Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archive 1
→‎April 2010: archive 1
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOC limit}}
{{TOC limit}}
== April 2010 ==
== April 2010 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cavalier King Charles Spaniel/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Goodison Park/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Goodison Park/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manila/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manila/archive1}}

Revision as of 02:45, 16 April 2010

April 2010

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:45, 16 April 2010 [1].

Cavalier King Charles Spaniel

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it is currently a good article, and has been through a peer review since that time. I've just gone through and applied some formatting changes to the references and corrected the points raised in the review. I've raised a few articles to GA now, but this is my first attempt at an FA. There is only one dog breed article currently at FA, which is Beagle. Miyagawa (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick fix. Ucucha 15:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in the lede, it says "There are a few health issues...", but at least 7 (maybe more if you split knee and hips, as well as others) are listed in the bulk of the article. Saying "a few" in this case seems somewhat inaccurate. Perhaps "A number of...", or other wording? -- Bfigura (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't profess to know exactly what the original commenter intended, but IMHO "several" typically denotes less than "a few", whereas Bfigura seems to think (and I would have to agree) that >7 listed health problems are more than what both wordings might suggest. Maybe it can be tempered with something along the lines of "The breed is affected by various health issues"? María (habla conmigo) 20:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Charles Edward

  • General
    • "It was believed that these dogs could keep fleas away, and some even believed that they could prevent forms of stomach illnesses" - believed by who? (The 16th Centurions I suspect, best to be clear though)
    • Internal link for "Pug"?
    • "During the early part of the 18th century, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, kept red and white spaniels of the King Charles type used for hunting." - this sentence is a bit confusing to me. Perhaps it should be "During the early part of the 18th century, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, kept red and white King Charles type spaniels for hunting."
    • "In 1926, an American named Roswell Eldridge offered..." better as "In 1926, American Roswell Eldridge offered..."
    • "Eldridge would die before seeing..." better as "Eldridge died before seeing..."
    • "in the Ttiweh Cavalier Kennel, numbers went from around 60 to only 3 during the 1940s", perhaps instead "in the Ttiweh Cavalier Kennel, the population of sixty dropped to three during the 1940s".
    • In the "Temperament" section, "Cavaliers" is used frequently. converting some of the instances of "Cavaliers" to pronoun would help it to read better.
  • MOS
    • "The Cavalier King Charles Spaniel is a small breed of dog of Spaniel type, considered one of the toy dog breeds." - "considered" is a WP:WEASEL word. That should be rephrased or attributed.
  • Citations needed
    • "...and it was said of him that "His Majesty was seldom seen without his little dogs"." uncited quote, see WP:MOSQUOTE
    • "of "Blenheim Spaniels of the old type, as shown in pictures of Charles II of England's time, long face, no stop, flat skull, not inclined to be domed, with spot in centre of skull." " uncited quote
    • "The first recorded Cavalier living in America was brought from Britain in 1956 by W. Lyon Brown, together with Elizabeth Spalding and other enthusiasts, she founded the Cavalier King Charles Club USA which continues to the present day."
    • "The Cavalier King Charles Spaniel is one of the largest toy breeds."
    • "The two breeds share similar history and only diverged from each other about 100 years ago."
    • "While the Cavalier weighs on average between 10–18 pounds (4.5–8.2 kg), the King Charles is smaller at 9–12 pounds (4.1–5.4 kg)."
    • "According to statistics released by The Kennel Club, Cavaliers were the 6th most popular dog in the United Kingdom in 2007 with 11,422 registrations in a single year."
    • "They rank 44th in Stanley Coren's The Intelligence of Dogs, being of average working/obedience intelligence. " - should proably try to rephrase so the slash can be removed too.
    • "It is rare for a 10-year-old Cavalier not to have a heart murmur."
    • "While heart disease is common in dogs generally – one in 10 of all dogs will eventually have heart problems – mitral valve disease is generally (as in humans) a disease of old age."
    • "...with international research samples in the past few years consistently showing over 90% of cavaliers have the malformation, and that between 30–70% have syrinxes."
    • "...Between six months and four years of age in 85% of symptomatic dogs, according to Clare Rusbridge, a research scientist."
    • "An MRI scan is normally done to confirm diagnosis of SM (and also will reveal PSOM)"
    • "As many as half of all Cavalier King Charles Spaniels may have a congenital blood disorder called idiopathic asymptomatic thrombocytopenia, an abnormally low number of platelets in the blood, according to recent studies in Denmark and the United States."
    • "PSOM has been reported almost exclusively in Cavaliers, and it may affect up to 40% of them."
    • "Cavalier King Charles Spaniels may be predisposed to a form of congenital deafness, which is present at birth, due to a lack of formation or early degeneration of receptors in the inner ear, although this is relatively rare."
  • References
  • Images
  • Prose looks good

Oppose for now, the number of referencing issues is my primary concern. Everything else is pretty well in order, and I find the article well wrote. Its an interesting topic, and I see you've put alot of research into it. Great job so far, keep up the good work and if you can address these issues I'd be happy to change to support. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I would lean toward oppose, based on referencing issues to which Charles referred. I did take the liberty to tweak the lead a bit, reducing the numbers of which, what and wherefore. My issues with the references is that they are not all listed. A basic listing of the references in alpha order would make it more obvious that the fundamental sources have been covered. I have other prose issues that I'll bring up if the reference issues can be addressed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions about sources: why are barkbytes and terrificpets.com and puppytrainingathome.com reliable sources?


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 02:37, 16 April 2010 [2].

Goodison Park

Nominator(s): TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA requirements and I am willing to improve the article further to meet those requirements if needed TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All above issues resolved. TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ucucha 18:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions I've been reading the article and have a few questions or things that need to be clarified. I'm only part way through so maybe I'll have some more later...

  • In the Birth of Goodison Park section, the first paragraph, I looked at ref 8 and could not figure out what it was referencing in that paragraph
  • Did Houlding propose buying both his land and Orrel's for 9237 or just Orrel's for 9237 and his for an unknown amount?
  • What does the d mean in 4 1/2d?
  • This doesn't make sense to me: Upon its completion the stadium was the first purpose-built football stadium in England, and was only preceded in the United Kingdom by the Scottish club Rangers' Ibrox Stadium, inaugurated in 1887. Goodison was first but Ibrox was first?
  • Was the first match on 2 Sept an exhibition match? Maybe a cup? — Strafpeloton2 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a look at this and page on the official site has changed! I'll try and find an alternative source.
Combined fee of £9,237
Symbol for a penny
Yeah, Goodison was England's first stadium, Ibrox was the UK's first
Exhibition game TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You addressed all these. — Strafpeloton2 (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is ToffeWeb a reliable source? It is "run by an international group of fans for the benefit of Blues across the world". I have no doubt that it is a high quality unofficial site, but does it have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Can we properly rely on that information published by ToffeeWeb is accurate? I'm also not sure about a page like this: [3] (footnote 26) --Mkativerata (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toffeeweb can be considered a reliable source, it is in my opinion the most informative Everton website out there. What facts are you questioning/disputing?
The NSNO page is linked because of a photograph of a scoreboard showing the players' numbers. TheBigJagielka (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lets assume the source is reliable - what part of it verifies the statement that "A scoreboard was first introduced on 20 November 1971"? --Mkativerata (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sorry to have to do this for a FA nomination in respect of my favourite football club, but I think this article falls short of FA standards particularly in respect of verifiability. The following are my central concerns:
    • Unreliability of sources. Much of the article is sourced to ToffeeWeb. I accept that ToffeeWeb is one of the best unofficial fansites on the web. But it is still essentially a fansite, not a reputable source of information that can be relied on by an encyclopaedia. A site such as Toffeeweb will inherently promote a particular view, generally favourable to the club but perhaps unfavourable of particular club policies (eg the move to Kirkby). It can't be relied upon to present comprehensive and neutral coverage of the club. But Toffeeweb is far from the biggest issue:
      • Using a self-published source of a baseball club (fn 125).
      • The sourcing problem discussed in my comment above: the source is not reliable and the material in the article isn't even supported by it. While the inaccuracy element of it has now been fixed, it was a glaring inaccuracy that makes me wonder what else is out there, and is still sourced unreliably.
      • Substantial reliance on publications of Everton FC (ie self-published sources) to support the article's material (footnote 23).
    • Entire paragraphs going unsourced, eg the one that commences "Goodison Park featured in the filming of", "Following this, plans were made to move to Kirkby" and "In more recent years, a large 'jumbrotron' screen"
    • The article does cover the full range of available literature: I'm seeing a number of publications that cover Goodison Park in detail but that are not used in the article: [4]. FA standards require a comprehensive review of all literature on the subject; only then can we be reasonably certain that the article itself is comprehensive. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

undue weight seems given to quirky matches, can these be taken out of tables and put in narrative form, the results aren't really that important Fasach Nua (talk) 19:19, 14 April 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 02:33, 16 April 2010 [5].

Manila

Nominator(s): DragosteaDinTei 13:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because the article has the qualities to be a featured article with good citations and correct grammar usage along with images. DragosteaDinTei 13:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the article is quite far away from FA standards and I would urge the nominator to withdraw the FA nomination and instead, start a peer review, where further suggestions for improvements can be requested. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:18, 15 April 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 00:58, 14 April 2010 [6].

Aafia Siddiqui

Nominator(s): Epeefleche (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because:

  1. IMHO it meets FA criteria;
  2. When the subject of the article was convicted, the article received over 12K hits;
  3. Her sentencing (which will be 30 years to life) is set for May 6, and I think it would be great for the project to have it featured that day if possible, as it is likely to be of great public interest.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The second link I mentioned is still in the page. Ucucha 21:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Another one: http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/sns-ap-us-al-qaida-suspect-shooting,0,3232452.story appears to link to a page of search results, not the news story. Ucucha 23:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi -- before I address, just want to make certain I understand. Are you suggesting that the inline of "wanted for questioning" be changed into a ref? Happy to do it, but just want to make sure I understand the comment.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because this BLP article contravenes policy in several ways. In particular, primary sources (court records, indictments, psychiatric/psychology/forensic evaluations, affidavits) are liberally used, often without secondary sources to support them, in direct contravention of BLP's Misuse of Primary Sources section. Also very worryingly, allegations sourced from legal documents of accusation are inappropriately presented as facts rather than attributed: the first 5 sentences of the third paragraph of the Lead are a particularly obvious example of this, but there are multiple other instances. I pointed these major problems out at length on the talkpage several weeks ago,[7] and others have given similar advice at WP:RSN [8]. No changes have been made, and unfortunately I haven't yet had the time to fix the problems myself.

