notes: Suspects & Witnesses, issue 23, July 2005. I've not seen that article, but is it not the kind of source that should be mined in an article about Druitt? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 09:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article does that.
It is called the conspiracy theory. That is its name. I am not responsible for what the sources call it, but I can ensure that the article uses the same language and terms that are employed by reliable sources. The number of sources that say it is an outrageous fantasy is vast. Trying to list them all at the beginning of each sentence is unnecessary when the overwhelming consensus in the field supports the sentence.
DreamGuy is a troublesome vandal who removes information from reliable sources in an attempt to slant articles to his own POV.[19][20][21] There is nothing wrong with Woods and Baddeley. The only fringe sources are the ones like Wilding or Howells or Fairclough, who repeat the worst of the conspiracists' fantasies. The contention that Professor Sir Christopher Frayling is somehow unreliable is patently absurd.
I have used Spallek in the article (ref 22). There are no sources commenting on his reliability. There are DreamGuy's and my personal opinions only. I can find nowhere in his writings any mention of uncovered evidence strongly suggesting who first thought up Druitt as a suspect and passed the name along to Macnaghten, other than the notorious and totally discredited Dutton nonsense from McCormick's undoubtedly fictional work. DrKiernan (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right about it being a conspiracy theory and outrageous fantasy. The point is that that's not a neutral header. In writing about the shooting of Muhammad al-Durrah, which some sources say was a hoax but the vast majority say was genuine, we can't call a section "Not a hoax." As for Dreamguy, I've never known him to act as a vandal; I think that must be too strong a description, though I don't know what happened. It's true that he's been blocked a lot for too much reverting, but he does know a lot about this subject. And given that Spallek has written a recent article specifically about this issue, it seems obtuse not to mine it for information, even it's about the "side" of the argument you think is nonsense. Is it not better to lay it all out, along with any counter-arguments (with in-text attribution), and let the reader decide how nonsensical it is? Otherwise you're saying to the reader, "No, trust me, it's too silly for you to be told about." SlimVirgin TALK contribs 11:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the Spallek article (here on Google books if others can see it), and I can understand why you'd be reluctant to use it too much: he's not a professional historian and it's written quite speculatively. But I'm seeing a few things I don't think are in your article, including that Druitt's family suspected him too (Spallek, p. 9). Apologies if you've included that but I missed it. Also, your article says Druitt had no known connection to Whitechapel, but he rented chambers at King's Bench Walk, within walking distance of Whitechapel, something you mention but pass over ("His chambers were an hour's walk from Whitechapel"). You state as fact that it would take an hour, but others disagree (I disagree about that too, especially at night), so it would need in-text attribution along with an opposing view. Spallek also mentions, citing Leighton, that there is doubt Druitt was even a teacher in any real sense, but may have been employed more as someone to watch over the boys at night. I wonder whether that's worth mentioning too. Also, I got a little confused about you saying he lived in Kent. He had chambers in the City; accommodation from the school at Eliot Place in south-east London; he played cricket for Dorset, and he was buried in Wimborne, Dorset, so where does Kent fit in? Is your point that Eliot Place was at that time regarded as Kent? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 12:04, 19 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 16:28, 16 March 2010 [22].

Tropical Storm Grace (2009)

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Although at first glance it seems like another minor storm, Tropical Storm Grace was a climatological outlier in that it formed farther northeast than any other tropical cyclone in the Atlantic Basin. I have spent several months searching for possible information in nearly ten languages and I now believe that there is nothing more available that can be added to the article. Juliancolton (talk · contribs) has made several copyedits to the article and provided it with alt text. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 02:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. No dab links and no dead external links. Alt text good, except that I'm not entirely sure what "cloud-filled eye feature evidence" means. Do you mean "evidence of a cloud-filled eye"? Ucucha 02:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Although I worked on this article quite a bit, polishing and tweaking it, I feel it's easily the most comprehensive and in-depth account of the storm anywhere. That's what an FA should be, regardless of little MoS issues that might arise. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The company is a private weather forecasting unit like Accuweather that primary forecasts for Great Britain. The link in question is a review of the weather on the days that Grace affected the UK and contains slightly more details than the BBC review of that day or the Met Office Verification report on the 2009AHS.Jason Rees (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check: Passed - 3 images. All are free-use at Commons, have the author, and the flickr one is verified. Good job! --PresN 20:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Pretty yucky opening sentence: "Tropical Storm Grace was the northeasternmost forming tropical cyclone in the Atlantic basin on record." I dunno ... "Tropical Storm Grace holds the record as the tropical cyclone to form furthest to the northeast in the Atlantic basin."?
  • Do we need "2009" twice in the second sentence?
  • Remove "its". Possible comma before "accompanied" ...
  • Why is "England" linked? Anyway, it looks more like Wales from the map. Do you mean "Great Britain", which refers to the island?

If you mean both that and the island of Ireland, write "the British isles". "United Kingdom" is linked in the infobox. Just UK, unlinked.

  • "tropical storm-force winds"—should that be "tropical-storm-force winds"? If so, try "winds of tropical-storm force". Don't like those triples.
  • Watch those vague words some, various, several. "and gradually acquired some tropical characteristics"—if you're not going to specify which ones, why not just leave it at two or more (plural): "and gradually acquired tropical characteristics".

That's the first part. Disappointed. Tony (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just noticed this nomination, and had a question. what does "furthest northeast" really mean? i wrote an article on Hurricane Ivan (1980) and had a similar question. I see it became a tropical cyclone at 38.5 north and 29.5 west, but Ivan could arguably be considered further northeast, since it became a tropical cyclone at 35.6 north and 23.5 west, which 2.9º further south but 6º further east. Is it furthest north a tropical cyclone formed east of 30 west? --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See this map I made. Essentially, Grace was the furthest north of the easternmost TCs and the furthest east of the northernmost TCs. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
then shouldn't the article say that? that image makes it look like Ivan is further northeast, since it's only slightly further south than Grace, but is much further east. Viennaiswaiting (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Although I found this interesting, its readability is difficult. The lead alone, as Tony pointed out, has several very complicated sentences, and the readibility doesn't get much better as the article continues. It really needs another hand to simplify the text. There are also some comma faults, lack of punctuation (for clarity), and questionable placement of modifiers. Finally, the captions are unimaginative. For example, the caption showing the track of the storm could be more instructive. I guessed the loop was over the Azores, but I'm unfamiliar with the trackless mid-Atlantic, and hadn't any idea what that set of dots actually meant. Is a loop like that unusual? Similarly, the lovely picture of the clouds over Belgium deserves better as well.
  • Furthermore, how did the storm get to Belgium (this isn't covered in the text), what made it significant there? Obviously it crossed over the British Isle, the North Sea, and came ashore, but that is not explained, and I would like to know those details. Those rainfall amounts of 1-2 inches seem low to me, or at least to my experience with tropical storms. Are there ways of comparing this rainfall to "normal" rainfall in Wales or Belgium? Was this a lot of rainfall? Are 48 mph winds high in those areas?

Re the source that is "like Accuweather"...probably I'm okay with that source, but isn't Accuweather a network-based meteorological forecasting department? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify what you mean by Accuweather being a "network-based meteorological forecasting department"?Jason Rees (talk) 23:50, 15 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 14:39, 16 March 2010 [23].

History of logic

Nominator(s): From the other side (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Closing note: This nomination is somewhat controversial because of the nominator's status. However, several reviewers have expressed serious concerns with the article per FA criteria – citations, comprehensiveness, weighting, and clarity – and these concrerns are serious enough to justify archival irrespective of the nominator's status, especially given the nominator's admitted unfamiliarity with parts of the topic. Now that these issues have been identified, and with no active nominator or other editors who are familiar with the existing content and willing to take the lead on this nomination, there is little likelihood that the FA criteria will be met within the generally allowed timeframe. Karanacs (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because

  • The History of logic is an important subject that deserves FA status
  • It has been peer-reviewed by editors who are expert in the subject matter (particularly User:chalst and User:KD Tries Again).
  • It meets all the criteria for FA (so far as I am aware).
  • I am nominating this in the absence of the main editor of the article User:Peter Damian who unfortunately has been banned for some time.

From the other side (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: Unfortunately, the nominator of this article has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Peter Damian. Unless an established user can step up to co-nominate this article and address any remaining objections, this FAC will probably have to be archived. Classicalecon (talk)

Comments:

  • Well-written but very sparsely referenced (1c). In the first paragraph alone: "the ancient Egyptians empirically discovered some truths of geometry...", "the great achievement of the ancient Greeks was to replace empirical methods...", "the three basic principles of geometry are...", and "the idea of a deductive system was probably known in the Pythagorean school..." all need reliable sources and inline citations. The article is riddled with similar examples.
  • As noted on the talk page, the references need a bit of work. For example, why are most sources cited in short format but Logical Investigations is not? There a lots of typos and inconsistencies, as well.
  • I am not sure the pyramid image adds anything to a History of Logic article. Nor does the Allegory of the Cave.
  • The discussion of Plato seems out of place here. As you say, Plato had no formal logic and what you discuss here is really his metaphysics and epistemology. Do you need this section at all?
  • The Aristotle discussion lists his works but does not discuss his main principles. Those would have to include logical form, opposition and conversion, and a better explanation of the syllogism. Given Aristotle's seminal importance, I think some discussion of his metalogic (noncontradiction, excluded middle, etc.) would be good to have, as would at least a mention of his non-formal logic e.g. the theory of fallacies).

* The medieval logic section is very thin. Abelard deserves much more than a mention. Supposition theory merits more discussion, as do Ockham and Buridan -- What was the theory? What did they say? None of main themes of the period are explained at all (syncategoremata, sophisms, insolubilia). This part needs quite a bit of expansion.

  • You describe the periods of modern logic briefly in the numbered list, but then don't exactly follow that outline in what follows and fail to expand on many of the topic mentioned in the list. It is confusing to the reader, and highlights the places in which the discussion below it is incomplete. If you combined the list with the sections that follow and more fully discussed the things on which it now touches, it would be a big improvement.
  • You mention the mathematical school, but it would be good to say a more about what they did. Set theory, for example.
  • There is a big gap between the discussions of Frege and Goedel here. Where is Russell's Paradox? Principia Mathematica? In a "comprehensive" (1b) article on the topic, you have to at least describe them.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Aristotle and Medieval sections are much improved. I struck out the stuff that seems to be addressed now. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Russell and Principia discussion also seems more complete. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional support on the basis of 1a. This is fine work: there is much to be impressed by in the parts I've read. I'll be interested to see how Housecat's issues are dealt with. (Disclosure: I copy-edited the top part of the article last week.) Tony (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC) PS A few things I've noticed on a fly-over just now:[reply]
    • "that correct thinking is following out the connection between forms"—I changed the awkward passive to active before this, but I'm still not quite clear on the meaning (the "is"). Do you mean "equated c t with the forging of connections between forms"?
    • "an analysis of simple categorical propositions, into simple terms, nouns and verbs, negation, and signs of quantity"—I have category problems with this list: are not simple terms nouns/verbs? Perhaps I'm being daft. Comma after "Posterior Analytics".
    • Following the shifts between past and present tenses with interest. At this stage, it looks to be well handled. I'm thinking about the combination of present, simple past, recent past, here (my italics): "... has had an enormous influence in Western thought.... These works are of outstanding importance in the history of logic. Aristotle is the first logician to attempt a systematic analysis of logical syntax, into noun or term, and verb. In the Categories, he attempts to classify all the possible things that a term can refer to. This idea underpins his philosophical work, the Metaphysics, which also had a profound influence on Western thought. Aristotle was the first formal logician (i.e. he gives the principles of reasoning using variables to show the underlying logical form of arguments)." Difficult to manage, I concede.
    • Caption: "Aristotle's logic was still influential in the Renaissance". Needs a period (see MoS ... it's a full sentence). Also, the elephant in the living room is that since the Renaissance, it has not been influential. I guess the reader has to piece this together. Tony (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tony, thanks. I changed some parts where clarification is needed. "correct thinking consists in following out ...". "simple terms, nouns and verbs" - remove 'nouns and verbs'. "Aristotle's logic was still influential in the Renaissance" - it was indeed - the invention of printing led to a huge spate of transcriptions from manuscript into print (the text from Brito on the right is an example of such a work - Johannes Rubeus Vercellensis and Albertinus Vercellensis, Venice c. 1499-1500]). The decline from the Renaissance onwards was slow, as the subsequent sections make clear (I hope). I will have a look at the tense problem shortly.
      • Re Housecat's comments: I have added more references (more to come), have expanded the section on medieval logic considerably, and on the lines s/he suggested. The only area I am not really competent to deal with is set theory. I have asked Charles Stewart and others to help. From the other side (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - mainly on the lack of citations for opinions. Also a lot of niggly little formatting glitches, but presentation is important, and they should be fixed if you're writing articles at this level.
  • Pick one, either citations after the punctuation, or before the punctuation, right now, it's a mish-mash of either.
  • Statements of opinion uncited: "This is part of a protracted debate about truth and falsity." "and the idea of a deductive system was probably known in the Pythagorean school and the Platonic Academy." "The logic of Aristotle, and particularly his theory of the syllogism, has had an enormous influence in Western thought." "The three most important contributions of the Stoic school were (i) their account of modality, (ii) their theory of the Material conditional, and (iii) their account of meaning and truth." .. I could continue, but it's not well cited, especially on statements that could be challenged.
  • Bare numbered links in the notes - current ref 10.
  • We don't use ibidem or other such abbreviations in Wikipedia, because if a section moves, it is not longer clear what they are referring to.
  • What's "El. philos. sect. I de corp 1.1.2"
  • Other issues include lack of information on some editions used in the referencces (who's the publisher for the Epictetus and when was it published?) and formatting glitches in the references (Most titles are italicised, but some aren't..)
  • http://public.ut.ac.ir/html/fac/lit/articles.html deadlinked
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - these are easily fixed, although it may take a week or so. Can I take it this is a conditional oppose (or conditional support?) From the other side (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, if they get fixed, I'm more than happy to revisit the oppose, but the main problem is the lack of citations on things that are expressing opinions. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I have been working on the citations for the general statements. I wouldn't call them 'opinion'. For example, when it says that "the work of Muslim logicians was important in communicating the ideas of the ancient world to the medieval West." that is not an opinion. But it is important to have such statements in there, as it makes Wikipedia more than just a list of small facts (which it very often is). There should be no difficulty sourcing these, however. Take a look at what I have just done, and let me know of any more. From the other side (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still sections completely unsourced and still the issues mentioned above about punctuation and the el philos issue are present. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question/Temporary Oppose