There are also other reasons why the article does not meet FA standards, including problems with prose, manual of style and citation, and some very close paraphrasing of sources (cf: the WP article "She also helped establish the Dawa Resource Center, a program that distributed Qurans and offered Islam-based advice to prison inmates" with the source "She helped establish the Dawa Resource Center, a program that operates out of Faaruuq's mosque, distributing Korans and offering Islam-based advice to prison inmates."[9]), but the sourcing and verifiability difficulties are significant enough in themselves. --Slp1 (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eppefleche asked me to comment on the sourcing. The article seems to depend upon good secondary newspaper sources. That the primary sources are given also is a plus, not a minus. I'm just commenting on this, not the article in general. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But they aren't given as a plus. As you say and as I have made clear on the talkpage of the article, if they supported secondary sources there would be no problem. But on no less than 28 occasions primary sources (court documents) are used as the only citations for information on a BLP. Check the occasions where references (currently) numbered 4, 6, 10, 11, 28, 72, 76 are the only source(s) used either alone or in combination. Likely the primary sources could be replaced or supported by secondary sources for some/most of the information. But this needs to happen for this to be a FA, or frankly BLP compliant. --Slp1 (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slp is misreading the guidance. Of course, it would be nonsensical if the rule were "You can't use the indictment as a reference to reflect what the indictment says -- instead you have to rely on what Al Jazeerah (for example) said the indictment says". Or: "You can't use a NY Times editorial (the primary source) as a ref to reflect what the NY Times editorial says -- you need an Electronic Intifida article (for example; the secondary source) summarizing the NY Times editorial as your reference". That's because the guidance doesn't say that. The guideline in question, though no doubt it could have been drafted more carefully, is clearly aimed at: "personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses". We don't have any of those concerns here.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How unusual is Slp's reading in its application here? The article has the sentence "In April 2009, Manhattan federal judge Richard Berman held that she was competent to stand trial." The ref? The actual Court Order. Of course that should be sufficient to support that statement; any other result is non-sensical.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please carefully reread what I wrote at the talkpage. There is a big difference between saying "X shot Y" and "According to the indictment, X shot Y". I have never suggested that "According to Al Jazeerah, the indictment said that X shot Y" was necessary.[10][11][12]. Just that any allegation be attributed to who made it.--Slp1 (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've said before, as a general matter I've no problem with attribution. Attribute away. And as I've also said before, one must consider the difference between: a) an accusation/indictment, and b) a conviction upon the charges in the indictment. Feel free to attribute away where appropriate; that's not a reason for this not to be an FA, or to delete the ref and accompanying text, for all the reasons stated here and in the pages linked to above.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. That's positive. But if you want this article to be promoted then you may actually have to do the leg work yourself to make sure it meets FA and BLP criteria, compliance and expectations You cannot just devolve responsibility to others. It needs to be compliant when it is promoted.--Slp1 (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fine, you don’t find the article to be FA quality, Slp1. I have zero problem with that. It would however, be exceedingly nice if you properly understood what primary sources (PSTS) is about so you aren’t misconstruing things and potentially confusing others.

    PSTS is part of Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR). In this context—and, as spelled out right in the PSTS, Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event. In many cases it clearly preferable that we not rely upon a primary source; for instance, some guy in Chevy Chase, Maryland, who purportedly received and read the contents of a letter written by Elvis in 2006. In this context, secondary sources are preferred, such as a Newsweek article that endorses the witness’ first-hand account as being credible and doesn’t mention that the witness is currently being treated by a mental health expert.

    Clearly, one would rightly call “court records, federal indictments,” etc. to be a “primary source” and that has you all sideways on the logic. Why? Because just as clearly, they are WP:Reliable sources and are not—by any stretch of the imagination—what is considered to be “original research.” In fact, court records will often take precedence over secondary sources. For instance, if Newsweek reported that a federal prosecutor had indicted a terrorist for possessing hollow-point bullets when in fact, the federal indictment papers themselves state right there in black & white that the bullets were armor-piercing, then one goes with what the indictment papers say. That doesn’t mean that the terrorist was guilty of possessing armor-piercing bullets or even possessed them; only that the federal indictment was for possessing armor-piercing bullets.

    Seeking the most authoritative sources is what I typically do; I often contact the Ph.D. authors of scientific papers and have them send me PDFs of the actual paper so I can quote straight out of the papers. Besides, corresponding with the Ph.D. saves me money because I don’t have to subscribe to the journals. Exchanging dozens of e-mails with the author of the scientific paper in question until I thoroughly understand the issue sure beats simply ralphing out some gibberish gleaned from Popular Mechanics.

    I suggest you get over the primary/secondary-source issue since it seems to have gotten you all confused and just focus on the objective: cite reliable sources, which courts and federal prosecutors are considered to be. And such sources aren’t considered to be “original research”. This all falls under the heading of WP:Common sense, or, in the rest of the world is known as a Well, DUH thing.

    It is obvious that if the article in question possesses, as you say, “liberal” citations referencing the actual court records and indictment papers, then this is a strength of the article and reflects well upon the editor, who obviously devoted great effort to cite accurate and unassailable facts. Greg L (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I fully endorse what DGG wrote, which summarizes what I was trying to say, only with far fewer words. Good job, DGG, next time I might run my posts by you for some copy editing. Greg L (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think I am confused. I think if you look at WP's policies you'll find that per policy secondary sources are preferred over primary sources all the time. You'll also note that I never said that they were original research, just not appropriate sources per BLP, especially as they have not been correctly attributed as allegations not facts. You'll also note, looking at BLP policy that for BLPs, that we "Do not use .... court records or public documents" as sole sources.
Your foresight and energy in obtaining published scientific papers as sources is fantastic and a completely different matter. These are published secondary sources... the fact that you have got them from the authors' themselves does not diminish that at all. And if you get better understanding of the topic from correspondence with the authors, so much the better. But I am confused about one thing. DGG mentions being asked to comment, but no on-wiki sign of this. Since you have been agreement with Epeefleche on other matters, I am now curious to know whether there is some off-wiki email canvassing going on? --Slp1 (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification -- I never asked DGG to comment here. Nor did he say that. I asked him his opinion, entre nous. He chose to leave a comment here, without any encouragement to do so (and without me knowing what his view would be).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I really and truly appreciate your clarification and honesty. But it would be useful to know if you contacted anybody else "entre vous" about this nomination and my objection to FA status. --Slp1 (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting you, Slp1: You'll also note, looking at BLP policy that for BLPs, that we "Do not use .... court records or public documents" as sole sources. Gee, I see only one instance of “court records or public documents” in WP:BLP. And it says, right here, as follows:

Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. Where primary-source material was first published by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy.


I also see that your insertion of the … ellipsis in "Do not use .... court records or public documents" and your cute as sole sources appended outside the quotes profoundly changed the meaning of the above-quoted text. Though the paragraph is mangled, it is clear the concern is over revealing date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. I see this is hopeless and I don’t appreciate the techniques you’ve chosen to employ here. You have managed to take a strength (citing highly reliable sources), and make fallacious arguments and misquote guidelines to serve your own ends. Goodbye to you, sir, and happy editing. Greg L (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Mme, for what it is worth. I am not making any kind of fallacious argument. Secondary sources are preferred, and BLP policy (deleting any material between dashes) states that we must not use public records that include personal details... or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. As I have said several times, I suspect much of this material could probably be sourced to secondary sources. But this needs to be done as a start towards better article sourcing, before any FA status is given. --Slp1 (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The material you deleted in your quote is the most important material, and informs us what the concern of the guideline is. That's not a concern in this article.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, no you don’t, Slp1. I’m not going to let you off the hook so easily. The guidelines are perfectly clear to everyone else. Your misquoting might strike a reasonable person as having been intentional because of the extreme care required to surgically excise the words in your 00:28, 10 April *quote* to masquerade its true meaning. I note a curious absence in your posts of providing full, quoted wording of what guidelines and policies really say, which can be fully well explained by the fact that they don’t say what you would like us to think they say. That’s why I can do as I did above: post “the guideline, the whole guideline, and nothing but the guideline” without resorting to the misdirection and hocus-pocus. The wording there isn’t hard for the rest of us to understand. The guideline right here on BLP is saying, in effect be careful when citing public records. You wouldn’t want to use them if they contain personal information like home phone numbers or someone’s business addresses unless that information has already been released into the public domain by newspapers and magazines. You keep on repeating the same, tired old mantra of how super-reliable and authoritative primary sources like court records and indictment papers are to be eschewed in favor of secondary sources like Parade magazine (which is inane and defies logic). And, conveniently, you somehow never seem to be able to produce any evidence to buttress your allegations without mauling it beyond all comprehension to say something that is entirely different from what it really says. If you want to fire back with a “Well… I am just soooo right,” it would be exceedingly nice if you can (really really) point us to something that backs up your wild notions. Greg L (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More strawman arguments. Sigh. Take a look at how dashes used at the sentence level - ie parenthetically -, and this BLPN discussion - by others - on this section of policy. That's it for me. --Slp1 (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Instead of providing a link to a guideline or policy that supports your allegations, you provide a link to a discussion thread where others misdirected the galactically clueless (although some of them, like NeilN had it figured out). Because right there was yet another editor quoting guideline fragments out of context as a fine display of one’s inability to comprehend simple, 12th-grade English (or to purposely misdirect other wikipedians). This phenomenon seems to be pandemic on Wikipedia; apparently because so many wikipedians are too lazy to actually go and—you know—read our guidelines. Why?

Because, User:Collect employed the ol’ shotgun-of-alphabet-soup trick (here, 23:31, 15 November 2009) where he/she wrote …contrary to WP:OR and WP:SYN as well as WP:V, WP:RS and lovely WP:BLP… without providing links or quoting the governing text. Apparently, everyone is supposed to think “Gee, he quoted so many acronyms and that looks like a lot to read and I don’t even know where to go find them because they are unlinked. He must be smart and is one of those types that makes Wikipedia go.”

And when User:Collect finally does quote text (∆ here), he/she did one of those Professor Marvel-style “Pay no attention to that guideline behind the curtain!” stunts and quoted only a fragment 180° out of context: To make it quite clear -- WP:BLP says not to use "trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them."

For yucks & giggles to anyone new to this thread, compare the meaning of that last, green-colored quote to the entire guideline in the above quote box in my 01:09, 10 April 2010 post. Then ponder over how sad the state of things are here when some editors perceive they can get away with these stunts. (*sigh*)

Could it be that we are beating around the bush here because editors are coming to these terrorist-related articles with an agenda? I don’t have a jones one way or another about terrorist articles; my contributions tend to be stuff like fixing that profoundly lousy looking photograph in Anwar al-Awlaki that no one seemed to give a dump about as editors battle away. It seems there is one camp there trying to introduce unflattering but well-cited facts that make the dude (who has presidential and National Security Council approval to bomb him clean out of his sandals) come across as a thoroughly mean & nasty person who kicks puppies. The other camp cleverly manages to delete such information and *balance* the article with stuff like how he volunteers and swings a hammer for Habitat for Humanity on weekends.

Similarly over here, both camps, rather than having the backbone to speak up and admit to what they are really trying to do, just busy themselves with slapping up a facade of smokescreens, such as citing imaginary “guidelines” like how <Cognitive dissonance>you can’t quote a CIA transcript because quoting Readers Digest is preferred!</Cognitive dissonance> Caught in the middle is a whole bunch of regular editors really don’t give a darn, simply want germane, topical, authoritatively cited, encyclopedic facts, and long for a way to simply vote editors with agendas off this island.

(Oops, I did it again: using plain-speak, which was going out of fashion on Wikipedia there for a while, to talk about the 800-pound gorilla in the bedroom.) Greg L (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Obviously a well-done article. Greg L (talk) 01:12, 10 April 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 00:58, 14 April 2010 [13].

Typhoon Kirogi (2000)

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Typhoon Kirogi, the first typhoon to threaten Tokyo since a storm in 1989, caused severe damage in parts of eastern Honshu and Hokkaido. Peaking as a Category 4 equivalent storm, Kirogi had weakened to minimal typhoon status before impacting Japan. Throughout Japan, rainfall in excess of one foot led to 15 billion yen ($140 million dollars) in damage as well as five fatalities. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:15, 24 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 21:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you double check the MH as the ATCR produced by the HKO reports that Kirogi under went a Fuwijara with Kai-tak.Jason Rees (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the report on Kirogi in the HKO report and it does not mention any interaction between the two storms. You may be getting it mixed up with the Philippine mishap of Kai-tak being unnoticed while Kirogi was blamed for the damage. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the dead link Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ucucha 21:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – No one seems to be reviewing this one, so I'll bite.

  • "On July 3, the storm underwent rapid intensification and attained Category 4 status on the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale according to the JTWC the next day." For some reason, this struck me as an odd order to put the last bits in. How about "and attained Category 4 status on the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale the next day, according to the JTWC."?
  • Is there a reason the full names of the abbreviations in the lead are only given in the body? It seems like they should first be introduced in the lead.
  • Comma after "The remnants of the storm persisted until July 10"?
  • "The Japan Meteorological Agency uses 10-minute winds, while the Joint Typhoon Warning Center uses one-minute sustained winds." What are they used for? This is a confusing sentence until you realize two sentences later that it's apparently for measuring the peak of a storm. Consider adding a brief explanation (only a few words should be sufficient) in the above sentence.
  • "Forecasters warned that upwards of 250 mm rain could fall...". Seems to be missing "of" after the templated number.
  • A few times during the article, there are cases where cites occur in the middle of a sentence. For a few of them, a comma could be added so the cite occurs after punctuation, and the prose will be unaffected. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've attented to all of your comments. Thanks for the review. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:39, 7 April 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 Ucucha 02:02, 13 April 2010 [14].

Saint Anselm College

Nominator(s): Ericci8996 (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that I this article has come such a long way from 6 months ago (as it used to average 30-40 views, now over 200 a day). Because of the college's roll in the New Hampshire Primary election cycle, I feel it would serve as a good featured article!Ericci8996 (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the advice As nominatior, I WITHDRAW this article for consideration! To quote General MacArthur - "I Shall Return!"

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:05, 12 April 2010 [15].

Sentence spacing

Nominator(s): Airborne84 (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it apparently meets the criteria for FA status. Airborne84 (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -

Found some dab links: APA, En, Linotype, Period. English Spacing and French spacing redirects to the article itself. One dead link [16] Esuzu (talk • contribs) 10:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - thanks!. Airborne84 (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—minor stuff. I'll be neutral for now.

  • "Sentence spacing refers to the horizontal space between sentences in text."—refers to, or is? Is the article about the phenomenon, or just the dictionary term? (I may be wrong about this; see "Use of 'refers to'" in Wikipedia:Writing better articles for guidance.)
Good catch. Updated. Airborne84 (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Websites" upper cased? I understand "Web" (there's only one World Wide Web), but the word's article uses lower case.
Fixed. Airborne84 (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a missing quote mark; make sure that no others are missing.
  • "Most reliable sources state simply that writers should follow their particular style guide[122] and check their publisher's submission requirements, which is the most important consideration."—can the prose be tightened to "Most reliable sources state simply that writers should follow their particular style guide[122] and, most importantly, check their publisher's submission requirements."? There's a lot of text in the article, and I'd bet some more can be tightened.
Tightened some - left both thoughts since thought both were relevant - especially for authors coming to the page. Airborne84 (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following examples demonstrate the effect of these variations on your browser"—is there a brief way to say this without addressing the reader?
  • "The GNU Coding Standards still recommend using two spaces,[141] when coding comments."—the ref should be placed at the end here, because in the middle it would make the user believe they are recommending this for other (unspecified) scenarios as well. It's a bit misleading.
Above two done. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the (few) punctuation and language articles I've seen, this does look (from a glance) way better than I expected. (For what my opinion's worth, I prefer two spaces.) --an odd name 12:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "As increased spacing within text is itself punctuation,[27] there is room for reference grammars to offer guidance on this topic." There is no hard-and-fast boundary between punctuation and grammar. For example, a comma before "which" annuls the subset meaning of the word. This is not defensible logic.
This one confused me a bit. I think I probably just wrote it badly. I wasn't sure that everyone would be clear on why a "Grammar guide" section might be appropriate since the arrangement of text matter on a page falls under typography. However, since increased spacing (and spaces themselves) are punctuation (but most people probably don't know that) I thought I'd give the reason for the section up front. That way no one would claim that this section is irrelevant and should be removed. I think this was misinterpreted. Let me think on how to rephrase so it's clearer. Airborne84 (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see lots of repeat links, some even within two seconds of each other.
Fixed Airborne84 (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very US-centric.
I'll work on this. That can be fixed in various ways. E.g., some of the books on typography were published in Europe, and others were written by non-Americans and published inside and outside of the U.S. Some of the typographic references cover other types of alphabets (Cyrillic, etc.). They are not intended solely for a U.S. audience. Again, that's not explained well in the article. Airborne84 (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Airborne84 (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the critical read. Great comments. Airborne84 (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As above, very US-centric, one section on "international" (ie non-US), one on "US" (of course), and then sections purportedly about practice in various areas, like science and law, but all about US practice. This needs to be completely rewritten or resubmitted as "Sentence spacing in the United States" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a useful comment, but I'd welcome some more feedback. I'm at a bit of a loss on how best to continue. First, I understand the comment. Yet, the issue comes when describing the difference between French spacing and English spacing. Now, there's another language. I tried to get a representative sampling of languages from other countries, and the "Duden" covers quite a few. I also asked various people in other European countries and they stated that "two spaces has never been used." However, since that's WP:OR on my part, I just listed some references. Finally, I tried to be very careful with caveats when the English language was used. For example, there seem to have only been studies on this in English. However, I'd hate to limit it only to English when there are a few other languages that address this. Some ideas that might help (with appropriate sourcing, of course):
1. Stating that U.S. and U.K. style guides are used worldwide where English is spoken.
2. A statement regarding the "Commonwealth" style guide (moving it from the footnotes to the text) to describe countries covered).
3. A statement noting the French style guide (I might need to add the main French dictionary) and it's coverage of French-speaking Africa.
4. Changing "Latin-derived alphabet" to "Modern Latin Alphabet. This considerably narrows the scope.
5. A statment covering most of the other countries that have never used a "double space" convention. This might be harder to find, although I certainly could try.Airborne84 (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't actually suggesting other languages, although that's a good point. The point I was making was that it's very lop-sided in its coverage of English-language practice, mainly being about the US with little on UK and virtually nothing on practice elsewhere, including the country with the most speakers, India. It may be that it's more difficult o find sources outside the US/UK, but there's nothing to suggest that the research has been done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The point you make is valid, but easier than I thought to address. I'll check through some of my U.K. references and verify a few more things, but I believe that most of the (now sovereign) former colonies of the British Empire still use U.K. style guides for their English usage—including India. Since English is one of the official languages of India, and none of this is mentioned in the article—it's a great point. I can still address the other comments as well, since a paralell could be drawn between this topic and that of French/French-speaking Africa, among others. The article can show more of a WP:WORLDVIEW without providing a list of every single country that uses xxxx. Airborne84 (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sorry, but it needs a lot of work before it is anything like good enough. It is seriously over-written, far too long, and obscure in its style. It does not read like an encyclopaedia article, but more like a high-school essay written by a smart kid desperate to show off his "learning" at every step, and this showing-off, and the tedious length, gets in the way of the reader's understanding. In the opening sentence, "refers to" is meaningless and confusing, and "horizontal" is too restrictive. Then why on earth does Gutenberg need to be mentioned in the third sentence? And it goes on (and on) like this. Prune it to at most a quarter of its length, restrict it to the facts and get rid of the flourishes. Almost entirely written by one editor at present, and needs input from others. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comments. It might be overwritten, but when I reviewed the WP:FA criteria, I found "well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched." "Overwritten" wasn't listed as a detractor. I just tried to address the criteria as it was listed. As an encyclopedia, I thought "comprehensive" was important. The readable prose is at 6,149 words and 41 kb, which seems to be OK IAW Wikipedia. It's true that the total size might be tough for some wireless devices. However, I visited a number of other FA articles to use as examples. I can't remember them all now, but Catholic doctrine regarding the Ten Commandments was one; it has 51 kb of readable prose and 8,166 words. In that light, Sentence spacing doesn't seem to be radically overdone. Also, I tried to make the lede a section that covers the "macro" topic (IAW WP:LEDE). Those that don't want to read further could use that as a stand-alone. I'll assume good faith and ignore the "desperate high school kid" comment. I'll change "refers to" that's a good comment. I looked through the literature and "horizontal" seems appropriate. You could have bullets or a "sentence list" stacked one above the other and vary the vertical spacing in between them, for example (this would be similar to people confusing "double spacing" sentences with "double spacing" in regard to leading). I mentioned Gutenberg since that helps set the scope of the article. The article doesn't describe handwritten work (although Miles Tinker and others covered that as well in the 1800s and 1900s). I thought it appropriate to mention the beginning of moveable type. Also, as per Wikipedia, there's nothing restricting the use of good prose, "even brilliant." There's undoubtedly no brilliant prose in the article, but I tried to keep it from being a boring academic piece. Finally, you're right, it does need input. I wasn't getting that on the talk page and at Peer Review, so I'm glad to get it here. Airborne84 (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The clearest place for summary (in my opinion) is the "Style guides" section. The biggest question in my mind is: is that topic notable enough for a separate article? After reviewing WP:N I wasn't sure. If so, what would be the best name for that new article? Airborne84 (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be able to go back further. I just don't have sources going back much further than Gutenberg in detail. I could get them, but I thought it better to split off the "History" and let others dig into that one. Airborne84 (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Prose needs a lot of attention to get rid of the verbosity; the overlinking needs sorting out; the nomination here is premature. I actually found that if I ignored the longwindedness, the article was quite interesting and not badly written. Its main problem is that it has come here without any formal review. You say, above: "It does need input. I wasn't getting that on the talk page and at Peer Review, so I'm glad to get it here." Well, you opened the peer review on 10 April and closed it less than 24 hours later, so you didn't give the process a serious chance. Your best bet now would be to withdraw this and send it back to peer review where, perhaps after a short wait, it will get attention. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I've no problem taking it back to peer review and working on the issues noted above. I appreciate the feedback to date. Last question. Is it reasonable to at least move it from B-class to A-class? I'd prefer not to judge that myself as the primary contributor to the article. Airborne84 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A-class generally requires featured article quality with only the most minor of style flaws. Brianboulton says there's some verbosity and overlinking, and the lack of peer review (whether your fault or ours) doesn't lend confidence ("The article may need minor copyedits, but it should be comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and reasonably well-written. A peer review should make the article a viable candidate for FA."). Probably at or very near GA, but even there criteria 3 and 4 may get you given others' comments above. --an odd name 07:14, 12 April 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 14:01, 12 April 2010 [17].