  • Citation problems: what is the difference in the citations to Kneale (forex, 4, 6,8), and to Kneale and Kneale (3, 7, 10)? There is only one Kneale i found in the bibliography, but it refers to two people as authors, so I'm trying to figure out if this is the same book. If it is, what is the logic behind the different name? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a separate vein, I do agree that the History of Logic is an important topic that deserves an FA quality article. I do have questions, though. Has this article been peer reviewed by the Philosophy project (it doesn't look like it) or an ACR from History (it also doesn't look like it)? The issues I have with the article (some of which have also been raised above) would have been addressed at these reviews. Just a point to make.
  • Below I've raised some of my issues with the article. (a) Clarity of Content. (b) Prose. Generally, the prose of this article is good, although surely there are more elegant ways of expression, such as the following:
    • that have come down to modern times .... have endured in (to?) the modern era....?
    • probable order of writing of Aristotle's logical works is: ... Although it is difficult to determine, Aristotle probably wrote the treatises that constitute the Organon in the following order: ...
    • things included in a library, such as that at York, would be in a collection...not simply there
    • (lead) Logic was revived in the mid-nineteenth century, at the beginning of a revolutionary period where the subject developed into a rigorous... when the subject...or when it acquired its rigorous... What made the mid-19th century period revolutionary? I don't see where we get to that.
    • Plato strongly suggests that correct thinking consists in following out the connection between forms. I don't even know what this means. Does it mean correct thinking? Or following out the connection between forms? Or something else????
    • premisses .... I'll need to have this defined using wiktionary. (Was I asleep in my philosophy classes, so I don't know this stuff?)
    • The third question involves the nature of definition. You lose me here. Plato was preoccupied with definition. Not the nature of it. Didn't definition provide the nature of something else (the thing/idea/whatever) being defined?
  • just some of my issues.... Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I have fixed the 'when'. On the nineteenth-century: the lead summarises what unfolds in the body of the article. Several times the 19C is mentioned as the period of important changes in logic. On your point about Plato, several people have mentioned this needs some help. Thanks From the other side (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Alcuin, who taught at York in the eighth century AD, mentions that the library there contained Aristotle". the library there means 'the library in York'. Does anyone else have a problem with this? I can't see it. From the other side (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "that have come down to modern times". Google [24] suggests this is a satisfactory turn of phrase. From the other side (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then you (or who ever wrote this) uses "there" again, and it isn't clear to me where there is.
Point of order: FTOS has addressed the remaining issues here, so these particular concerns may have been resolved Classicalecon (talk).
        • Still OPPOSE I think overall, the article is still too confusing, and I'm questioning the content. I'd be happier if there had been a History ACR and/or a Philosophy Peer review for this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead doesn't so much "summarise", User:From the other side. It quotes, or lifts, bits from the article; some of them are much too long for such treatment. A lead isn't supposed to use the actual phrasing of the article proper, as for instance this passage does:
    • at the beginning of a revolutionary period where the subject developed into a rigorous and formalistic discipline whose exemplar was the exact method of proof used in mathematics. The development of the modern so-called "symbolic" or "mathematical" logic during this period is the most significant in the two-thousand-year history of logic, and is arguably one of the most important and remarkable events in human intellectual history.
    • (This passage appears word for word in the lead as well as in the section "Rise of modern logic".) There's more, much of it from the "Rise of modern logic" section. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
      • You set me a difficult challenge. The section you are referring to is itself a summary of the post-Aristotelian phase. If we delete the version lower done, we are left with a long article about a big subject, without intervening summaries. If we keep it, then we have the repetition you find problematic. I don't see an easy way to solve this, apart from paraphrasis. From the other side (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, paraphrase would be better than blatant repetition, especially considering that it's the first paragraph of "Rise of modern logic" that's completely repetitious, not the second; while the second paragraph constitutes the "summary of the post-Aristotelian phase" that you mention. So, if you paraphrase the section's first paragraph, keep the second as is, and glue both together, you will have a long article about a big subject, but with an intervening summary. Right? Something like this:
          • "A long period of decline followed the important developments in logic in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. Logic was revived in the mid-nineteenth century, starting a revolutionary period where the subject grew into a rigorous discipline whose model was the exactness of mathematics. The development of the modern "symbolic" or "mathematical" logic during this period is the most significant in the two thousand-year history of logic, and is by many considered one of the most important and remarkable events in human intellectual history."
        • Or you could join up the sections "Rise of modern logic" and "Periods of modern logic", to produce a heftier summary of post-Aristotelian logic. Assuming, per Nasty Housecat above, that the list of the kinds of logic is complete—I'm no expert on this stuff. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: The 'Logic after WWII sect is more or less bullet pointed - should be rewritten so that the para structure is not so repetitive. Small issue. Ceoil sláinte 00:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Assuming the points of detail raised above can be met, this is unusually strong article by the general standards of philosophy articles on WP. Interested in the question of it being peer-reviewed by the Philosophy Project - is that still functioning in any active sense? (I am looking at pages needing attention and open tasks, scarcely edited any more, but I don't mean to raise that as a topic for discussion here.)KD Tries Again (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
  • Question to which I want an honest answer; I'm asking here rather than privately both to avoid anyone else asking the same, and to get an "on record" answer. In the past I've caught Peter Damian slipping easter eggs into articles. Are there any joke links, deliberate misinformation, falsified references or other breaching experiments in this article? – iridescent 13:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Damian, and he said definitely not. He said to speak to Kohs about 'Easter eggs'. Damian is very serious about the logic stuff. From the other side (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are statements above that User:KD Tries Again is a subject matter expert; it would be helpful to have his/her specific review of and comments on this issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: The section about logic after WWII looks strange to me, but that might be because of the philosophical POV, to which I am not used. I don't have much time for this FAC, but I work three office doors from a big mathematical logic library that also has some philosophical stuff. Therefore I may be able to summarise an overview from one of the books available here, if someone has a recommendation. Hans Adler 15:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is because I wrote that section, without much knowledge of the mathematical logic side of things. It is true that mathematical logic had a great influence on philosophical logic of that period, and I can vouch for the philosophical stuff. But it really needs an expert to deal with this section. I have some books on mathematical logic - if you can point me to the main themes, I could fill them in, and you could comment. Thanks From the other side (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you misunderstood me. I am not complaining about the philosophical POV. In this article I would consider it as a feature rather than a bug. I really meant it at face value. If you say that's what philosophers consider important in post-WWII logic I will simply believe you. It's just that from a mathematical POV what I saw was an odd bag consisting of one paragraph about very interesting and relatively deep mathematics, and a few exotic, shallow and irrelevant things. But I see that CBM got involved, and suddenly it all looks much more familiar. I wonder if it's still acceptable from a philosophical POV. Hans Adler 21:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: A featured article should apparently have as broad an appeal as possible. The accomplishments of model theory from the second half of the 20th century satisfy both criteria of being (a) significant developments and (b) at least in part easily explainable to a larger mathematical audience. Is there any interest in including them here? Tkuvho (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Please see my remarks above. We are seeking an expert contributor on this subject. I would only ask that it be easily understandable to the kind of audience who would be interested in the article as a whole (i.e. not too technical, as it could easily become). From the other side (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like to help with that, but unfortunately as a model theorist I only see lots of very interesting trees, each telling its own remarkable story, but no forest. I am looking for a source that can guide me.
      In my opinion Robinson's non-standard analysis should be discussed separately from model theory, since it's a separate community with separate methods and conventions. I believe there is much less interaction between model theory and non-standard analysis nowadays than between model theory and any of set theory, algebraic geometry or computer science, for example. On the other hand, if it's only a single sentence (as now) we should probably leave it in the model theory paragraph. Hans Adler 21:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "Periods of modern logic" section ends with "Period after World War II", but this division is sourced to a book written in 1961. A lot has happened since then! Imagine a "history of computers" article whose "modern computers" section started with Babbage's difference engine and ended with mainframes of the 1950's. I would think this section should say something about categorical logic, more about type theory than it currently says (e.g. it should mention Per Martin-Löf), and something to the effect that a lot of current activity has moved into the intersection of mathematical logic and theoretical computer science. If it helps, Jean-Yves Girard's paper on Ludics in 2000 divided 20th-century logic into an "time of delusions" (pre-Gödel), an "time of codings" (1930's-1960's), and an "time of categories" (1970-2000).([25] p. 4) But I don't know that I'd call this a mainstream source. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: This article concentrates so much on philosophical logic that maybe it should be retitled to "history of philosophical logic" so that people looking for mathematical logic won't be disappointed. Maybe I have an over-narrow point of view (I'm a math buff) but I get the impression that if you throw every work on logic ever written into a big pile, 1) most of the publications will be from the 20th century; and 2) most of the 20th-century publications will be on mathematical rather than philosophical logic. So for the (edit:) history of the general subject of "logic", the article is slanted much too much towards older works and towards philosophy. I don't think it's appropriate to weight every time period equally. It's again like the history of computers--of course the topic goes back to the ancient Greeks, but almost all the interesting stuff is relatively recent. G. T. Kneebone and A. P. Cavendish have an article (JSTOR 4106575) that discusses mathematical vs philosophical logic, if that's of any help. log66.127.52.47 (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I disagree with the preceding comment. This is not an article on the "general subject of 'logic'". Wikipedia has one of those (Logic - and it could use some work). The present article deals specifically with the history of the subject, and thus the slanting towards older works is entirely appropriate. It's as if one complained that History of France was too heavily weighted toward past events. One of the most important points to make about the history of logic is precisely that mathematical logic played a second fiddle to philosophical logic throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but then became the cutting edge of the subject. I have no criticism of the recent additions on recent and contemporary mathematical logic, but I am concerned that the article should not become too weighted in that direction. I wonder if topics like the Curry-Howard correspondence or automated theory proving really need prominence in an article about the history of logic?KD Tries Again (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
  • I added a clarification, I meant the history of the general subject of logic. I don't think the history of logic is like the history of France. It's more like the history of computers or maybe the history of physics. Ideally the history should explain how things got to the way they are in the present, which in these instances mean the main influences are relatively recent. It's true that the most recent stuff is quite technical and not so easy to understand, but we should deal with this as best we can. Re the computer stuff: I don't think it needs prominence but it should be mentioned. We ought to acknowledge that logic has now made inroads into applied mathematics just as number theory has. Both subjects were once thought "pure", but now quite a few logicians are working on program verification just as quite a few number theorists are working at codebreaking agencies. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The calculus ratiocinator is little more than a theoretical proposal about which very little is known (scholars can't even agree whether it was about logical reasoning or numerical calculations). Leibniz is mentioned already in the 14th-to-19th c. section, and I don't think much more can be said without going into tedious details. Classicalecon (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think I'm mostly objecting to the sentence at the beginning of the "modern logic" section saying nothing happened during that period. It contradicts the earlier section documenting plenty of stuff. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I have the imrpession that calculus ratiocinator is the same thing as "universal calculus" discussed at length in Lenzen 2004.[26] (cite is from algebraic logic). 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some tinkering is needed to improve the flow. Let me take a look at that. As for modern developments, I am all for including them, but as they relate to the history; just reluctant to see this article trying to summarize topics best dealt with in Logic or Mathematical Logic.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
OK. Maybe it is best to just delete that sentence about the 14th-19th centuries. It is cited to an almost half-century-old source and maybe doesn't reflect contemporary viewpoints. I'll see if I can add a paragraph about more recent stuff, though I can't promise to do a good job, since I'm a long way from being an expert. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) And yet more comment: User:Fram has blocked From the other side and (quite destructively, I must say) has even reverted some of the history of this FAC (referring to that as a "minor edit", if you please). Apparently nothing is more important to Fram than keeping a putatively banned user out, no matter how much that user is improving the project. I disagree with that principle, and have reverted Fram's changes to the FAC; I'm assuming s/he won't wheel war. I have not unblocked From the other side, because I'm awaiting and hoping for consensus to do so. Could somebody please take this to ANI? I have to go out. Bishonen | talk 14:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Noted. However, from what I can tell, you mean Fram deleted article content, not FAC content. I can find no edits to the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I reverted the banned user latest series of edits (since rereverted, but not by Bishonen, or not by his known account at least), I left alone the vast number of edits by previous sock accounts of this user though because other users edited inbetween. Fram (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion continued on talk; the issue has been noted. Please do not continue this discussion here. FAC is for the purpose of evaluating whether articles meet WP:WIAFA, not making decisions about banned users. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend withdrawal of nomination based on 1e, which is not only occurring on the fAC page but on the article as well. There are obviously issues relating to content, some of which have been noted above, and that may be considered major. Although the nominator has tried to deal with some, this is not possible. Perhaps the article could go back to WP Philosophy, and the project can deal with its issues (or lack of them) and can come back at a future time when these are resolved or clarified. I'd like to see this article get an official peer review, with notes, etc., and perhaps an ACR from the history project. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a (common) misunderstanding of 1e; please review it. Article improvements during FAC are specifically exempt from stability. The edit warring by an admin on the FAC should not be held against the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two admins, SandyGeorgia, not one... Fram (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did review the criteria, and still think it should be withdrawn. There is clearly a war going on that will distract from the content of the article. There is no agreement on the content of the article, editors are adding things, others taking them out. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1e says: "it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process". I think the edit warring that we have here is a case that falls under the exception. Of the two possible explanations for this rule – making sure that the resulting featured article will be stable, or ensuring a smooth FAC process – the first seems to be the more important one and the one that is meant here.
  • Nevertheless under the special circumstances of this candidacy it might make sense to withdraw, look for someone to assume responsibility for the article's candidacy, and try again later. Or not. But these are special circumstances and should be handled as appropriate. Hans Adler 22:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree Hans. The process cannot go smoothly at this point, because there is no one to assume responsibility for the article. I was hoping to raise the point, so that it could be addressed. Whatever conflict is occurring between admins is between admins. I'm finding this whole controversy extremely distressing, and distracting from my attention to other articles. I opposed the article initially for what I think were valid reasons, which were not addressed, and I continue to oppose it now, but I'd simply like the article to be withdrawn until its issues are addressed and someone can shepherd it through the FA process. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Auntieruth. Edit wars aside, there are significant good faith disagreements about the completeness and due weight of certain sections (Plato and post-WWII for example), some of which I first raised, that are getting lost in this discussion. This will not be helped, of course, by the absence of an active nominator now. Good improvements have been made, but there is no consensus on the content among the expert reviewers here. I also agree with Auntieruth that these things would, and should, be worked out in peer review and/or ACR. It is an important article. We should get the content right. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The section Logic after WWII does not contain a single reference, thus this section is far from FA standards. Also, the references are inconsistently formatted. External links need an accessdate. (If these issues are treated, I'm happy to give a more meaningful review, but these are kind of first-level objections.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note-there are some source citations embedded as HTML comments in that section, currently invisible in the displayed article. CBM inserted these for inclusion later, I guess after he's had a chance to check them more carefully. So this is being worked on. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:16, 15 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 14:39, 16 March 2010 [27].