Christ myth theory

Nominator(s): Eugene (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article status because, since its last FAC, it has completed a Peer Review and a compromise has been reached regarding some of the more controversial elements through formal mediation. I realize that this is a provocative topic that engenders strong opinions. Special effort has been made, however, to reference every possibly contestable statement and an FAQ has been included to address some of the more common prima facie concerns like bias and content-forking. A number of controversial articles (e.g. global warming, intelligent design, Xenu, etc) have achieved FA status and I'd like very much if the Christ myth theory could join their ranks. If as a reviewer you see a problem with the article, please, rather than immediately object to the FAC, indicate what the problem is and give the involved editors time to reply and possibly alter the article. Eugene (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Infidel Guy Show episode in view here can be found on YouTube but the article's editors felt it was better to link to the official source. If the reviewers here disagree it would be effortless for us to re-link to the YouTube file. Eugene (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This link does not work, since people normally will not be able to log in on that site and the page does not provide an opportunity to do so, but linking to the YouTube version would presumably be linking to a copyright violation, which is prohibited. Ucucha 15:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the link in question from the bibliographic entry. Eugene (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Ucucha 16:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments – for now. This is a well-written and engaging contribution. I have made a few notes during my two readings. They are not in any particular order so forgive me.

  • Here, "Whatever modest fame Robertson and Smith had achieved, they were soon overshadowed by Arthur Drews" - sounds a little biased; the subject of the sentence is "fame" so should "they were" be "it was"?
Drews is generally better known than Robertson and Smith. He was the one who coined the phrase "Christ myth". If this is a deal-breaker, though, I'll change it. I'm not entirely sure about the grammar, but I think it's correct. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "a historical" should be "an historical".
Both are correct, it's a matter of regional/generational differences. "A historical" is more in line with modern American English, which is the variant in which the article is written. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like how the references and footnotes are mixed, and are all those lengthy quotations therein necessary?
Since the article has proven uber-contentious, the editors have included tons of quotes in the footnotes to limit objections to the sources based on ignorance of the subject or secondary literature. Once the article achieves FA (thus establishing its reliability) I'd be happy to go back and convert most the quotations to bare references. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this sentence form the Lead, "The proponents of the theory trace the evolution of Christianity through a conjectural understanding of the evolution of the New Testament literature, giving primacy to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians" sounds very biased. How about "The proponents of the theory give primacy to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians"?
"conjectural understanding of the evolution of the New Testament literature" is included because CMT advocates believe, in contrast to mainstream scholarship, that the narrative of Jesus (which is recorded in the gospels) grew out of the epistles, and not vice versa. I think this information is helpful, but if you're adamant, I'll change it. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am adamant. I'm concerned with maintaining WP:NPOV and explaining another person's point of view as clearly and fairly as you can. Much of mainstream biblical scholarship is conjecture in my view. Graham Colm (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Eugene (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "great forerunners" inside quotation marks?
Fixed. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, "Bauer's views proved to be foundational for much of the Christ myth community of later generations" - is foundational a word? How about, "proved to be the foundation"?
Yes, "foundational" is a word. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the universities of Amsterdam and Berlin need to be linked.
I'm sort of surprised this is an issue. The article wikilinks to the universities of Bonn, Amsterdam, Zurich, Tulane, Berlin, Baylor, just recently London, and the Technische Hochschule Karlsruhe. Why is wikilinking to specifically the universities of Berlin and Amsterdam problematic? Also, I note that the FA Huldrych Zwingli article wikilinks to the universities of Basel and Vienna. Eugene (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sounds odd, "who were known in German scholarship" - does it mean "called by German scholars"?
  • Here, "As Joseph Klausner wrote at the time, Biblical scholars "tried their hardest ..." why is biblical spelt with an upper case B ?
Fixed. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly "G" here "Robertson concluded that those elements of the Gospel narrative which."
I've standardized the capitalization of "gospel" in the article in accordance with M-W.com. References to the specific books called "the Gospels" are capitalized, references to the more general "gospel message" are not capitalized. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, "A variety of other less well known authors advocated versions of the Christ myth theory during this period as well" A variety of and as well are redundant.
I'm not sure that that's true. "As well" is just another way of saying "too"; is "A variety of other less well known authors advocated versions of the Christ myth theory during this period too." redundant? Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about "A variety of"? Graham Colm (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Eugene (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's redundant and dismissive, try, "Other authors advocated versions of the Christ myth theory during this period." Graham Colm (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Eugene (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not realy, "A variety of other authors also advocated versions of the Christ myth theory during this period". I think my suggestion is better. Graham Colm (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's less artful, but fine, if you must have it, fixed. Eugene (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here the "etc" is not at all helpful, "Osiris was resurrected from the dead, etc."
Fixed.Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be an extra period here, "their particular socio-religious tastes.."
Fixed. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "mainstream" is over used and "the scholarly mainstream" is an ugly expression.
"Mainstream" does get used a lot. What do you suggest instead? As for "the scholarly mainstream", the expression appears rather often in published literature. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an important issue re WP:NPOV. I get the impression that the views of those who are not recognised, mainstream biblical scholars are deemed to be less valid or not valid at all. I sense a bias every time I read the word. Graham Colm (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, shouldn't the views of recognized mainstream scholars in the field be seen as more valid than amateurs? I mean, think about another topic that you're very familiar with, like microbiology. Would you object to an article on virons which implies that recognized, mainstream virologists should be taken more seriously than dilettantes who contradict the academic consensus regarding some detail or other? Eugene (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a red herring, just as are comparisons to intelligent design, and an appeal to my vanity. But I would welcome any contribution on any virus that is written from a neutral point of view and does not cherry-pick its sources. Graham Colm (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How could a man as dashing and seductive as yourself think that the virology comparison is a red herring? (See, now that's an appeal to vanity!) Seriously though, it seems like a perfect comparison: would you really object to a page on AIDS denialism giving greater weight to sources published by recognized mainstream virologist than countervailing sources published by, say, philosophers, German language professors, and mathematicians? I can't believe that you would have a problem with that; it's merely in keeping with Wikipedia's policies on sources. Eugene (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another red herring. This discussion is about this candidate only— period. I will not be drawn into this unhelpful argument. Graham Colm (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation after "for this has not been done in a corner" is an external link.
It's actually some sort of fancy Wikipedia link designed for Bible passages. If the reviewers here would prefer it changed to a more standard reference, I'll change it. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer it to be changed to the standard.Graham Colm (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Eugene (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vague "a number of" is used four times.
Fixed. 4 --> 2. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with the two occurrences, but "several" would be better. Graham Colm (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for the time being.Graham Colm (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following my third reading, I have decided to oppose the promotion of this candidate. I think it contravenes WP:NPOV. In the Lead for example, there is "the proponents of the theory" rather than the theory, and the last sentence of the Lead—"The Christ myth theory is essentially without supporters in modern academic circles, biblical scholars and classical historians being highly dismissive of it, viewing it as pseudo-scholarship"—establishes the biased theme of this contribution. This article is essentially an a attempt to debunk the "myth" and is not written from a neutral point of view. Graham Colm (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing further to add to this FAC. The nominator seems to be more interested in argument than consensus building. Graham Colm (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little disappointed by the oppose vote. I've changed the wording of the lead to focus more on the theory itself and not the proponents. As regards the final sentence of the lead though, WP:FRINGE clearly states that "[a]rticles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." The guideline goes on to state that "[i]deas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources." I fail to see how the current lead for the CMT article oversteps these bounds. By way of comparison, look at the FA intelligent design article: the lead of that article states that ID is "not science" three times, "psuedoscience" once, and "junk science" once. The CMT article is being gentle with its subject by comparison! Please, please reconsider the oppose vote--at least for a few days. If you have specific NPOV concerns make them known and the article's editors will address them as I have your more prosaic concerns. Eugene (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The intelligent design article clearly attributes the pseudoscience description to well known bodies, not individuals, which does make a big difference. Also pseudoscience is easier to prove as there is a clear scientific method that they contravene, whereas the historical method is a lot less clear cut. The only reason to overstate the case in historical research would be on ideological grounds. Sophia ♫ 11:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not rehash this all over again here, Sophia. Sufficied to say that you yourself agreed [18] to categorize this article as pseudoscholarship. Also, as regards the intelligent design page, you're simply mistaken. In addition to the institutional denunciations, that article's lead states "Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science." That statement is supported by a couple refs with five sources, none of which are official statements from scientific bodies. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Eugene (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the word "just" as in "not just individuals". If you can find as good from some official historical body then that would make an important addition to the article. Sophia ♫ 17:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The chariman of the SBL's Historical Jesus Section (quote at the end of the section) isn't official enough? Come on, Sophia, let's not repeat the endless talk page wrangling here. Eugene (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards oppose. With no prior knowledge of the subject, this article seems wildly unbalanced to me; it reads to me like it's been written (or rewritten) by someone who's a strong advocate of a particular point of view on the matter and is willing to throw core principles of NPOV out the window to belittle anyone expressing another view. Wild throw-mud-and-hope-it-sticks accusations, such as "These issues have led a number of scholars to class the Christ myth theory as a form of denialism" are slipped into the article as cited facts, but the "number of scholars" cited in the footnote transpire to be books published by Christian publishers Eerdmans and Thomas Nelson, a book called The Case for the Real Jesus, and an interview with Bart D. Ehrman, none of which can be considered remotely impartial on the matter. Obvious POV material such as "As Mark Allan Powell, the chairman of the Historical Jesus Section of the Society of Biblical Literature, has stated, "A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today—in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat." is included without comment as "commentary from a scholar", when "chairman of the Historical Jesus Section of the Society of Biblical Literature" should set off warning bells right away. These are just two examples; it seems riddled top-to-bottom with an inherent POV of "anyone who believes this is a crank, anyone who doesn't believe it is a scholar", and to me this seems so pervasive that it needs a top-to-bottom cleanup and a strong look at the sourcing, before it's going to come close to meeting 1(d). – iridescent 17:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that in your litany against the sources in the relevant footnote you fail to mention that a book published by Oxford University Press is cited and that Bart Ehrman is an agnostic. Also, while Eerdmans is certainly a Christian publisher, it's not hopelessly biased as you claim: Eerdmans has published work [19] by the militant atheist Hector Avalos and a sympathetic memoir [20] of John Allegro (a Christ myth theorist, by the way) by Allegro's own daughter. As for the Society of Biblical Literature, why should this "set off warning bells"? The SBL is the premiere body studying the Old and New Testaments; well known skeptics (e.g. Robert Price) and atheists (e.g. Hector Avalos) are members and some well known critics of Christian orthodoxy have held serious leadership positions (e.g. Elaine Pagels & Bart Ehrman). As for looking at the sourcing, one of the page's most tenacious critics, Sophia who commented above, conceeded in the recent mediation that the sources in question meet the standards of WP:IRS. Again, I'm pleading with the reviews here who are concerned with tone and POV issues, compare this article's lead against that at intelligent design which has not only achieved FA but survived two FAR's. If that article is acceptably NPOV but this article isn't, I don't know how to interpret that as anything else than a double-standard. Eugene (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The quote from the OUP book (a) doesn't mention holocaust denial (or any other form of denial), and (b) is not "commentary by a neutral scholar" but a quote from the Bishop of Durham. Even in the Church of England, I'd imagine "refuse to admit the possibility that the Bible isn't true" is part of the job description.
I'm not going to take up your suggestion of "compare it to Intelligent design; I've not read that article nor does its FA status have anything to do with this one. That was promoted more than three years ago (in a rather dubious FAC) and scraped through an FAR in 2008, and the article as promoted has only the vaguest resemblance to the current article. This is the FAC of Christ myth theory, not the FAR for Intelligent design. – iridescent 18:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point about the intelligent design FAC; this isn't that and that isn't this. I think you're dismissing high-quality sources rather glibbly though. Yes, Wright is a clergyman in the Anglican Communion, but so was James Pike, so is John Shelby Spong, and so is even Tom Harpur--a Christ myth theorist! Those Anglicans are a broad minded bunch. So I think it's entirely unfair to just dismiss the man Newsweek described as "perhaps the world's leading New Testament scholar" on the grounds that he's probably biased. Are you suggesting that this article, because it's about Jesus, shouldn't quote scholars who happen to be Christians? Doesn't that seem a bit... odd? And while, yes, Wright don't class the CMT with a speficially denialist theory, he does compare it to the belief that the moon is made of cheese. Eugene (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not dispute that they were reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia, however as Eugene knows I do not support this FAC as I do not think quotes have been used in a balanced way. Any attempt to work on the article is met by disparaging abuse making it a very unpleasant place to edit. Sophia ♫ 18:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes – I'm starting to see why mediation was necessary. I've not read either the mediation nor the PR, nor do I intend to; this is FAC and I'm judging it by my interpretation of FAC standards, not what was agreed at a mediation. As it stands, my interpretation is that this is wildly POV, cherry-picking sources, and written as a debunking job rather than a neutral commentary (almost 50% of the article at present consists of attacks on the theory, dismissive commentary on its supporters like "less well known authors" and attempts of varying crudeness to link its proponents to Hitler and Stalin); consequently, I don't think it's going to be in a position to meet 1(d) without significant rewriting. – iridescent 19:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never intended to give the impression that Sophia supports this FAC; I specifically said that she is one of the "page's most tenacious critics". I only hoped to show an editor "[w]ith no prior knowledge of the subject" that, even among the page's detractors, those more familiar with the topic grant that the sources in question meet Wikipedia' reliability guidelines. I've also cut the phrase "less well known" from the "Other advocates" section, though I don't understand why this was controversial; some authors are better known than others, aren't they? As for cherry-picking, what are you referring to? All of the contentious material is referenced, most of those references include substantial quotations you can check, there is a massive bibliography, and most of the authors have their own wiki pages. Are you claiming that the editors have systematically excluded some notable body of countervailing academic literature in a relevant field? If so, how could you possibly know this if, as you admit, you have "no prior knowledge of the subject"? Is it just a knee-jerk assumption? Eugene (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I freely admit it's an argument from absence; however, as the article itself mentions other works on the topic, but you're only citing your most controversial claims to works by people with a clear and obvious POV (it bears repeating that the views of a serving bishop on the historical truth of the gospels have no validity in a Wikipedia context other than as a source for what the church believes), I'm inferring that you're choosing to work only with those sources with which you agree, while dismissing everyone else with "While largely uncredentialed, a few of these authors have achieved a degree of notability in their own right". (The final paragraph is also extremely dubious in using only figures from English-speaking Christian countries to define "the general population".) – iridescent 19:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've got to be kidding me. So the the man Newsweek described as "perhaps the world's leading New Testament scholar" now has "no validity in a Wikipedia context other than as a source for what the church believes"? Come on. I'm starting to think that it's not the article that has the POV issues here. As for your comcerns about the emphasis on the Anglosphere at the end of the article, those were the only RS surveys I could find; it's not like I've tried to prevent other editors from including data on Japan or India or somthing. And honestly, do you really think that the agnostic Bart Ehrman, (cited a few times in the article, mind you) has "a clear and obvious POV"? That just seems a little silly. Eugene (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
←I did say I wouldn't reply again, but just to sum up for S/K/R's benefit: I don't think this article in its current form is near ready. Regardless of whether this is a fringe theory or not—I personally couldn't really care less if someone really existed 2000 years ago, given that barring major new discoveries it will never be provable either way—this is not Christ myth theory, it's List of reasons why the Christ myth theory is wrong. – iridescent 20:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to toss out a few comments here. I tried to guide the article through mediation the last few weeks (Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory). As I was new to the mediation process, I undoubtedly did not handle it particularly well, but one thing that I tried to stress during the mediation was that anyone who felt that the article did not meet NPOV should bring up reliable sources to support their claim. A number of sources were indeed brought up that supposedly noted that the CMT might have validity. A number of these were dismissed; in retrospect I should have tried to focus more on them and ensure that the dismissal of those sources was proper. They were: Martin, Thompson, Pearson, Jonas, Campbell, Graves, DeConnick, Avalos, Feder, and Davies (what books those authors wrote are located on the mediation page). Perhaps someone independent could check over those authors again and make sure that their views are not being improperly excluded from the article? I am thinking in particular of Martin and Avalos, as well as Thompson. NW (Talk) 23:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The problem some are having in evaluating this article is that they are unaware of historical methodology. For example, when dealing with ancient history, there is nothing which is provable (in a mathematical sense). There are only probabilities. And the probability that Jesus didn't exist is so low that historians of all types of backgrounds have labeled the CMT, in one way or another, as "crazy".
Therefore, it only appears as a "List of reasons why the Christ myth theory is wrong" to you (Iridescent), and possibly others, because a bizarre and crazy theory means that there will be a whole host of evidence against it. Thus, this article adheres quite nicely to Fringe (levels of acceptance) policies. That's my $0.02.
Full disclosure - I have not been a significant editor of the main text of this article, but I have made significant contributions to the Talk page and was involved in the mediation with both Eugene and Sophia. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the NPOV concerns above, per Slim Virgin's comments on the previous FAC and WP:SOAPBOX. Christ_myth_theory#Other_writers_2 should be the bulk of the article, these are the authors even I've heard of in connection with this topic. As the quotes in the footnotes (particularly Christ_myth_theory#Scholarly_reception) demonstrate there has not been a scholarly review of the Christ Myth material, so why spend 80% of the article informing readers about something that hasn't happened in inflammatory language? This would be like focusing on the scholarly reception of pop music lyrics. CD-Host (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just avoid the mess above. I've never used the Reference List formatting used here. I assume the "authormask" field creates the em dashes for a repeat of the same author. I haven't checked the WP:MoS on this, but I never did that here on Wikipedia simply because if someone else adds another reference in between... If the "authormask" formatting takes care of that, disregard. Also, for some reason, some of the em dashes are longer than others. Maybe there's a reason for that? I'm not aware of that might be. Finally, some of the em dashes for "ibid" author are followed by a semicolon and most aren't. Easy cleanup. If these were the biggest problems with the article, there wouldn't be any problem at all... Airborne84 (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As long as some editors feel the need for this article to preach that the myth theory is "pseudo-scholarship" and "fringe", it shouldn't pass the FAC process. I don't see anything obviously fraudulent about Christ-myth theory; it's not as if its proponents, particularly its earliest ones, planted or fabricated evidence, and they seem to have done the little the historical method requires: formulate a thesis, gather evidence and cites in support of thesis, and engage critics' challenges. In fact, this theory is not analogous to the intelligent design movement, as they claim -- most commentators agree that intelligent design contravenes a core tenet of the scientific method, in not making testable predictions or being falsifiable, as well as obviously having antecedents in creationism, which has rarely aspired to the methodology of science. The correct analogy is to Lamarck's theory of inherited traits; patently, almost laughably wrong in retrospect, but quite plausible in the scientific context of his time. We do not label the theories of even the tragically wrong Aristotle and Anaximenes as "fringe" or "psuedo-science" and belabor to prove them wrong in their articles; it should be the same for at least Bruno Bauer's careful formulation. FWIW, I came to edit the article as a relatively strident atheist and came away feeling that Christ Myth Theory was lacking, as many editors seem to want to impart. But you can do that with just the facts -- please let them speak for themselves.71.203.159.37 (talk) 03:09, 12 April 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 12:58, 10 April 2010 [21].