Turf Moor

Nominator(s): -- BigDom 19:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the FA criteria. This is a comprehensive history of the second oldest football stadium still in use in England, and the first British stadium to be visited by a member of the Royal Family. The article also has information about the facilities and details what the future holds in store for this famous old ground. It recently passed a GA review with only a couple of very minor problems, which were quickly sorted out. All the images have alt text, the external links have been checked and there are no dab links present. This is my first FA nomination and I'm looking forward to your comments. -- BigDom 19:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Good work! But, there are issues pertaining to criteria 1c (well-researched) and 3 (images). The article, with the exception of two links to soccerbase.com, is entirely sourced to primary or self-published sources. You'll need to do more research and balance those out with secondary sources: local newspapers, secondary coverage on reliable web sites, and so on. Additionally, all of these images uploaded by BfcDan are suspect and/or problematic, as follows:
  • File:Turf Moor 1905.JPG needs attention—source information is not sufficient, and may have the wrong template. Should be on Commons with the correct PD template.
  • Nothing wrong with the licensing here as far as I can tell. The image was published in England in 1905, making it in the PD in the US. It may well not be PD in the UK as the author may have died less than 70 years ago, but it is PD in America for sure.
  • File:Turf Moor 1930s.jpg - He created the work himself? I seriously doubt it.
  • File:The Longside 25.jpg and File:Bee Hole End 1990.JPG are historic images; how do we know the uploader created the images? They're at least 10 years old, right?
  • The rest of his photos are suspect—judging by his talk page, it's clear he had no understanding of our image use policy. He may have uploaded images he found on the internet and then learned how to change around the license to avoid deletion. If we can find and verify sources for his historical images, and properly tag them, we can use them. Not the rest, though.
Recommend withdrawal to work on research and images. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't say that the sources were really an issue. I can assure you that I did a lot of research but there isn't much information from outside of Burnley Football Club pertaining to the history of the stadium but I think the plans for the future etc. can be sourced to local press releases. I hadn't really considered the status of the images (all I did was add descriptions) but now I can see what you mean. I will work on some different images but am not withdrawing the nomination at this moment in time. -- BigDom 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Books shows several other sources, such as this which gives at least some information about the stadium. Ucucha 20:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The benefit of secondary sources is that they provide independent verification of claims that primary sources cannot always be relied upon to make. Primary sources are often constructed with the assistance of marketing departments and the organization has a conflict of interest in general. For example, you've written: "This investment has been linked with the emergence of new director Brendan Flood". Linked by whom? No source is there—the next footnote refers to a primary source that does not support the statement made. Things like this pass at GA but are not FA standard. It is also worth mentioning that press releases are not secondary sources. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have added references to some books (although as far as I can tell only the book I've used has a comprehensive history of the ground), and found local news stories (not press releases, but actual newspaper articles). Just a couple of things that I am still looking for, but I think there's been a great improvement in the sourcing. -- BigDom 21:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Turf Moor 1930s picture was actually created in 1929 and is included in the book I have used for the history, which confirms that it is now Public Domain due to the author being unknown. I have updated the source information and tags accordingly. Have replaced all the dubious images (I think) with a selection of pictures that I had taken on an old camera, which I have uploaded to Commons with proper licensing etc. -- BigDom 21:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up I revisited to check the sourcing. The first sentence I read has problems: "For the first time in a number years, the stand was made available to Burnley supporters for the club's first Premier League season in 2009–10." Aside from the grammatical error (I have not looked at the quality of prose yet), the source given does not support the statement. Maintain oppose—this doesn't appear to be ready. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree about the reference not supporting the sentence. The source says "Burnley will put an extra 1,500 season tickets on general sale after giving the go-ahead to plans to open up the David Fishwick Stand to home supporters." and that the stand "has long been the away stand". That's pretty much what I've written in the article, but I have tweaked the sentence slightly. -- BigDom 17:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is the "For the first time in a number years" clause. I don't see that supported in the source. There is a vague notion that Burnley supports could once sit there, but that's it. I'm not doubting the statement, and I'm sure it's something you know to be true, but we have to make sure it's stated in the source. The problem is that I keep finding issues that indicate the article may not have been thoroughly checked against the sources and against the FA criteria. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I share the concern Andy has raised above. On checking this "on 27 July 2007, Burnley revealed plans for a £20 million redevelopment of Turf Moor and the club's training facility at Gawthorpe Hall ..." I discovered that the source made no mention of redeveloping the club's training facility at Gawthorpe Hall. What it actually said was that the club planned to create a new "Burnley FC academy at the club's Gawthorpe training ground to nurture young players". Not quite the same thing. There are also a few other niggles, such as the misleadingly precise present-day monetary conversions such as "a total cost of £5,300,000 (Today: £7,416,366)". When is "Today" anyway, and why is it capitalised? Finally, we have yet more of the mini-essays masquerading as alt text, such as "A room with wooden walls that have a number of photographs on them. A number of people are in the room, looking at the photographs. Two dinner tables have been set with white table cloths. Around the tables are brown wooden chairs." The photograph that's describing (File:Turf Moor chairman's lounge.jpg) is exceedingly blurred in any event, and not suitable for an FA candidate. And from what I can make out only one person appears to be looking at anything on the wall anyway, something that looks like it might be a foorball shirt. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I have removed the blurred picture. I have changed the Gawthorpe part along with the caption of the photograph so that it matches the sources more closely (as a Burnley supporter, I know the rebuilding of the training facilities to be true, but I can't find any sources so I realise that it can't be included for verifiability reasons). As for the "Today" issue, I added those in response to a comment at the GA review. The figures given are produced using the {{Inflation}} template, so they are updated every day, but do you have a suggestion for how the layout of these figures could be improved? Cheers for commenting, -- BigDom 20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I realise that as a supporter you may know stuff, but, well, y'know ... Anyway, as to the "today" issue, I alway use something like "as of {{CURRENTYEAR}}", which keeps the year up-to-date so to speak. I've added rounding to a couple of the conversions as examples. Further on the topic of images, the alt text for Gawthorpe House describes it as "Elizabethan", but the site the photo came from calls it "Jacobean", which seems perhaps more likely given the place's history. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 15 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 14:39, 16 March 2010 [28].

Hurva Synagogue

Nominator(s): Chesdovi (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has attained GA status and I would like it to feature on the main page, in time for the synagogues dedication, on 15 March 2010. Chesdovi (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it is now March 7; there is little chance of this FAC being promoted in time for scheduling for March 15, which is only eight days away, and will probably be scheduled within five days, and there is already a request for March 15 at WP:TFA/R. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping that the alt text I have added is sufficient. (Have removed gallery). Chesdovi (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The lead image still lacks alt text; I have inserted the infobox parameter where it is added. The image in Template:Yishuv haYashan also needs alt text. Much of the alt text that is there is insufficient. Alt text should be verifiable to a non-expert from the image alone, but a non-expert like me cannot verify from only looking at File:Hurva sideview.jpg that this is the northern side of Hurva Synagogue. Instead, describe what the northern side looks like. Someone (Eubulides?) said that alt text should be written as if you were describing the appearance of the image over the telephone. WP:ALT and The Avery Coonley School have some good examples of alt text for buildings. Ucucha 03:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted to satisfy these requirements. Chesdovi (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looking great. Ucucha 20:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have chnaged the section headers to comply with Markup validation. I think all similar articles about such buildings are generally about the historic aspect, compare: Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes. As the new synagogue is still being completed, there is little that can be added about the actual synagogue as it currently stands. Chesdovi (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the section headers valid, but I'm afraid they're still too long and suggest a lack of perspective or organization. The Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes article is primarily about a congregation but this article is about a building; so better examples would be St. Peter's Basilica, Stanford Memorial Church, and Tomb of Antipope John XXIII, all of which have history sections, some quite extensive, but none of which consist almost entirely of history, and all of which (rightly) focus on the architecture of the building, something greatly lacking here. Eubulides (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is so because the building in its current form is not yet completed and it would not be possible to provide a detailed account of the buildings architectureal design or of its influence and staff, etc. This being the case, your previous suggestion of renaming may make sense. Chesdovi (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the introduction. The introductory sentence ought to state what the object of the article is rather than the first stage of it's history.