USS Triton (SSRN-586)

Nominator(s): Marcd30319 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... the USS Triton completed its shakedown cruise on 11 May 1960, which included the first submerged circumnavigation of the world, fifty years ago. Triton was commanded by Captain Edward L. Beach, a highly-decorated U.S. naval officer and best-selling author. This article has just undergone a MILHIST A-class review. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to our collaboration. Marcd30319 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This still needs quite a bit of work IMO. A few examples:
    • The Contruction history section says that the sub was launched by Louise Will, but the info box says Louise Willis.
    • "In 1993, she was towed to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard to go through the Nuclear Powered Ship and Submarine Recycling Program, with this process initiated effective 1 October 2007." Very awkward
    • Both reactors shared the same ship compartment." How could that be, if one was at the front and the other at the back?
    • "Triton's dual-reactor plant served a number of operational and engineering objectives ..." It may have met some objectives, but it didn't serve them.
    • "... specifically the high speed requirement to meet its radar-picket mission, which continue to be sources of speculation and controversy to this day." What is "continue" relating to here? The mission, in which case it ought to be "continues"?
    • "Design work on a nuclear-powered radar picket submarine began in 1954–1955.[20] It would have a three-level hull ...". There's a lot of this kind of use of the subjunctive. Why "would have", rather than "had"?
      • Corrected to read: Design work on a nuclear-powered radar picket submarine (SSRN) began in 1954–1955. As initally designed, it would have a three-level hull, with its Combat Intelligence Center (CIC) located on the middle level.
      • Subjunctive abatement: Done. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Triton's made her first dive ..."
      • 'Corrected.
    • "Work on the Triton at Electric Boat was delayed ...". Why the Triton?
    • "During this period, the rising threat posed by Soviet submarine forces increased the Navy's demands for nuclear-powered attack submarines ...". What period? As the opening sentence of the Overhaul and Conversion section it looks like the period being discussed in the period of Triton's overhaul and conversion.
    • "Triton was the only non-Soviet submarine designed with a two-reactor propulsion plant, with her S4G reactors being identical seagoing versions of the land-based S3G reactor prototype, both of which comprised the Submarine Advanced Reactor (SAR) program, a joint venture between the U.S. Navy, Atomc Energy Commission(AEC), and General Electric." Bit of a word salad there.
      • Revised to read: Triton was the only non-Soviet submarine designed with a two-reactor propulsion plant. Her S4G reactors was an identical seagoing versions of the land-based S3G reactor prototype. Both reactors comprised the Submarine Advanced Reactor (SAR) program, a joint venture between the U.S. Navy, Atomc Energy Commission(AEC), and General Electric. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Since the Navy no longer had any plans to use Triton radar picket capability ...". Should this be "Triton's radar picket capability?
    • "Finally, Triton was the name of one of the submersibles used in the Submarine Voyage attraction at Disneyland which operated from 1959 to 1998." And this is relevant how?

--Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query: What is the current status of this FAC review? I have responded to all issues raised thus far, corrected any subjunctive, typographical, or grammatical errors, and replied to the question regarding the Cultural references section. What issues remain to be addressed? Thank you for your assistance. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only for myself, I'm still not entirely happy with this article, but I'm not quite unhappy enough to oppose its promotion. I gave a few examples above, here are a few more:
  • "After operating for only two years in her designed role, the Grumman WF-2 Tracer airborne early warning aircraft made her obsolete as a radar picket submarine." The expectation raised in this sentence is that the Grumann WF-2 is the subject of the opening "her", but it becomes clear at the end of the sentence that "her" refers to the sub. It's tiring to read stuff like that.
Fixed. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A unique submarine, she also had the distinction of being the only non-Soviet submarine to be powered by two nuclear reactors." Not quite sure about this. What was it that made her unique?
Triton is unique because she went around the world submerged on her maiden voyage, a significant historical operational achievement, and she was the only non-Soviet submarine to be powered by two nuclear reactors, a significant engineering attribute. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, unique in our naval articles denotes that the vessel or boat in this case was not the member of a ship class and was the single ship built to the design. For some FAs that use this terminology, look in the infoboxes of SMS Von der Tann and SMS Seydlitz. -MBK004 04:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To meet its radar picket roles, Triton's main air search radar initially used the AN/SPS-26 ...". Wasn't that just the one role?
Noted and corrected. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As built, Triton featured a knife-like bow, with a bulbous forefoot, to enhance her surfaced sea-keeping, as well as possessing a high reserve buoyancy ...". The tenses seem to flop about here. "Featured ... as well as possessing"? What's "as built" trying to tell me? Were the features being described here modified later?
Corrected. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Triton's first commanding officer, Captain Edwrad L. Beach ...". Was that really his name?
Corrected. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In short, I think this article still needs a good deal of tidying up, not just fixing up the specific issues raised here; they're just examples of the kind of things that need to be looked at. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that NavSource is a good on-line place to start researching U.S. naval vessels, but I can substitute verifiable sources for both NavSource references cited below. Marcd30319 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Mohl (2006). USS Tambor (SS-198). Submarine Photo Archive. NavSource.org: This source was added by another contributor who was acting in good faith. This NavSource link showed a photograph of a Torpedo Data Computer (TDC) from World War Two. The source of this photograph and accompanying text was from U.S. Submarines Through 1945, An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman (Naval Institute Press, 1995) and partial text courtesy of chinfo.navy.mil. I will swap this source out for Friedman book. Marcd30319 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
USS Triton (SSRN-586). Submarine Photo Archive. NavSource.org: This source was added by another contributor who was acting in good faith. It duplicates what is available in the on-line USS Triton entry of the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships at the U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command in Washington, DC, and I have substituted this with the DANFS. Marcd30319 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Marcd30319 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gone. Marcd30319 (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These two sources were used only because the Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea TV episode "Mutiny", broadcast on January 11, 1965, cited in this article is available for viewing there. If the original teleplay from this episode was available, I would have cited that as the source. Since is now readily available, I used these two online services. Also, I used both online services to avoid any suggestion of favoritism.
Gone. Marcd30319 (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you've replaced the last two? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Marcd30319 (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well, I have two problems here, one is that the sites aren't actually the reference you're wanting, you're wanting to cite the episode itself, which is relatively easy to do. Secondly, are these sites authorized to host the episode? We're not allowed to link to copyright violations, so the sites need permission to host the episode. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can use this reference to cite the episode in question (Anchors, Jr., William E. (March–April 1992). "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea". Epi-Log 1 (1): 23) and delete Fancast and DailyMotion although Fancast does list Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea in a press release so licensing with 20th Century Fox is very likely. Marcd30319 (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestions and support. Marcd30319 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Sorry I'm late to the party. I understand Malleus's comments to mean he's looking for more copyediting before he can support; I'll give it a shot, but please feel free to tell me if you'd prefer I not make edits, I know it can be stressful for people to fiddle with something you've put this much work into when it's sitting at FAC. Please check my work. - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Welcome to the party. I am the principal contributor to the article under FAC review. I am not going to going to split semantic hairs with any editor-reviewer, but I will look at the alterations. My objective is to have this article ready for consideration as the Featured Article of the Day for May 11, the 50th anniversary of end of the first submarged circumanvigation. Good luck and thank you.Marcd30319 (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not here to hold it up, I'm here to speed it up; if reviewers have a positive reaction, then I'm heading in the right direction. I don't see anything in the reviews so far that suggests this is going to take a while. A quick response to "split hairs": there are a lot of us who scratch our heads in puzzlement that the human race seems to be so attached to its tribal instincts; most wives will confirm that their husbands act like cave-men, and social scientists started doing a great job of describing the related phenomena in the 1990s; see for instance Pinker's How the Mind Works. We all have tribal instincts when it comes to judging what kind of work is important: spearing an animal or busting someone's head open seem at least "interesting" to everyone; arguing about how best to tell the story of these things strikes a lot of people as not a real job, more like being fussy or self-important or worse. But my position and the position of a lot of FAC reviewers (and you can disagree) is that there's a way to write so that a wide readership will easily and precisely understand what we're saying. There are useful guides to follow, such as AP Stylebook, Chicago, and the combined wisdom (if you like) of everyone who's commented on language questions on Wikipedia. I'm not going to be perfect, and you can revert any of my edits, but I can increase the odds that people will support at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if SHIPS has any official position on calling a ship "ex-Triton". In my Google search, pages such as this one (probably talking about a different Triton) suggest that "ex-Triton" means the ship used to be called Triton but now has a new name; "ex-triton" doesn't pull up many hits with the intended meaning. I've looked through all the FA USS ships and all the nuclear sub articles beginning with "A", and none of them use the "ex-" terminology to refer to a decommissioned ship or hulk. How many sources use that term as opposed to "Triton", "the former Triton" or "the hulk"? - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term ex-Triton was used in official correspondence about the ship from the public affiars office at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and the Naval Sea Systems Command. Also, the ships going through Ship-Submarine Recycling Program are referred to as ex-ships (e.g., ex-Long Beach, ex-Triton) in the "U.S. Naval Battle Forec Change" section in the annual Naval Review edition for the U.S. Naval Institute. Therefore, this seems to be a comman practice by the U.S. Navy. Please note that Triton was striken from the Naval Vessel Registry (NVR) in 1986 and following that entry in the article, I started referring to the ship as ex-Triton. Think of the removal of a warship's name from the NVR as being the same as removing the name of a deceased person from a community's tax rolls and local telephone directory. I hope this clarifies. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, that's plenty of support for the term. I'd still like to keep my edit in the lead removing the "ex" terminology (because ideally, the lead shouldn't present any terminology that requires much thought on the part of the reader), but keep the "ex" terminology everywhere after the lead. I'll try to be consistent with my edits; it should the "the ex-Triton". - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get that "intelligence information, electronic surveillance, and fighter aircraft interception control" might in fact mean distinct things ... but do they really? Wasn't this just radar looking for ships and aircraft (and missiles, if the radar was sensitive enough)? - Dank (push to talk) 03:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. For example, during its submerged circumnavigation of the world, Triton carried out photographic reconnaissance of the various locations encountered during the voyage. This is intelligence gathering. The same can be said of her deployment to the Arctic to monitor the aftermath of the Soviet super H-bomb detonation, which probably included collecting air samples to provide data from the fallout. Both Norman Friedman's U.S. Submarines since 1945: An Illustrated Design History and the article on Triton by Largess and Horwitz made particular note of the electronic gathering capabilities of Triton given its large Combat Intelligence Center (CIC). And according to Largess and Horwitz , Triton did carry out air traffic control missions using its replacement BPS-2 air search radar. I hope this clarifies. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying to Trekphiler's reversions: "purpose-built" is "chiefly British", although of course these days British English and American English are converging faster than ever before. This article is American English. The question of whether to say "X-class ships" or "Xs" comes up a lot, and we at WP:SHIPS generally take the position that the former is better; that's what the sclass template is for. Since so many naval sources say Xs, I'm not dead-set against it, but to anyone other than a naval buff, it doesn't sound right; you don't say for instance "the Endeavors" to mean all the space shuttles that were designed at the same time as the Endeavor, only one of which is called Endeavor. Regarding SSR as an "introduced" term, just saying it doesn't introduce it, we would also need to define it, if it means something different than the designation for radar picket ships. - Dank (push to talk) 16:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, stopping for now, although I didn't get very far. I'm not opposing, but I can't support at this stage, per my comment immediately above. - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three weeks, without consensus to promote, closing. Also, will the nominator please refrain from overuse of bolding, which makes the FAC hard to read. Please address concerns, and come back to FAC in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 10 April 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 12:55, 10 April 2010 [22].