The Hurva Synagogue, (Hebrew: ‎ בית הכנסת החורבה, translit: Beit ha-Knesset ha-Hurba), also known as Hurvat Rabbi Yehudah he-Hasid, (trans. Ruin of Rabbi Judah the Pious) located in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem was for centuries the site of Jerusalem's main Ashkenazi synagogue. In 1864, a new synagogue officially consecrated Beis Yaakov Synagogue was erected at the same site by the Perushim community.[4]

I suggest something like:

Hurva Synagogue (other names as appropriate) is the name of a succession of buildings located at a particular site within the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. Although perhaps dating from as early as (date?), the site of Hurva Synagogue (other names as appropriate) was the location of Jerusalem's main Ashkenazi Synagogue from (date 1300s)..... cont.
The advantage of this leading sentence is that it encompasses the whole potted history which follows from the most ancient to the present day. Amandajm (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to include earlier history. Chesdovi (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section named Ashkenazim in Jerusalem: 13th-century is misnamed as it mentions material from 2nd cent AD. I'd rename this Antecedents, Early years or Background actually.
Done! Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, has there been any archaeological evidence of early occupation? Or lack of it? Any digs etc.
Done! Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good work....err...does it say whether they found any evidence of places of worship in the archaeological digs at all? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of an ancient synagogue, but added that Jewish ritual baths were found beneath the surface dating from 1st-century. Chesdovi (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I think of it, if you name it Background, you can include details such as specific location (not mentioned elsewhere in the article) - i.e. where it is within the Jewish Quarter of the old city etc.
Done! Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the winter of 1700, a group of around 500 Ashkenazim led by Rabbi Judah he-Hasid arrived from Europe - for the cost of almost no extra words, you can clarify where in Europe they came from (take your pick, "Central Europe", "Poland" via xxx, whatever)
he-Hasid set out from the Polish town of Shidlitz, near Grodna. He then travelled to Russia, Hungary, Germany, Austria and Italy before setting sail for Palestine. He collected followers as he went. Some sources say he had recruited 1,300 people, but 500 died along the way. I was not sure if all this was needed and how it could be condensed if relevant. Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thereafter, the Ashkenazim established their own synagogue in Der Ashkenaz - any clarification or embellishment of what this is would be helpful - is it a compound with a temple within it? Funny that it was right next door to the Ramban synagogue.
Der Ashkenz simply means the Ashkenazic Compound, s coutryard consisting of dwellings for the Ashkenazic Jews. It is curious that the Rambam synagogue was so closeby. (You will see it today attached directly to the south wall of the Hurva Synagogue!) That being said, some researchers do question whether the Rambamsynagogue was in fact situated a few hundred metres away in another location. I have reworded the para. to clarify Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This heading, Construction by the followers of Judah he-Hasid: 1700s, is too long. I'd change it to something like he-Hasid and aftermath.
Done! Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two successive missions in 1820 and 1821 to obtain the firman from the sultan's court failed due to "external factors." - okay, I'm curious. what does it mean? Or if no info just leave out the "external factors", as it doesn't help.
The source only mentioned "external factors", so I will remove it Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the Construction of a new synagogue: 1857–64, it isn't clear what the synagogue was actually called (unless I am missing something) - was it the called the Hurva synagogue at this time? In which case I'd just call this section Construction as we're talking about the (first) construction of the subject.
I have changed this and added some words, hopfully clarifying this Chesdovi (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, better, but I stuck in a couple more just to stamp it, as it wasn't clear for someone unfamiliar with the subject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do the sources note what stone it was made of?
Not seen. Probably Meleke Chesdovi (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's frustrating when you know what something is or liekyl to be but can't find a reliable source...we've all been there.. :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The planners and architects involved in developing the area were all secular. - I must say, I find this construction unusual (i.e. the use of the word secular thus). I am pondering on rewording but nothing is leaping out at me.
Will think about this one... Chesdovi (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted unbiased reword. Chesdovi (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to a prophesy made by the Vilna Gaon, the synagogue's third completion will lead to construction of the Third Temple - this sentence sorta sticks out at the bottom. Given the importance of the building, is tehre enough info to construct a section at the bottom on Culture and Tradition" (or "folklore/religious importance"?) - this would have that sentence in it - also needs information on why this building might be so iconic and spiritually important etc. Any other anecdotes/prophecies/folklore/traditions/etc. can go here.
I would love to add a folklore section; I need material though! I agree this last sentence is not placed well. I knew of this bit of infomation, but I did not add it; another editor did. It was a quote from a newspaper. Where the original quote is printed, I would like to know myself! If it cannot be tucked in somewher, by all means remove it. Thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...I'd recommend posting a request on the relevant wikiprojects - maybe someone has some dead-tree information (i.e. a book) with some extra material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed quote with request added to talk page. Chesdovi (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consistency is good, but consistent confusion of modifiers is confusing. For example:

Lead. ...is a historic synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, which has been destroyed and rebuilt several times. as it was written initially, without the comma, The old City of Jerusalem had been destroyed and rebuilt several times. Regardless of whether or not this is the case, do you mean the synagogue, the Jewish Quarter, or the Old City.  ?
First section: By the 13th century, the area had become a courtyard for the Ashkenazic community of Jerusalem[9] known as Der Ashkenaz (the Ashkenazic Compound)... The Ashkenazic community known as the Ashkenazic Compound? No, doesn't this refer to the courtyard? --> by the 13th century, the area had become a courtyard, known as Der Ashkenaz (the Ashkenazic Compound, for the Ashkenazic community in Jerusalem.
...Abraham in 1488 who described a large courtyard containing many houses for exclusive .... Abraham who, in 1488, described... Or, even better, In 1488, .....Abraham described....
repetitiveness: the debts were still outstanding and had not been repaid.

These are problems throughout -- perhaps another copy edit? I'm willing to support re content etc., but prose issues are a barrier. It's very confusing to read. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address the concerns you highlighted. Chesdovi (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia sites are hosted in the USA, therefore images we host must be in the public domain in the USA. However, the following images:

are still copyrighted in the USA. Also,

Other images seem fine.

Oppose pending resolution of these matters. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the first image (File:Hurva synagogue.jpg) be PD because 1939 + 50 = 1990, before the 1 January 1996 magic date set by the URAA? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just doesn't look like an FA. It lost me with the lead; I realize the nature of the subject is confusing, but the lead should not only make sense after reading everything else. It should be longer and clearer. The stuff in the lead about the earliest history, or stories, is not developed. It's unfortunate the bits about Arab villainy are only referenced to newspapers & a blog page. For an article on a building, or several, the architectural info is not FA standard. Some of the vocabulary here is not right: "but this was later replaced with a flat platform covered with expensive marble plates." - "slabs" or nothing, but not plates I think. Were the four animals "drawings", I wonder? "Fresco not linked. The photo captioned "Eastern facade" does not show a facade. Many of the pictures are fixed very small, but there are large stretches with no pictures; they should be spread around more. The prose is too rambling, and not always clear. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 16 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 20:43, 13 March 2010 [29].

National Anthem of Russia

Nominator(s): User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:FFA, has already been on main page


This article was sent to FAC about 4-5 years ago by me, boy hasn't things changed around here. I was away in Japan when this article was sent to FAR, so I did not manage to get a hold of the article while I was there. Not your fault that I needed a vacation, but that is the nature of Wikipedia. Alright, here is a summary of the issues talked about at FAR in June or July of 2009:

The references has exploded in number (I would say by 700%). I also made sure the references were also sent to working websites or to books that are in English. I added more details about the historical anthems and put in better pictures (with alt text). I also shored up the text as much as possible, but I did have a minor copyedit or two during the GAN process. There was a lot of audio clips in the article, but I decided to nuke all of them except for those coming from kremlin.ru (where we have OTRS confirmation on everything from there). I added some musical details about the music itself and added more links to the Commons with the files that we have.

I wish I gotten to it sooner, but I am very glad I was able to fix this up and at least get it back to GAN. I hope you are satisified that this article could be well enough to regain the FA star. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose — sorry, this nomination is premature. The prose falls far below the required standard. The problems are numerous and examples include:
  • The song is a modification - try "adaptation"
  • "who had supplied lyrics" - lyrics are not "supplied" they are written
  • This sentence completely lacks logical flow, "Between 1956 and 1977, the anthem was officially without lyrics because of the references to the formerly denounced ruler Joseph Stalin." - Surely this means that there were lyrics but they were not used because they contained references to Stalin?
  • There is a finite verb missing here, " the anthem decreed official in 1993 without lyrics".
  • Here, "the anthem did not catch on" is not professional prose.
  • This is another example of problem with logical flow, "Despite government efforts to produce lyrics, none were found." In this example the use of "produce" versus "found" is neither logical nor idiomatic.
  • The verb tenses are wrong here, "President Vladimir Putin decided that Alexandrov's music was to be restored and new lyrics were to be written for it." - try "should".

These examples are only from the Lead. I suggest that this candidate be withdrawn and a competent, independent copy editor sought. Graham Colm (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding folks right now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:SMasters is providing the copyedit as I speak. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media Check: Passed - 7 things. All are CC-by-SA or PD, either due to self-photo, GovRussia, or Russian public works. Everything is at Commons, and looks good. --PresN 18:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—I agree with Graham Colm.

  • Lead: "Because of the absence of lyrics, the anthem was not popular and in addition, did not inspire Russian athletes during international competitions." The comma is awkward; so is the "in addition". The second claim appears to be hard to support, even if you have found a source. All Russian athletes?
  • The music score is so squashed up that it has become ugly. I suggest it appear below, larger.
  • Music section: used ... use ... used. And "The music was first used in the Hymn of the Bolshevik Party, created in 1939"—the party or the hymn was created in 1939? The music was used in the hymn ... I'm pondering exactly what this means.

This is a quick-fail. Delegate, please note that I am the second reviewer to ask that this be withdrawn and worked on before submission. FAC is not a fix-it mechanics' shop. Tony (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I told Graham, a copyedit to the article has been performed on the article and it is in the works. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the music, how it is supposed to go is that the similar musical pattern, notes and style was present in a few songs before it became the Russian anthem. The music of the Russian anthem and the "Hymn of the Bolshevik Party" is the same, but the "Hymn of the Bolshevik Party" came first in 1939. I would need to find recordings again and put those in the article. I did also fix the lead to say several Russian teams because I have sources that said the Russian football team and Russian Olympians did not feel inspired by the anthem. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I too am concerned with the prose. Parts like these do not lend confidence.

  • "The anthem is also played on television and radio before the start and closing of programming or if the programming is continuous, the anthem is played at 2400 and 0600 hours and on New Years Eve." (odd structure)
  • "The only penalty that is present in the national anthem law was to punish those who do not stand up for the anthem." (tense, is/was)
  • "It's alleged that on one occasion, Putin chastised the national football team" ("It's", and who alleges this?)

Also, is the "unofficial" anthem translation our own? If so, have you made sure it correctly and neutrally interprets the Russian? (The "not OR" essay suggests "Any original translations should be faithful, to the point of literalness; if interpretation is called for, it should be explicitly in parenthetical notes.") The ongoing copyedits (and in this state it'll need copyedits, not just one) need to address those issues (and others). Good luck, and I like the video (proof, as if we needed more, that wiki is not paper). --an odd name 00:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The translation is a free one by Wikipedians but I am not certain about how exactly it translates from the original Russian. As for the first part, Russian law states that the anthem must be played at certain times of day. If the radio or television programming is not 24/7, the anthem is played at the start and ending of programming. If the station does run 24/7, the anthem plays at 2400 and 0600 hours. The anthem is also required to be played on New Years after the President gives a speech. The second part, I am not aware of any punishment for disrespecting the anthem other than not standing up for it. I am going to play around with that third part. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:42, 12 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 20:12, 13 March 2010 [30].

Cog (advertisement)

Nominator(s): GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 01:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 01:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this for featured status because the article is the most comprehensive resource on the topic anywhere, online or off. Cog is one of the most influential television advertising campaigns of the past decade, and still holds the title of "most-awarded commercial ever." I've been wanting to work on the article since getting noitulovE promoted a couple of years back, and I'm anxious to get any feedback on the results. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 01:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. No dab links. External links appear mostly fine, but [31] has some funny code at the bottom and gives a 500 code. Alt text good for the one image (wouldn't an image of the ad itself be justifiable as fair use?). Ucucha 01:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I tagged it with CSD F5 (and you deleted it, I now see—but F5 requires that an image be tagged for seven days first, which is why I didn't just delete it myself). It's your judgment as the main author, but it seems that the piece shown in the image is perhaps the most recognized part of the spot and therefore the piece that could best be included. Ucucha 01:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think this is rather awkwardly written in parts, such as "Because Cog was to be produced with a minimum of computer-generated imagery work, the majority of the four-month production schedule was set aside for getting the exact positioning of the components worked out." This is the first we're told that computer imagery was to be avoided, and with no explanation as to why. "Majority" isn't the right word here either.
It also has an inappropriately tabloid newspaper feel to it in places, such as "The exacting nature of the testing and the pressure of the schedule took its toll on the crew. Some workers went days without sleep. Others reported having bad dreams about the spare car parts." Poor diddums. I can't make sense of some sections either. For instance, what does "Filming session lasted seven hours, and the work was exacting" mean? "In all, 606 takes were needed to complete Cog,[2] of which 70–80 were performed in the four days of filming." So when were the other takes done? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redacted the problem sentences. The rest of the takes were performed during the testing phase. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boards and The Advertising Forum are trade journals for the advertising community, though the print arm of the latter has folded and it's online-only these days.
  • Millimeter (digitalcontentproducer) and iMedia Creative are professionally produced publications, with all content peer reviewed by industry experts.
  • The mad.co.uk link was just making available an article in the Creative Review. Since it's no longer freely available there, I've switched to a dead-tree-only format.
  • Bare ref was added recently by someone else, I've formatted it appropriately now. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it'll matter much at this stage - no-one seems to have much positive to say about the article. Still, it's received more attention since the nomination than it's had in the past six months, so it's not been a total wash :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:55, 13 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 20:12, 13 March 2010 [32].