Fay Ripley

Nominator(s): Bradley0110 (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I'm nominating this article for featured status because I believe it meets all of the criteria. It was promoted to GA status last October, was peer reviewed and copyedited by Brianboulton in January, and has received a copyedit from HJ Mitchell of WP:GOCE. There is currently one dead link in the article, which is used once as attribution for a direct quote. The convenience link may not resurface online but can be verified in the hard copy issue of City Life. Bradley0110 (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Comments. I would consider removing where she was born and educated out of the lead, that her parents separated, that she took time off to have a second child etc. These are not why she's notable. The lead should mostly confine itself to what she's known for. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 21:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether you've left her dob out deliberately, but in case not it's here. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 21:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DOB added, thanks. I don't mind being reverted if it was a deliberate omission. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SV, I've removed the info about her parents and her education from the lead, but have left the other info in. The lead is not just to establish the notability of the subject, but to provide a broad overview of the whole article; I don't know of any featured articles that omit a person's birth place from the lead, so I've retained that. The birth of her second child is an important thing to have in the lead, as it directly affected her career. As for the birth date, Hello magazine cannot be considered a reliable source in this case, since her birth was registered with the General Register Office between January and March 1966. This is why I added the explanatory note in the refs section and the "See GRO source" note to the wikitext. Bradley0110 (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "After her scenes as a prostitute were cut from Frankenstein (1994), Ripley won her first major film role playing Karen Hughes in Mute Witness (1995)." I get confused by this sentence. How are they connected and how can you win a role? --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a little flair in the language (and auditions are competitions for actors after all!). Would you prefer "got" or "had" instead of "won"? Bradley0110 (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Gained" could be a sensible compromise. I'm afraid nobody on Flickr has got back to me about a photo yet. :( HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Gained" sounds good! Bradley0110 (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three weeks with no Support; perhaps bring this back in about ten days? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 10 April 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 00:26, 9 April 2010 [23].

Michelle Obama

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it was previously nominated two and a half months after she assumed the role of First Lady of the United States. There were issues with recentism and what her long term role is. Now that she has established her legacy objective and undertaken a role in running an administrationwide initiative, I think it is time to reconsider whether this article is among the finest at summarizing the bio of this living person.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:41, 6 April 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 00:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The eligibility of this article is not clear for the cup. If it passes, we will request clarification.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: The books under "Further reading" are not formatted properly; an author's surname is always first, and I'm not aware of any standard style (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.) that lists the month of publication as well as the year -- correct me if I'm wrong on the last point, however. Publication cities are also missing in all three instances. In addition, is there a reason why the books listed are not used as references for the article? From what I can tell after a quick skimming, most of the references are news reports and articles, which is great if that's all there is, but my belief is that if there are reputable, published works available, why not use them? María (habla conmigo) 12:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can reformat the citations. However, if you are telling me that I have to read a couple of novels to advance this FAC, it is not going to happen. On many subjects there are far more references than are used in creating the article. Does this article appear to be lacking breadth, depth or WP:RS for the material that exists?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not telling you to do anything, Tony. But now that you mention it, what's so wrong about reading books for the sake of a gold star? ;) The question is, does this article -- which relies solely on online news sources when there are seemingly reliable, published works available -- truly present a "representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic"? I obviously haven't read the books, or even the article in its entirety, but past FACs have been hit with such queries in the past. Because this is such an important article, and one that will continue to be scrutinized by many readers, the references should obviously be of the highest quality currently available. If the books in question are not worth the paper they're printed on, okay; but they should at least be assessed to find whether or not they can be of use. María (habla conmigo) 14:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have several times done research such as that to get a gold star. My WP is much less than it use to be. In most cases, for architecture articles I have read books that had 4 or 5 pages on a building or structure that I was researching. I was able to add a few books in a few hours. In this case, we are talking about entire books devoted to the subject. Compared to some of my recent FAs such as Jay Pritzker Pavilion, Cloud Gate, Crown Fountain, or Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) where I was able to improve the perceived quality of the WP article by looking at a few passages in architecture books, this would take an industrious effort that I am not up to. I could not imagine it would take me less than 50 hours to read the references that you mention. I do not have that much time for WP anymore.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Has a delegate approved this nom, bearing in mind the 15-day rule and that this nominator's 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team was archived only on 6 April? Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I confess to not really reading the constantly revised rules with each nomination. If this nomination is suppose to be closed that is fine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • With no opinion on the merits of the article (which I haven't read in any detail), I'd say this is a clear candidate for WP:IAR. That rule is intended to prevent FAC from being clogged by mass nominations of poor quality articles into FAC by people who don't really understand what's required; Tony clearly doesn't fall into that category. – iridescent 00:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, that rule was put into place to stop editors from using FAC as a source of serial peer reviews, putting up a second nomination as soon as their previous nom was archived, clogging FAC and treating it as peer review, and regularly bringing back articles with little change as soon as the last nomination was archived. In fact, yes, this review needs to be closed, as the rule was put into place precisely for this purpose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:46, 8 April 2010 [24].

Royal National College for the Blind

Nominator(s): Paul Largo (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I believe this article meets the criteria for FA Status. It was promoted to GA in December 2008 and received a peer review in January 2010. All issues raised in the PR have been addressed. The article is well referenced, of reasonable length, covers the subject comprehensively, has been stable for a number of years, and reads well. Paul Largo (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Comments -
    • Firstly, thanks for reviewing the article. This is the first artcle I've submitted to FAC so I'm on a bit of a learning curve. Therefore I have one or two questions.
    • Are you saying the listed sources are unreliable? If so, please say that. If this is the case then I should be able to replace most of them with other references.
    • With regard to the work paremeter, for example, should the Hereford Times refs appear as "work= Hereford Times|publisher= Newsquest Media Ltd"?
    • The Rose reference was taken from an online copy of the book which is no longer available and which didn't have page numbers inluded (it was basically one large document). I will be able to replace this with a reference from the Illingworth book (including page numbers), but there's another reference slightly further on (Bell) which I probably won't be able to do this (though I have made inquiries about it).
    • THanks Paul Largo (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not that I'm saying they are unreliable, but that I'm not sure they are reliable. If you have a case for the fact that they shoudl be relialbe, you can make it, otherwise, replacing them is probalby best. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can replace most of them so am happy to do so. If I wanted to argue they were reliable how would I go about doing that? Paul Largo (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've replaced the MyHerefordshire link as that is questionable as a source. I think Patient UK is probably ok since it appears to me to be well researched and was compiled by medical experts. The Learning and Skills Improvement Service is a UK government body so that's probably reliable. I notice the Response Source article was posted by the college, I've left that in for now but added a reference from the TES - there are surprisingly few reliable online references for the beacon status and the RS article contains som interesting information. MusicWeb references one of the students who attended the college, but that can be removed if necessary. The only other reference outstanding is the LeisureOpportunities article, which references information about the leisure complex, but again that can be removed if necessary along with the information it supports (though this would be a piry as it makes an important statement about the facility). Finally I've swapped the Rose book for the Illingworth book which contained much the same information and can be properly referenced so should be all right. Let me know if there are any more problems with it and I'll take another look. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Music Web International has an onsite blurb which describes the main players http://www.musicweb-international.com/historyMotW2000.html - but if you find it hard to tie down indications of reliability, Hollins has an article in the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians which also mentions that he was a pupil at the Royal Normal College - there's an online version at http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/42802 (access is normally subscriber only, but most UK libraries offer access via institutional arrangements, normally you just need to enter your library ticket barcode, check your local libary website for details). David Underdown (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that. I've checked it out and it seems ok so I've used it to replace the Music Web link. I'll take a look at the other sites as soon as I can, definitely some time today. Paul Largo (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Websites

Here are links to the "About Us" pages of the websites in question together with some brief information;

  • Patient UK appears to be a comprehensive health information website authored by a number of doctors and other qualified professionals. Information is updated every two years or as required. Could be reliable due to the calibre of those operating/editing the site.
  • Response Source appears to be an information gathering service for journalists, and connected with SourceWire. Not sure how reliable it is, however, although it's been going for a number of years. The College actually posted the press release concerning their Beacon Status. I think the same information is probably available on RNC's website and certainly the Response Source link could be removed as the same information is available from the TES article I added earlier in the week.
  • Excellence Gateway seems to be a government run website connected with the Learning and Skills Improvement Service (itself a government body). Government sites tend to be fairly reliable so is probably ok.
  • Leisure Opportunities is part of The Leisure Media Company Ltd, which was established in 1981 and which several business magazines and online services for professionals working in the leisure industry. The company says it is in partnership with over 20 trade bodies and has over 100,000 contacts in the industry (these are not listed though). Is probably reliable if used extensively in the leisure industry. Perhaps someone who works in leisure can help here.

Not sure how helpful this information is. I was talking to a friend off-wiki yesterday about this and he suggested I could ask for help at WP:RSN in determining whether or not these are reliable sources. I have to be away from my computer for a while shortly so will post a question there later this evening. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to keep everyone up to date on this, I've opened a discussion on this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Validating Sources (Permanent link). Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (very minor)
    • Needs consistency throughout in use of quotation marks: there are some single quotes that need replacing with doubles.
    • In "Principals" section, "tendered her resignation" is needlessly wordy: how about "resigned"?
    • Paralympic – sometimes capitalised, sometimes not.
    • RNC – the contracted title is sometimes given as "the RNC" and sometimes just as "RNC". Need for consistency.
    • Braille – with or without capital? Again, usage varies within the article.

Hope these, though pernickety, are helpful. – Tim riley (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Thanks for the comments. I think I've sorted everything out. I've capitalised Paralympics and Braille, tweaked the "Principals" section and changed the contracted title so it refers to "RNC". I've think I've also sorted out the quotes - everything in the main body of the text should now be in double quotes (let me know if I've missed anything). I should just add that I haven't changed any quotes in references though as I've left the text how it appeared in the original articles. Again, let me know if I need to change these too and I'll be happy to di it. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Full (but not too full) of relevant and evidently comprehensive information, well referenced and well written. - Tim riley (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest upgrading the sourcing concerns before bringing this back to FAC; reviewers are unlikely to support with so many sourcing concerns raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:38, 8 April 2010 [25].