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999

Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the requisite standards. I know that one section is referenced by primary sources; there are no secondary sources available for it, since academics tend not to dedicate much time to what an act tweaks around in the miscellaneous provisions. Ironholds (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I'm terribly sorry but this is nowhere near the standard to qualify for a featured article. One problem that FA reviewers will face on highly specialised legal topics is the difficulty to evaluate whether the information is accurate, pertinent or useful. When an article looks good, how do you know it actually is good? The answer is, you need specialists. I'll just say a couple of things. This page cites only one case (Nisshin Shipping) on the Act itself, and doesn't explain it. It doesn't deal with any other cases after the passage of the Act, eg The Laemthong. That is a whopping failure to engage or explain the Act. Furthermore, while the referencing may look impressive, it is not. It is full of pointless information and anecdote. Here's just one example:


This is all entirely useless. That same section then starts talking about the views of the construction industry (as if it matters?) on the Act. ("The act has been criticised somewhat by the construction industry for its refusal to make an exception for complex construction contracts,[25] and for the vagueness of the term "purports to confer a benefit". It is generally accepted, however, that it would be unfair to make an exception for a particular industry,[25] and case law has clarified the meaning of "purports to confer a benefit".[46]")

On that last point, if you look in the article itself - which should be the thing clarifying meanings - for the meaning of "purports to confer a benefit" you find this,


It doesn't tell you anything. But actually, it doesn't matter! There is no problem whatsoever in this phrase. This is just one example about how defective and riddled with mistakes, omissions, exaggeration of some parts, lack of emphasis in others. This article should not have been rated good in the first place. The reference list is adequate, but the page fails draw on those very references, or to grapple with or explain the main issues and functions of the legislation. It certainly does not deal with the details and the difficulties of the legislation. Finally, it does not actually quote any of the provisions. In a short act, this will often be useful for the reader. Again, I'm terribly sorry, but this cannot be endorsed. Wikidea 14:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose prose needs work, several questionable statements, as follows:

  • Lede: Generally. ledes are three or four paragraphs. It's not somthing I insist on, but in this case, the first, long paragraph is rather tangled. I would suggest splitting it into two paragraphs.
The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (1990 c. 31) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that significantly reformed the common law Doctrine of Privity, overruling the longstanding doctrine that a third party could not sue to enforce a contract if he was not a party to the contract. Over the centuries, that second rule of the Doctrine of Privity had been widely criticised by lawyers, academics and members of the judiciary.
Proposals for reform via an Act of Parliament were first made in 1937 by the Law Revision Committee in their Sixth Interim Report. No further action was taken by the government until the 1990s, when the Law Commission proposed a new draft bill in 1991, and presented their final report in 1996. The bill was introduced to the House of Lords in December 1998, and moved to the House of Commons on 14 June 1999. It received the Royal Assent on 11 November 1999, coming into force immediately as the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.
  • Background section: A lot of fairly unclear language in here. "was not contested"? Was there a dispute? Obviously you mean that there was no movement to change it, no criticism, and you should find better language to convey that point.
  • Citations: Perhaps you could put those in the footnotes? Obviously they should be there, but the casual reader doesn't need to see them. Perhaps now and they you could throw in the year of a case in the main text, if it is relevant to the reader's understanding of the sequence of events.
  • "200 years". If you have a numeral quantifying a noun in that way, there needs to be a non-breaking space there.
  • "different judges provided different decisions as to whether or not a third party could enforce a contract that benefited them." This is very awkward language. Don't you think something like "judges differed as to whether a third party could enforce a party which benefited them" would be better? Or (if it is true) "judges offered different rationales for the rule". The article is unclear as to whether the dispute is about the result (that is some judges ruled a third party could sue) or if it is just a question of the legal basis for the decisions involving the rule. Keep in mind that I'm not giving every example of language I'm finding awkward, it really needs to be gone over with an eye to clarity.
  • Criticism Beswick. You might want to say who was suing to enforce the contract here.
    "the United States". You're kidding me right? Ever hear of Ultramares Corporation v. Touche? While God knows the doctrine of privity in the US varies from state to state and is riddled with exceptions, to say it doesn't exist?!?!?

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am most emphatically NOT a lawyer and feel somewhat intimidated to comment, but maybe looking back at the statements in the source explicitly stated for the affirmation might be called for: sounds like some subtility might have been lost along the way. As an aside, there seems to be an aspect that the term "privity" is quite often not used (or in a more restrictive sense) in the American courts (though more often by commentators). D & H Distributing v. US 102 F.3d 542 sounds like a textbook case of privity in the English sense: "the subcontractor sought to recover from the government [because] either [...] it was a third party beneficiary of the contract between the government and the contractor." Yet the word "privity" does not appear anywhere in the judgement. Circéus (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, even though the term may not always be used, the concept certainly exists in US law. And so does the term, just drop privity into any legal search engine. Either way, that statement is very problematical in the article. Read here. Can you give me the quote from the source, by any chance?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I can't. My area of specialty is translation, not law, though most likely Ironholds still has copies of the article he used (since he's noted they were electronic copies). The privity as deriving from Ultramares (again as a non-lawyer) is somewhat odd to me as it appear to involve tort in the specific context of accountancy contracts. The formal "equivalent" of the Privity doctrine (as established in the act) would be, as far as I can tell, the third party beneficiary, though whether that is grounded in case law or legislation the article doesn't say. Indeed if the doctrine in that form (i.e. excluding third parties) is not applied/does not exist in the U.S., the statement makes sense; it is merely worded in a misleading fashion. Circéus (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, privity in the US is not limited to accountancy. In fact I think it is now moribund there, given congressional legislation after recent scandals. Not my area of expertise, but you got to know a bit about everything to be a lawyer. But the candidate article still says, blanket statement, there is no privity of contract in the US legal system. I'm entitled to look at that and wonder as to the accuracy of other statements. I'm willing to hear what you and Ironholds have to say about it, and I am hopeful that I will eventually support, but I believe my concerns are valid.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment {{sect-stub}} in article. If the section requires expansion, please withdraw from FAC. If it does not require expansion, please rmv stub template. • Ling.Nut 04:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was added in the middle of the argument which you can read on the talk page if you suffer from morbid curiosity. I'd happily remove it, but I suspect Wikidea will fight fight tooth and nail to make sure it remains on the article. Circéus (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know you and you don't know me, so I'd suggest that you refrain from making comments like that. I happen to know a little bit about this subject, and that's why I've give my criticisms. Wikidea 18:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess the question is, should there be a FAC where there is an ongoing dispute like that, or should the dispute be settled first?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suggest that the FAC be withdrawn – hopefully without bitterness or bad feelings on anyone's part. The FAC process will still be here when the probs are hammered out. The community is too short on reviewers to wade through a dispute of any substance. • Ling.Nut 02:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments In refs but not notes: Roe. In notes but not refs: Stevens. • Ling.Nut 14:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Needs work on the writing. I strongly encourage the nominator to keep writing/improving in this area. WP can do great service to anglophone legal systems and education with this type of article.

  • Not being an expert in this field, I find the 1999/1990 clash peculiar.
  • Why is "United Kingdom" linked (and bolded) in the infobox? Please see WP:OVERLINK. Why is "Long title" linked? It doesn't seem to be a hard item to grapple with, even for a seven-year-old.
  • The direct quotation in the second sentence: a bit odd without refering explicitly to the author ... "... and, as Dean put it, removed "one of the ...". Do that and you can dispense with the redundant "thereby" and your square-bracketed insertion.
  • No direct ref. to the Sixth Interim Report. How could a reader access it?
  • Watch those additive connectors, which are usually redundant: both "alsos" in the last para of the lead could go. And consider a semicolon: "... third party; it provides protection ...".
  • I mean this in a constructive way: you've clearly done a lot of legal writing; this register is well-known for being ... well ... legalistic. It's so easy to iron out for normal people, though. Let's look at one sentence:
    The historical doctrine of privity consisted of two rules – the first was that a third party may not have obligations imposed by the terms of a contract, and second was that a third party may not benefit from the terms of a contract.
  • Why not:
    The historical doctrine of privity consisted of two rules – that a third party may not have obligations imposed by the terms of a contract, and may not benefit from the terms of a contract.
  • The joys of ellipsis.
  • "different ... different". Does one provide a decision? Remove "or not"? "them" (singular they) is just fine by me, but it just could refer back to the judges.
  • "which confirmed that a third party could not enforce a contract that benefited him"—now the singular they is dropped in favour of the generic male. But more importantly, it's ambiguous: does it mean that the judgement meant a third party could enforce a contract as long as they didn't benefit from it?

Haven't read further than this; suggest an audit on the writing is in order. Tony (talk) 06:01, 10 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 20:12, 13 March 2010 [33].

Wally Hammond

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have expanded it from a brief start class article. It has undergone peer review but I did not feel GA review would have been helpful now due to the length and detail of the article. Wally Hammond was a cricketer who had a long and eventful career and quite an abrasive personality. He was famous for his batting achievements and for being the first former professional cricketer to captain the England Test side. All comments very welcome. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.. if he had been a less reluctant bowler, he could have achieved a higher standard - comes across as vague - "average?" for standard?
I don't want to use "average" because of the cricket meaning and as a bowler, the higher your average, the worse you have done. Other words such as level may be equally vague.--Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know I know. It's a tricky one. Maybe "achieved more with the ball (?) ? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to achieved even more with the ball than he did, as someone before pointed out that he actually had a good record with the ball. The point is that it could have been better.--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This may have been to avoid her influence - any more information? Sounds vague and leaves me wanting to know more.
He and his mother did not get along as she tried to control him a lot. I could add a bit more about this but would it not make an already long article even longer? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, it ain't that long :) But actually erading more I am not so fussed about it now so don't worry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A related factor may also have been that before he left England to go on tour, he received an electric shock which gave him blood poisoning - I'm a doctor and that sounds really weird...
This info comes (via the book by David Foot) from a letter which Hammond wrote before his illness began. I can't really find a way to make it fit so I've removed it. Could an electric shock have had anything to do with it all?--Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless he got some sort of gaping wound or something...I think removing it is prudent :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
inspired by Hammond's example - sounds...nothing. " inspired by Hammond's prowess"? "good form"?
Changed to "good form".

Overall, the prose is/was choppy with a few too many short sentences. I wondered if there was any material for a "legacy" section after his death? I massaged the prose a bit but think some more eyes will help and will ask some others. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any specific examples? Happy to rewrite any choppy bits. Can't immediately think what might go in a legacy section except how much his team-mates liked his cricket but hated his personality! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I need to have another read-through and a few pairs of eyes would be good. I pinged Dweller and Yellowmonkey, and I see some tother folks have helped along the way, so will wait till some folks have chimed in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er... Where is this in the article? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check yer references, mate. • Ling.Nut 14:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, didn't understand before! Fixed now (don't know where the page ref went; I'd put it in before.) --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Several quick ones from me after reading the first couple of sections...

  • The External links should be at the bottom of the article, below the bibliography.
Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alt text has been adjusted recently to show proper nouns, which are discouraged by alt text guidelines. This should be fixed, and someone with more knowledge than myself should re-check for other issues.
I think someone did this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making an impression: "former England and Middlesex captain Plum Warner and The Times correspondent all described him as a player of potential." Who is the correspondent?
Times correspondents were anonymous in those days. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, just a glaring typo! --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm sorry to have to oppose this article's promotion, because it's obvious that a lot of work has been put into it. But to cut a long story short it's too long, it's deadly dull to read, and some bits don't make sense. Just to give one example of where the prose needs to be fixed: "Foot documents close relationships with several women over the years up until his second marriage in 1947". Who is "his" referring to here? Looks like Foot, but logic says it's got to be Hammond. This could be a worthy FA, but it's got a way to go yet. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the example given, for what it's worth. I agree it's too long and needs cutting back. I'm too close to it and need to know which bits should go. Could do with more clues about which bits don't make sense. Also, I'm sure lots of it is "deadly dull" :) but which bits in particular and how can I wake the poor reader up again? I think it may be better to end this review soon and do a major overhaul. To be honest, I've wanted to do this for a while, but until a week ago, no-one would comment on the article at all! When this review does end, I could do with some more help with the copy-editing and general comments if anyone who is writing here could help. So far, only YellowMonkey has been able to help over any length of time. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. WRT Malleus's quote above, "over the years" is vague. Which years? However, I think M. is being a bit tough about the "deadly dull". Prose seems OK to me, although I've only skimmed through.

  • Linking problems: (1) "English" as a pipe will be ignored (target is "English Test cricketer"). So link all three current words and link "Test cricket" using "professional test cricketer" as a pipe in the next sentence. (2) "Amateur" is another deceptive pipe, this time for "History of English amateur cricket" ... hmmm ... will be ignored. Since the top is stuffed with links already, why not unlink this one and draw explicit attention to it in the See also section. Can you do an audit on the linking? Can you hyphenate the pipe "middle-order batsmen"? (That's an excellent, focused link, BTW.) I've removed the chain links from the geographical triple-bungers in the infobox. Readers are more likely to notice single-item links. Is WWII sufficiently relevant and unknown to link? Same for the lower-down WWI. Tony (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done this... Haven't put the amateur cricket article in the see also section as it's not a great article and does not really explain amateur cricket so that it would have any meaning for Hammond's article. As there's probably quite a bit of editing to do on the article, I haven't looked at the other links yet but I'll do so shortly. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has improved greatly since I last looked at in January. Some comments:
    • Cardus going as far as to describe him as a possible future England player "possible future England player" seems to me a little vague. Does "future England player" or "potential England player" convey the same sense that you wish to get across?
Changed to "future" as "potential" is used in previous sentence.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the winter of 1928–29, Hammond toured Australia with M.C.C.. MCC or M.C.C.? It is "MCC" in Donald Bradman, my gold standard for cricket FAs and "M.C.C." here. I prefer the former. The two full stops at the end of the sentence also look awkward. Also, use of the term MCC for England Test tours, while formally correct, is a little misleading to those not in the know. They are likely to assume that this was a private club tour rather than the England national team.
Personally, I prefer M.C.C. but if it is a problem, I will change it. The England Test tours were by a private members club. While it may be a little confusing, I think it is stretching it to call them England tours. Perhaps a note to explain? Personally, I think that the whole M.C.C. identity of the tours was too important to change their name. For the Bodyline tour, it was a big, big thing that this was the M.C.C., not just England. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 1939 season was dominated by worries about the political situation in Europe. This sentence looks a little out of place. It appears you are about to lead into the effects of the political situation, but then you don't. It comes across as a bit of clumsy way to introduce a link to the 1939 English cricket season.
Agree. Removed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general I am not a big fan of references within sentences and especially where there is not at least a comma or a semi-colon used. Happy to defer on this matter to the MoS gurus, however.
I'm not bothered either way, so I'll change if requested. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More comments to follow when I have another chance to have a read through. Again, well done. -- Mattinbgn\talk
Done. Mentioned no Tests played as WI not yet a Test side.--Sarastro1 (talk) 16:18, 12 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 12:36, 13 March 2010 [34].

J.E.B. Stuart

Nominator(s): Lord Oliver The Olive Branch 02:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this featured article for review because, in my view, it does meet the criteria for a featured article. It is comprehensive in its explanation of the life of J.E.B. Stuart, and I do not believe it leaves out any relevant information partaining to an article suitable for featured status. Lord Oliver The Olive Branch 02:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, since you are not the primary contributor to this article and are not mentioned in the {{maintained}} template on the article's talk page, did you even discuss this nomination with the primary contributor prior to nominating this article? Is he okay with you nominating the article and getting the featured credit since you have not done the majority of the work with the article? -MBK004 03:01, 13 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 Dabomb87 22:17, 12 March 2010 [35].

National Capital Freenet

Nominator(s): Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it is well written, stable, cited and overall has the qualities of a featured article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail oppose

  • Where's the rest of the lead? "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." Are there no more important aspects and events to add to the lead?
  • Overwhelmingly sourced to the subject itself, to the point that I question its notability and neutrality.
    • For example, is there no third party (press, major tech blog, etc.) that has covered this group and discussed what they see their mission to be? We seem to be taking their stated mission at face value without mentioning how others have observed them.
  • Get rid of the year mini-headings. Maybe separate "History" to three or so sections based on major events.
  • Why aren't the linked studies used or at least mentioned in the article body? A featured article is comprehensive, and "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic"; this is not.
  • Add alt text for the images to help those who can't see them.
  • A section with just one sentence? Tell us more about these "server" things and how NCF uses them.

There are certainly other issues, but I'll stop here because this article has not received peer review to ensure it meets rules (or at least ignores them well), and failed a 2008 GAN. There are no confusing dab links and few dead external links, but I think the other issues above make those moot. Please withdraw the candidate, get other editors to at least glance at it, and address my issues (and any that are raised by the other editors). --an odd name 20:07, 12 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 16:54, 10 March 2010 [36].

Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008

Nominator(s): William S. Saturn (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article status because it complies with all the criteria. There was a comment left at the GA nomination that the article looked ready for FA status, and I agree. William S. Saturn (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It is generally a mistake to rely on a GA comment as a basis for FAC nomination, since the standards are very different. This article is good, and interesting, but it's not FA quality yet. Here are just a few issues:-

  • Four disambiguation links
  • Two dead external links
  • Alt text missing on all images
  • Inadequate lead (not a full summary of the article)
  • No personal information on Barr that I can see. Minimal details on him, and his background, are necessary. The article should be self-contained and not require readers to use a link to find out who Barr was.
  • Image placement leading to squeezing of text betwen left and right-aligned images is contrary to MOS. (It may be that too many images have been crammed in).

I have not examined the prose in detail, but in general a thorough peer review is an advisable stage between GA and FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check: Not Passed - 11 images. Most are flickr-transfers or PD-self, though File:Greater Atlanta Libertarian Meetup 6-23-2008.jpg, File:Barr HQ.jpg, and File:Bob Barr Speaking on Diplomacy with Iran.jpg need a description. File:Barr logo.jpg needs a "purpose" filled out. --PresN 18:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. I oppose this article for many reasons (such as the reasons stated by other users on this archive). The article's images do not have alt text, there are disambiguation links, dead links, and the articles lead as well as other parts of the article are not very informational. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 23:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction to this comment was, "what an asshole," but then I looked at the person's userpage and I saw that they are just a child. As for the first oppose, I will try to address these issues shortly. Looking back, I shouldn't have nominated the page, but I've been away for a while and was overly optimistic. I'll let the nomination run its course to allow for more feedback. Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you thought I was an "asshole" for opposing an article that, in my opinion, did not meet the FA criteria for a number of reasons? Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 04:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I thought you were an asshole for your tone, but I no longer feel that way because you are only a child and have not reached maturity. I have no desire to continue this conversation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:27, 10 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 05:16, 10 March 2010 [37].

Chloë Sevigny

Nominator(s): Ashton 29 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because a lot of dedication and work has gone into it since it initially received a Peer Review and Good Article Review. Since failing its initial Good Article review, a lot of work has gone into the article and it has not since been re-nominated for Good Article, I however, think that instead of re-nominating it for Good Article, that it now deserves Featured Article status. It has scope; it is well-written and contains genuine sourcing for all of its information. It is also illustrated with insightful images. Ashton 29 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Dab links, external links, and alt text fine. Oppose. No alt text present, as required by criterion 3. See WP:ALT for advice on alt text. Also, links to six different disambiguation pages; see the box to the right. Several links are dead, and marked as such; have you tried finding archived versions of these links (for example, via http://www.archive.org)? (I will strike this oppose when these issues have been resolved.) Ucucha 12:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All aforementioned issues with the article (alt text, disambiguated links, archived references) have been acknowledged, replaced and/or repaired. Aside from this, significant work has been put into the article, sourcing is all verifiable and effective, and the article as an entire piece is fluid and nails all general facets of the subject's life and career, with input from the subject herself (quotes, interviews) and others (film critics, fellow filmmakers, etc). Pictures are used appropriately, and captioning is well-worded; information is evenly divided using headings and subheadings as well. The article also holds a solid introduction, as well as a fairly well-rounded conclusion applicable to the current point in the subject's career. I have been overlooking this article for months and have done a fair amount on improving the article one step at a time, and feel it has grown into a worthy article with mine own work and the work of other editors. Youshotandywarhol (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only pic of Sevigny in the article is a less than ideal presentation of her appearance. I would recommend at least trying to contact her agent about this. It might be in their best interest to provide Wikipedia with a decent pic of her, even if it's only medium or low res. Alternatively, you could try scouring the net for okay photos taken by people who might realistically be willing to release them. And considering the very low quality of the infobox pic, there should be at least one fair use pic in the article showing Sevigny in one of the more famous films she's starred in, like Kids or Boys Don't Cry, or maybe something from Big Love. Peter Isotalo 22:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did upload a good picture of Sevigny from Big Love (promotional photo, released to TV Guide), and when I applied it to this page, it was removed because apparently it is not permissible to use a non-free image of a person if there are free ones available (even though the main photo is poor quality). The photo is on the wiki article for Nicolette Grant, but other editors kept removing it when I added it to this page; I had a detailed rationale for using it on both Nicki Grant's article as well as Chloë Sevigny's, but it wasn't good enough apparently. Anyone able to clear this up maybe? Youshotandywarhol (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Referring to a free picture with such a poor likeness to remove fair use images sound pretty silly. I'm not up to date on how we deal with this, but to me it almost smacks of ruleslawyering. I think you should try to argue the case again. Again, though, have you tried contacting copyright holders about releasing decent pics? I would imagine that it would be very much in Sevigny's (and her agent's) interest to release at least one medium resolution photo. Peter Isotalo 15:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seemed silly to me as well, and the photo fits all Wikipedia criteria, except for being used as a main profile photo, apparently. It seems impossible to contact Sevigny's agency over the internet (have hunted for an email address and failed) to get permission from them (or have them release a photo to Wikipedia, perhaps). I have looked on websites such as Getty Images (which hosts thousands of photos of her from different photographers), but it seems it's impossible to get to them unless you are a company wanting to promote/sell material. I'm not experienced with this sort of thing; anyone else know a way/place we could get a good photograph?Youshotandywarhol (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted (and the article recently failed GAN). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. True, this account is rather recent, but I have worked on Wikipedia quite often without logging in (I often forget to when I make edits). So I have edited this page numerous times without being logged into my account. As for any reasons, none in particular. I learned the language of Wikipedia a year or so ago, and I started working on it from then on in my spare time. In terms of this article, I have always been fascinated by Sevigny's career and films, so I figured I'd put my writing abilities to use and help collaborate for the piece, and I've watched it evolve into a well-structured, nicely written article; I have done a fair amount of editing on it, while logged in and not. Does the editors' history make a vast difference in becoming a FA, even if the article is well-composed enough/fits the criteria? Youshotandywarhol (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure why Ashton29 did; I have frequently edited things on Wikipedia, but I've never gone about nominating an article for anything before. I do know that Ashton29 did review the article and do a fair amount of editing though, when it was first nominated as a GA. Youshotandywarhol (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It failed GAN, like mentioned above, BEFORE all the work was put into it. Chaelee (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Why has it been archived? I have been working on Wikipedia for a while before I acquired an account, and I have also been working on the subject's article quite often, hence why I decided to nominate it. Ashton 29 (talk) 05:27, 10 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 02:20, 8 March 2010 [38].

Ian Meckiff

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 00:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This article is about Ian Meckiff an Australian fast bowler of the 1950s and 1960s who was very controversial, like Muttiah Muralitharan nowadays because of persistent allegations that he used an illegal technique of delivering the ball. What made his case more interesting and gossipy among the cricket writers of the time was that there were rumours that the Australian authorities considered him to be illegitimate but that they decided to allow him to play so that the umpire could sanction him in public and make a "sacrificial goat" out of him, to show that Australia were tough on illegal bowling. He was also famous for being the player run out to complete the first Tied Test in history (a tie has only occurred twice in 133 years) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 00:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 06:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Alt text is good. Ucucha 14:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments -- Looking fwd to finding time to review in detail what I know will be a fine article on a very interesting player, however just reading the lead could I ask you to again review/revise repetition of the guy's name, which for instance occurs 5 times in the 7 sentences of the second para alone... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Yes, this fellow's career was rather juicy and controversial... YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 06:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for addressing the general name repetition point but I also note that the first six paragraphs of Early Career begin with "Meckiff", which is also a bit wearing. It's perfectly reasonable IMO to mention the subject's name in the first sentence of a new paragraph but perhaps not always as the first word so could one or two of these be restructured slightly?
    • ...noted writer Jack Pollard... -- certainly he's notable, but since he's subject of a WP article I reckon most people would gather that.
    • "Meckiff's action was totally illegally... -- I assume that should be totally illegal?
    • ...the selection panel of Don Bradman, Dudley Seddon and Jack Ryder continued to pick him, implying that they regarded his action as legal. -- can you just confirm for me that your source spells out that continuing to pick him implied that the selectors regarded his action as legal, i.e. that last bit is not your own (understandable) interpretation of his continued selection?
    • I know the expression "breaking down" as applied to bowlers but be as well to explain just what his problem was; the average reader might even suspect a nervous rather than a physical breakdown, given the controversy... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks for pointing out the nervous breakdown thing. Yes, Dr Bernard Whimpress made those comments about the selection panel implying legitimacy YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for taking care of those and my apologies for a disjointed review, just juggling a lot of things off-wiki at the moment... , and by 12, he was acting as a caddy at Kingston Heath Golf Club is a bit of a non-sequitur and seems pretty trivial compared to the info in the first part of the sentence - do we really need it?
    • The budding paceman started at South Melbourne in the Fourth XI after his brother was unavailable and unable to take his place. -- I assume its the brother who was unable to take the brother's place in the team, but grammatically it looks like the brother was unable to take Ian's place, which doesn't really make sense; also unavailable and unable seems a bit too much. How about simply The budding paceman started at South Melbourne in the Fourth XI after his brother was unable to play. or something like that?
    • I take South Melbourne's first title to mean its first championship-winning side, but maybe it should be spelt out for the uninitiated.
    • The president of the Marylebone Cricket Club Sir Hubert Ashton hoped that Australia would not select Meckiff. -- can we clarify for what team or series Ashton was talking about? State team, test team against West Indies, anything at all? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 01:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. —Aaroncrick (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any biography of him, that would go through that but the City of Kingston employs a historian with a PhD to go oversee their history project and I don't think it would be worse than a newspaper YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 23:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check: 1 image, which is actually a graph. Marked as GFDL/CC-by-SA, though you should probably put your name in there as the author rather than just in the uploader spot. The image should also be moved to Commons. Caption looks good. --PresN 05:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added explicit creation and added data source YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 05:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Some picky stuff from the first few sections; I've read about halfway through so far. At first glance, it looks like another strong one.

  • Early career: "the left-arm paceman made 19 not out to helping Victoria reach 131". Remove last three letters from "helping".
  • Capitalize first letter of "the fast bowler was not required to bat...".
  • Peak and eruption of chucking row: Don't need multiple Trevor Bailey links here.
  • The red link in Four Chukkas to Austrailia looks faulty. Just de-capitalizing a piped letter should turn it blue.
  • Subcontinent tour: "Over the next two years, sceptics and sporting opponents mostly regarded his action was fair". Should "was" be "as"? (Not sure if this is used in Australia) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I'm sorry, but there are serious issues with the prose. The lead reads well, but thereafter I found problem after problem. I gave up early in the Early career section, skimmed and found other problems later on. Judging by the edit history this article has not been copyedited by an independent editor; such a copyedit, covering the whole article is essential. My opinion is that this can't be done during the duration of this FAC. I enjoy cricket articles, and the Meckiff case is fascinating. I would volunteer to do the copyediting myself if the article were withdrawn for a couple of weeks. Here are my detailed comments:-

  • Lead: Minor point – "late 1950s" and "early 1960s" do not require hyphens
  • Early life
    • "He routinely dominated the opposition batsmen in the competition..." Can you say what competition this was, and also if the 200 wickets was a single season's haul or spread over several years?
    • Also, can you identify the under-16 team he played for?
    • The sudden jump from him playing cricket aged 11 to his working as a hardware salesman is jarring. You need a transitional phrase, e.g "After leaving school Meckiff worked as a hardware salesman..."
    • Naming wife and son: please see WP:BLPNAME
Explained these things, and moved the hardware thing to the outside cricket part. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have it much better now. Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early career
    • "Meckiff started his district career with South Melbourne in Victorian Premier Cricket in the 1951–52 season, where he switched to fast bowling,[2][7] having failed in an audition at Richmond in 1950". The multiple clauses in the above sentence seem to be wrongly ordered and the information is incomplete. How did he fail? And is "audition" the best word here – surely "trial" is what is meant? The sentence might be restructured along the lines: "Having failed as a spin bowler in a trial at Richmond in 1950, Meckiff switched to fast bowling in 1951–52 when he began his district career in Victoria Premier Cricket with South Melbourne." – or something similar. This would work if you dropped "at South Melbourne" from the next sentence.
    • "By the age of 17, Meckiff was in the senior team and played in South Melbourne's first championship-winning team,[3] although his career was often interrupted by national service." The "although" connector is inappropriate since the third clause is unrelated to the other two. The third clause is also vague; "his career was often interrupted..." – for how long did these interruptions go on? Does national service mean military service? For clarity's sake you need a sentence along the lines of: "However, the early part of his career was disrupted by the demands of military service." If you can date his service, so much the better.
You have added good explanatory material, but a further tweak is needed in the initial sentence. Does "By the age of 17" refer to his playing in the championship-winning team, or was that a little later? Presumably you can clarify by adding the season in which the championship as won. Also, to avoid repetion, alter the second mention of "team" to "side" or "XI". Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes I've clarified that he debuted and won the title in the same season YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second paragraph: "The South Melbourne bowler made his first-class debut..." No reason not to name him, thus: Meckiff made his first-class debut..." The following words "in a match" are redundant. "Coming in" should be extended to "Coming in to bat...";
    • ...with the score at 8/77..." needs amplification as this is the first mention of a team's score. Suggest: "with his side 8 wickets down for 77 runs". The short form can be used thereafter in the article.
    • The description of him as a "left-arm paceman" at this point is confusing, because it is his batting that is being described. Just "he" will do.
    • "...and then took 3/45 to restrict Western Australia to a 34-run first innings lead." Again, for first mention of a bowler's analysis the figures should be explained: 3 wickets for 45 runs.
    • "At the time, the two states were by far the strongest in Australia, having placed first and second 18 times out of 20 in the past 10 years". Word missing between "having" and "placed". Placed first and second in what? And 20 competions in 10 years needs explaining.
Tweaked all these things. I thought the reference to 20 was clear as there are ten seasons and there are two teams to come first and second, but I've reworded it YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • Some points at random from later in the article:-
    • "Meckiff went onto the Third Test..." This has to be either "into" or "on to". In this context "onto" makes no sense
Silly mistake YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He reported that his son was verbally abused by classmates"; Meckiff was 24 in 1958-59 - was his son actually old enough to be "verbally abused" by classmates? Do you train 'em that early in Australia? Or is this something that happened later?
Clarified. The book was written in 1961. So even if Meckiff married and had kids at 18, the kid wasn't more than 8. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "abuse" supposedly started after the Melbourne Test when Meckiff was just 24. His son can't have been out of the kindergarten; kids that age don't "abuse", they may tease or call names. But it is beyond my belief, anyway, that a chap who had just taken 6/36 for his country would find his children being mocked in this way. Surely it would be the whingeing Poms getting the abuse? It sounds to me as though Meckiff was having his own retrospective whinge in 1961, playing for sympathy. But let it pass. Brianboulton (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clumsy phrasing: "In 1960, the throwing law was changed so that it stipulated that there was to be no straightening..." Try "...changed, to stipulate that..." etc
    • "This meant that during the 1961 Australian tour to England, there would be an amnesty period at the summer during which the umpires would privately report concerns about bowling actions to the respective teams to remediate." First, there are two "durings" in the sentence, secondly the words "at the summer" are redundant (and oddly phrased), thirdly the verb is "remedy" not "remediate".
  • I found some of the section headings odd and unencyclopedic, for example: "Peak and eruption of chucking row" (ambiguous and slangy); "Alterations of the throwing law" (Either "Alterations to" or Alteration should be singular); "No balled in the Sheffield Shield" (No-balled requires a hyphen); "Conspiracy?" (headings should be neutral, thus "Conspiracy theories").
Changed. I Changed it to allegations of a conspiracy, as "conspiracy theories" usually means some crackpot-type thing, but many mainstream pundits claimed this. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Peak and start of throwing controversy" is still ambiguous. It should be "Career peak and...". The words "against Meckiff" are unnecessary in the "conspiracy heading. Brianboulton (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, fixed YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that an enormous amount of work has gone into this article, but at the moment the prose falla a long way short of FA standard. Please consider my offer above. Brianboulton (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have always self-copyedited my articles since 2008, and generally have been self-sufficient as far as the FACs not being terminally ill. I've done it more than 20 times, and am pretty sure I went through the same process each time, but when I read a second time, I did find a lot of things that could be improved. So your comments about the state of article were fair, but I've gone through the article again, at the same rate as usual, this one took longer as it was longer than the normal articles and I don't think I'm rushing it, so how does it look now? I wasn't falling asleep when I did the original but obviously something didn't go so good this time. I don't want to withdraw because I've been able to get the job done before and I'm always grateful for anyone who volunteers to copy-edit for me, as I hardly consider it to be exciting, but was your offer conditional on throwing in the towel. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No ultimatum intended, it's just that I am very busy and don't know whether I have that much time to spare during the remaining duration of this FAC. However, you have obviously done further work, so I'll try and read through the rest in the next few days, fixing what I can, and see what transpires. The article is obviously destined for FA some time, but we ought to get it into the best possible state beforehand. Brianboulton (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem, thanks again YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have copyedited the sections to the end of the "Career peak" section, though not the lead. Here are some issues I can't settle:-

  • General points
    • I have been changing most of the repetitive descriptions of "The Victorian", "the left-arm paceman", etc. to "Meckiff". I think the balance is OK, but it probably requires the judgement of another pair of eyes.
    • Unencyclopedic language: "grabs" (meaning catches); "scribes" (journalists); "outed" (named); "atop" (top of) - generally I have altered these.
  • Career peak section
    • Second paragraph: how does Bailey's dismissive comment mark "the start of rumblings about the bowler's action"? (Incidentally this was the match of Bailey's infamous 8-hour innings for 68)
Moved to the front, as the prediction isn't related to the chucking, and the private mumbling, which didn't give anymore detail YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence needs attention: "Former England spinner Ian Peebles asserted that the Victorian threw "the greater number of balls they deliver". It's the "they" in the quote that throws it.
Checking in a book YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The English writer E. M. Wellings accused Meckiff, along with Burke, Gordon Rorke and Keith Slater of throwing for Australia in the Tests. Neither Slater nor Rorke played in the first two Tests (Slater played in the third, Rorke in the fourth and fifth). We are dealing with the fall-out from the second Test at this point, so Wellings's comments are out of sequence. Also, Laker was not a "former" English spinner at this stage—he played in the match. I also suspect that most of the comments in the paragraph beginning "By contrast..." are post-series, not reactions to the second Test. The Pollard quote is too short for a blockquote and should be incorporated with the main text.
REstructured general comments to the end, that weren't specific to the 6-for YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Such headlines relegated the Cold War, which usually occupied the front pages, to the interior of the newspapers." Which newspapers - Australian, English? Strikes me as a loose generalisation which is most unlikely to be entirely true. I would omit this.
Attributed to Pollard's opinion YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it even worth mentioning his 9 runs at 2.25 as part of his "successful series"? His batting was irrelevant in 1958-59 so I'd drop this.
    • "stomach injuries"? Ailments, perhaps, but surely not "injuries".
Done last two, although the book did sayinjury, the change may keep it ambiguous in case the source was loose YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doing my best, but this doesn't look like something that can be done properly within the context of a normal FAC. Temporary withdrawal looks like the best option. Brianboulton (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Anonymous Dissident and Laser brain to copyedit the article and they have agreed. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'll leave off for the moment. Perhaps you'd buzz me when they are through. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Brian, I definitely don't mean to step on your toes! --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all - it's a good idea to have more than one editor involved, and it helps me manage my time. Please go ahead. Brianboulton (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sorry. I don't think the prose is FA standard; it's difficult to give examples because the problems are more to do with style and logical flow than grammar. I know that objections have been raised regarding repetition of the Meckiff's name, but the decision to use, indeed overuse, "the Victorian" and "the bowler" is a bad one—they are ugly and confusing. This sentence from the Lead is a good example of problems that permeate the article: The Victorian generated his pace from an unusual bent-arm action which involved a flick of the wrist, and it was in front of his home crowd in the Second Test of the 1958–59 season against England at the Melbourne Cricket Ground that he reached his peak. Here we have, Victorian, which to me has a completely different meaning to the one intended. And then comes generated his pace, which is odd, vague and esoteric—and there should be a comma after before "which" I think. There's redundancy and as in as throwing was in the spotlight in England, where it was regarded as a growing problem. Why use the metaphor and not simply say "bowlers' throwing was becoming a problem"? The whole article suffers from this and I think the nominator would be wise to accept any offers of an independent copy-edit. Graham Colm (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Victorian is confusing because of the historical era, or that one should be plain and just use name/he/she everywhere instead of using things like right-hander, describing people as "the captain/chairman/bowler" which may yield more variety like in book prose, but may slow down the reader to think? Is the comma supposed to be before "which"? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "the Victorian" is very confusing to those not familiar with the subject. "Victorian" is also used to refer to the team, which doesn't help. "Meckiff" is used about 126 times, (not counting quotations), and "Victorian" about 33 times and the very odd term "the Meckiff" is used once, so there is little variety in any case. On reading this article, I get the impression that it has been only written for other fans of Australian cricket, and not for a general audience. I don't like the esoteric, and often tabloid style of the prose. I stand by my initial reaction and still think a fresh pair of eyes is needed. Graham Colm (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you pinged Graham and Brian for a new look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've been through the whole thing by now. I tried to focus on the Meckiff naming issue, and other grammar and MoS things I saw. "Meckiff" is definitely written a lot, but any further rewording I could think of would have confused meaning. Brian and Graham: Another look is probably warranted. However, since I didn't make large (or even middling) changes, I might not have had an eye for what you were seeing. I just changed what I thought needed changing. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update comment: My problem at present is sheer lack of time to spend the hours necessary to complete the copyediting task. Laser brain and Anonymous Dissident have been helpful, but there seems to me still plenty that needs fixing in the remaining sections. Here are just a few examples from the latter part of the article:-
  • Subcontinent tour: "He then helped the tourists avoid a defeat..." In cricket you don't usually refer to a victory as "avoiding defeat". That phrase is used when an outplayed team somehow manages to scrape a draw (think England against Australia at Cardiff last summer). However, it's the next sentence that is the real problem: "Meckiff took a total of 4/32 and saw Australia to their target with three wickets in hand, finishing unbeaten on two." Anyone with limited cricket knowledge would find that impossible to work out. Somehow Meckiff's bowling and batting performances, and the Australian side's overall performance, have all become tangled up in the syntax. I was left wondering why such an inconsequential match deserved any space at all - it's hardly a highlight or turning point in Meckiff's career.
  • Alteration to the throwing law: I think "compromise" rather than "settlement" is the word you need. The settlement, surely, was the agreed alteration to the law, the compromise being not to bring it fully into effect during the 1961 tour. There are other uncertainties in the section: "the umpires would privately report..." Report to whom? "After that..." - what does "that" refer to? is it "after the tour" or "after privately reporting"?
  • Tied test
    • Achilles tendon, not achilles tendon
    • "During the summer, Meckiff's bowling was passed by Col Egar, who later ended his career." Since Egar hasn't been mentioned since the lead you should explain who he was. Rephrasing is necessary anyway, as gramattically, "who later ended his career" refers to Egar. There is more pronoun confusion in the sentence that follows.
  • No-balled in the Sheffield Shield: Repetitious phrasing: "Despite these performances, Meckiff was overlooked for the First Test" followed by "Despite this effort, he was overlooked for the Second Test".

I stress these are examples; I've not done a proper check. Having spent so much time on it I'd like to see the job through and the article promoted, but this can't be done quickly and thoroughly. The article has been here for three weeks now; would YM reconsider my earlier suggestion of a temp. withdrawal from FAC so the work can be done properly without time constraints, and would Sandy agree a dispensation whereby the article could be renominated before the 4-week timelag? Brianboulton (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments - I agree with Brian in that there are still problems with the prose. Anyone not well-versed in the jargon of cricket will not be able to understand much of this article. To some extents, the use of this jargon is difficult to avoid, but some effort should be made. Jargon aside, ugly prose remains, and here are some of many examples:

  • He was not called in either India or Pakistan, meaning that he had played in five nations without being sanctioned. - I particularly don't like "meaning that".
  • quick ended is journalistic shorthand.
  • There is something missing here The Australian Board of Control were so concerned that chairman Dowling and Bradman both attended the meeting of the Imperial Cricket Conference.. - I think "about this" is missing but the reader is left guessing.
  • Here "the media dissected" is more journalese, the media dissected the events of the previous afternoon - analysed or even discussed would be less tabloid.
  • There is still redundancy as in "The majority of" - I suggest "Most".
And more tabloid journalese Many members of the Australian media alleged a conspiracy against Meckiff. - this should be "that there was (or had been) a conspiracy...".

These are just random examples and I still think the prose is not of FA standard. Much more work is required IMHO. Graham Colm (talk) 21:08, 7 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 02:13, 8 March 2010 [39].

Fark

Nominator(s): WTF? (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Fark has been a reasonably stable good article since September 2009. It's undergone a good deal of research and editing, and just concluded a peer review and another round of copyediting. I believe that it is comprehensive, well-written, well-sourced, and covers the topic well. So, I hereby respectfully submit this for consideration of featured status. WTF? (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC-TV link is now working; I think at the time you clicked on it this morning, the server may have been down. But it's up now. Also changed some of the ALT text of some images and removed other images completely, per below. WTF? (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Link is working now, yes. However, the same problems with alt text remain. Alt text generally conveys the essence of what the image looks like and is verifiable from the image alone. You can look at WP:ALT or any of the other current FACs for examples of acceptable alt text. Ucucha 22:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three:
    The screenshot should suffice here. Image removed. WTF? (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Fark.com screenshot2.png - Image does attribute copyright holder (NFCC#10A). NFCC#10C requires a "specific fair-use rationale" and WP:FURG, incorporated therein by reference, requires a "detailed fair use rationale". "To illustrate the website Fark.com" is not specific or detailed and is a statement of function, not of purpose (of course an image illustrates).
    Fair-use rationale for screenshot modified based off of the one available for 4chan, another FA. WTF? (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely the image is doing more? The 4Chan rationale is also poor. Additional verbiage to the effect of "to facilitate identification and critical commentary of..." would remedy the issue. Эlcobbola talk 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:UFIA highway sign.jpg - Derivative work of what is, presumably, a Tennessee DoT work. The United States does not have freedom of panorama. "the_rev" is not the author of the sign and cannot, therefore, license it. Image, further, does not appear at the source indicated (i.e. even derivative license cannot be confirmed).
    Er, uh? Here's an image (File:US 41 Copper Harbor.jpg) of a roadsign in another FA (promoted in June 2009). Not sure why this one wouldn't be allowed and that one would? WTF? (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That sign is purely text (typeface is not eligible for copyright protection as a utilitarian article). This image contains a graphic. Remember, also, to consider OTHERSTUFF. Many uploaded images are not appropriately licensed - even those in FAs. This, however, is the image being discussed and the only one relevant. Эlcobbola talk 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The TN DOT makes various logos available to journalists for "news reports and other publications", so one would think that they wouldn't have a problem with a photo of one of their signs, containing a logo which isn't even a high resolution copy of the actual logo? Thoughts? WTF? (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Fark logo iran.jpg - NFCC#3A requires minimal use: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information). Iran logo is not meaningfully different from the other logo depicted. Prose would be sufficient to describe the addition of a grid pattern to the map, if that information is truly necessary (NFCC#1).
    The other logo has been removed. I think the copy of the logo with the green stripe is important in depicting the site's support for the Iran election protesters. It was a one-time event, and the logo really isn't accessible (either on Fark or anywhere else) anymore. WTF? (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The threshold is "significantly increas[ing] readers' understanding of the topic". How does a reader better understand Fark by seeing a subtlety altered logo? Being a mere one-time event further indicates a lack of importance to the greater topic. Эlcobbola talk 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we could argue that it does "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", since it clearly helps to illustrate an example how Fark, Curtis, and the community respond to events on a global scale. While it is a one-time event, it was a one-time event that received major media coverage. Furthermore, doesn't Wikipedia have a duty to help to accurately document history as it unfolds -- inclusion of the image greatly increases our ability to document this event. WTF? (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Image removed. WTF? (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looks better than Dragon Quest in terms of prose (1a)—I found only a few prose and linking bugs. I didn't verify with all of the sources, though, and another look through might still help.

  • "Curtis states that the word "fark" originated either from a chat room euphemism for a popular four-letter obscenity, or from a drunken misspelling; although he tells people it is the former because it is a "better story that way"."
  • "Fark was officially incorporated in the state of Delaware as, "Fark, Inc.", on January 31, 2008."—why a comma before the company name?
  • Different issue here: "On November 24, 2009, Fark launched a new partnership with USA Today ..."—the prose looks fine, but there are three links to the USA Today article in the same paragraph! Check for other such overlinking.
  • "Curtis has used public relations to drive traffic, including interviews every Friday on TechTV for one to one and a half years (ca. 2002–2003) about the three weirdest tech-oriented stories of the week."—confusing sentence structure that suggests each interview lasted for a year or more.
  • "These are essentially in-jokes which either originated on Fark or on other sites (such as 4chan or Something Awful) that have become an integral part of the community culture and used in myriad discussions in the forums, regardless of whether they apply to the topic at hand."—not really a bug or even a clear mistake, but see Words to avoid on the use of "essentially".
  • "A similar site, Something Awful, sponsors Photoshop Phriday contests."—this feels like it was just plopped at the end of its paragraph to mention the other site. Was SA inspired to do so by Fark? vice versa?
  • "The site is also frequently used as a humorous source for news by many radio stations, as well as and late night comedy shows. Although muchMuch to Drew Curtis' dismay, it is very rarely cited as a source for many of these stories."—don't waste words.

I see you (WTF?) nominated Slashdot for GA as well. It looks good from a glance, and I hope they both get the bronze star. For sites like these, I think Wikipedia is a much-needed "but seriously" button to learn of them. --an odd name 20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I think there just a few too many rough edges with this still. A few examples:
  • Although Curtis won't release official revenue figures, he estimated that, in 2006, the site earned just under $600,000 per year." This doesn't seem to tally with one of the sources used, which appears to claim revenues of $600,000 per month from ad revenue alone.[40] Plus "won't" is too informal a register for an encyclopedia article.
  • We're told twice that Wil Wheaton is a member of the site. Is he really that important?
  • The proprietor of the site is variously called "Drew Curtis", "Curtis", or "Drew" throughout the article, apparently randomly. Pick one style and stick with it.
  • Fark is a relatively small operation, run more or less singlehandedly by founder Drew Curtis ...". This doesn't seem to be consistent with comments elsewhere in the article and elsewhere, where it's said that "Drew runs it with some help from a couple of tech guys" (link above), and the statement on the web site: "Fark site redesign is now live. Hope nothing breaks, we're all out drinking."
  • "Curtis launched Foobies.com in 2006 as a NSFW (not safe for work) offshoot of Fark, primarily because advertisers complained about links to female breasts on the main site." Is it really necessary to wikilink female breasts? Half your readers will be quite familiar with them because they have them, and the other half because ... well for obvious reasons.
  • ... noted the disparity between Fark's revenue and the amount of press given to sites like Digg". Doesn't make sense to note a disparity between two things that are not the same, i.e., revenue and publicity in this case.
  • "67.2% of users originate from the United States." Sentences ought not to start with a number, and "%" should be spelt out according to the MoS. Should be "Sixty-seven percent ...".
  • Several of the sections are too short to stand alone, Fark Parties and Photoshop contests, for instance. Why is "Parties" capitalised but "contest" isn't?
  • The History section is very bitty; lots of short paragraphs beginning "X did Y".
  • "He registered Fark.com in September 1997, when a friend mentioned that all of the four letter domain names were disappearing." Surely he registered the name after his friend mentioned that.
  • However, during major events such as the September 11 attacks or the Hurricane Katrina aftermath, usage spikes and the site can actually be seen as a more serious outlet for news." In what way can a usage spike be seen as a more serious outlet for news? More serious than what?

--Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:36, 6 March 2010 [41].

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 [42].

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 ([43]) 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 [44].

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 [45].

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 [46].

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. [47]
  • 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 ..." [48]—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. [49]
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, [50] 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 [51] 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) [52] 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=351563630"