Quicksilver (novel)

Nominator(s): Sadads (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article, which I have been working on for a long time and got it up to GA status without any objection, and feel that it is one of the best examples of contemporary historical fiction and this article covers the scope of literary criticism on it. I wish to pursue the expansion of other parts of the Baroque Cycle and want to get the whole series up for a featured category nomination. It is my first nomination of this sort, but it is about time, I have been on WP:Novels for quite some time.Sadads (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the need for File:NealStephenson_Quicksilver.jpg, could this be clarified Fasach Nua (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its the first edition cover (most historically significant), per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines#Image, Sadads (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is a truly bazaar guideline, however I was thinking in terms of wp:nfcc criteria 8 Fasach Nua (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its like a portrait picture of a person, it is the best way to identify the individual subject visually. It is also relevant to the publication, like movie posters. Sadads (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - invalid use of non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute See #1 at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images. It clearly is a valid use, per rational in last comment as well (use for identification of object being critically discussed). Sadads (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article discuss the cover itself in detail, as opposed to the contents of the book? If not, I can't see much justification to have the image. Ucucha 12:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, per the recommendations of both policy at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines#Image, discussion of the cover itself need not be the focus, but instead discussion of what it represents (thus discussion of the Novel itself warrants it's most historically relevant cover). This has not been a problem for other FAs, all the modern literature under Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Literature_and_theatre has cover images and all the movies under Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media have movie production posters. This is a non-issue. If you have problems with this policy, address it at a more community level discussion, not here. Sadads (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: This should have gone through a Peer Review and copy-edit before coming directly to FAC, especially since this is a first nomination on your part, Sadads. The writing is poor and confusing in places; I'm not familiar with the novel, but I almost gave up halfway through the lead. A few examples from the top:
  • It is the first volume of his The Baroque Cycle, a historical fiction series, succeeded by The Confusion and The System of the World (both 2004) -- "both 2004" what?
  • Quicksilver is a volume split into three books in 2006 in order to make the 900 pages more approachable by readers -- "in 2006" what? It was split? Because the paragraph before says it was (initially?) published in 2003.
  • Quicksilver is written in various narrative styles including drama and letter series and follows a large group of characters. -- "drama and letter series" sounds inexact and nonliterary. A novel written in letters is epistolary, is that what is meant?
  • Throughout the novel many historical events such as the Great Plague of London, the Great Fire of London, the Edict of Fontainebleau, the Monmouth Rebellion, the Bloody Assizes, the Battle of Vienna and the Glorious Revolution, though many details, such as each member of what he calls the CABAL, have been changed. -- "[M]any historical events... though many details... have been changed." Huh? See what's missing here?
  • "The plot of the first and third books focus on Daniel Waterhouse and his exploits as a young Natural Philosopher and friend to Isaac Newton and his observations of English politics and religion." -- and and and and.

I haven't gone beyond the lead at this point, but I obviously have doubts about the state of the rest of the article. I won't oppose at this point, but until a thorough copy-edit is done (preferably by more than one editor), this article does not fulfill the FA criteria. María (habla conmigo) 12:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix those, previous reviewers and the reviewers for GA did not find any issues (I asked for additional input from multiple editors, and all give me a thumbs up) and I have been going back and cleaning up, so I thought it was relatively clear. But thank you for the direct input, working on a fix. Sadads (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Any other points of clarification you notice please point out. I love advice and help. Sadads (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you're not done. I suggested you find someone else to copy-edit, and it's still necessary, as several of my points were not adequately addressed. Sometimes editors become too close to their writing and cannot see the glaring mistakes that exist in plain sight; that's where a non-involved editor comes in handy.
  • Quicksilver is a volume split into three books in 2006 in order to make the 900 pages more approachable by readers. -- The "in 2006" is still thrown in there, confusing the prior fact that the book was initially published three years earlier. "In 2006, Quicksilver was split into three books in order to make the initial 900-page volume..." etc. Much clearer, yes?
  • Quicksilver is written in various narrative styles, such as theatrical staging and epistolary, and follows a large group of characters. -- "theatrical staging" is not a narrative style, and such wording directly conflicts with "epistolary". Rather, the novel uses theatrical staging and is (at times?) epistolary. However this may be reworded (which is must be), depends on the rest of the sentence, which probably needs reworked no matter what.
  • This sentence: "Throughout the novel many historical events such as the Great Plague of London, the Great Fire of London, the Edict of Fontainebleau, the Monmouth Rebellion, the Bloody Assizes, the Battle of Vienna and the Glorious Revolution, details, such as the members of the CABAL, have been changed" continues to make no sense. If I was not clear above, I apologize. "Throughout the novel many historical events" what? The thought is not finished. Many historical events such as blah blah blah... are detailed? Are represented? What?
I shouldn't be seeing these issues in the lead section, as these concerns should have been addressed at an earlier stage; FAC is not a Peer Review, nor should it be treated as one. I don't have the time to go sentence-by-sentence, but there are issues throughout. A couple sentences down I see "He had also had heard considerable discussion" and this headache: "Because he was both doing extensively historical researching historical events and the development of developing a myriad of characters, he gained a considerable number of notebooks along with and several piles of stationary upon which he composed the novels upon." Or something. I'm not a master wordsmith, which is why I find that I need numerous expert eyes looking over my shoulder before I find the confidence to nominate at FAC, but you get my drift. This article needs help. FAC is serious business. Until things improve, I will have to Oppose. María (habla conmigo) 15:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing copy edit concerns: I have contacted several editors (new and old to the article page), asking for some support. Hope it will be timely, will address above issues of María's and continue my own reviewing of it. Sadads (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: On the issue of the lead image I agree with you. However, on the prose question I agree absolutely with Maria; this article needs some thorough attention, and here at FAC is not the appropriate place for this. Just a few examples of prose problems in the lead, apart from those raised by Maria:-

  • Second sentence: "It is the first volume of his The Baroque Cycle, a historical fiction series, succeeded by The Confusion and The System of the World (both published in 2004)." This reads confusingly; "succeeded" is not the best word either. The sentence would be clearer as "It is the first volume of his historical fiction series The Baroque Cycle, and is followed by The Confusion and The System of the World (both published in 2004)."
  • Second paragraph, first sentence: apart from the confusion mentioned by Maria, we have "in order", a form much deprecated in featured prose. "Approachable by" might be better as "accessible to" (but that's a personal preference).
  • Next sentence: "These books were originally sections of the greater cycle during composition." It took me a while to work this out; is this significant information? Why does the reader need to know this?
  • Why is "books" in quotes, and isn't something missing from "...set in the late 17th mostly in England..."?
  • "a vagabond and former member of the Turkish harem" - should be "...and a former member..." Also, the Turkish harem" - was there only one?
  • "landing in the Netherlands"? Not the best phrasing; perhaps "reaching the Netherlands"?

With so many errors or questionable phrases so early, it is clear that the article does not meet featured criterion 1(a). There is no doubt much good stuff in it, but time needs to be spent by one or more uninvolved editors with FA experience, to bring the prose to standard. I don't believe this can be done in the structure and timescale of FAC and would recommend a peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:36, 8 April 2010 [26].

Spiritual Machines

Nominator(s): Publichall (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has been greatly improved since it's last attempt at featured article. It now has pictures and the citation formatting has been unified among many other things. Several dedicated wikipedians and I have scoured the article numerous times and have deemed it worthy. Thanks Publichall (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Although not initially intended, the project evolved into a conceptual interpretation of futurist and inventor Raymond Kurzweil's 1999 book The Age of Spiritual Machines and featured spoken dialog from Kurzweil himself."

(not intended as what?) and

"Unlike their previous releases, this one features a more natural sound, and less obvious layering and electronic texturing."

(why so complex a sentence structure?). Then we get:

"While touring rigorously"

with mathematical rigor? Further redundancies further down ("becoming", "proceeded to"), then inappropriate use of a first name only, overlinking to email. Full of quotes, more than would be appropriate (cf. the essay WP:QUOTE). I see more similar problems in the rest of the article, but won't list them all; a good copyeditor will catch those. Ucucha 01:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I'm going to agree with Ucucha and do a Tony1 on you. Can you spot the redundant words in "In total, he made around 200 paintings relating to the project ..."? More seriously, some parts don't seem to be consistent. In the lead, for instance, we're told that "the album was written and recorded in two months while the band was still on tour", but two sentences later we're told that "the band only took a break from recording to organize and perform at Summersault in 2000". This isn't ready for FAC yet. Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose— I agree with the other reviewers. Despite the extensive work on the article at it's previous FAC, problems remain. Redundancy is a common problem. For example this, "Spiritual Machines has been noted as being the end of an era for Our Lady Peace, as it was the last album produced by the band's longtime producer Arnold Lanni, the last to feature original guitarist Mike Turner in full, the last studio album to feature art model Saul Fox on its cover, and the last album to feature Maida's high-falsetto singing voice prominently." Try "marked the end of an era" and we have "the last" repeatedly. Later on there is this, "recorded during a year in which the band was doing extensive touring of Canada, the United States, and Europe", I don't think the "was doing" works. Returning to the Lead, spot the redundant word here, "Short tracks of spoken dialog from Kurzweil himself are interspersed among the actual songs on the album." Graham Colm (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:34, 8 April 2010 [27].

Objections to evolution

Nominator(s): RoyBoy and Orangemarlin and Hrafn and Filll 03:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The articles seems to be quite complete, detailed, referenced and extensively discussed and challenged. The headers might be tweaked, but I'm hopeful that will likely be the least of the issues brought up during the FA process. I've added the co-nominators to acknowledge their content creation, their participation is optional. - RoyBoy 03:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about this article's role - I see this question has already been discussed extensively on the article's talk page, apparently without resolution:

  • The title is strange: the objections discussed are objections not to evolution but to theories of evolution.
  • What is the relationship between this article and Creation–evolution controversy, whose topic appears very similar?
  • Every section in the current article is concerned with both creationism and evolution. Does one of the two articles make the other redundant? If not, then from a criterion 2b/2c perspective, is the current article complete? PL290 (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect to the first comment "evolution" refers to both 'fact' and 'theory' (or, some would prefer, fact, theory and path). In addition, if you look through the article you'll see that it discusses objections not only to the mechanism of evolution, but also to the fact of evolution. Guettarda (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regards to the second, the "controversy" is primarily about the political controversy; where it deals with objections to the science, it links to this article. Both articles are over 100k, so merging them is not an option. Guettarda (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the third question. Guettarda (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Have the co-nominators agreed to this FAC? Orangemarlin has not edited the article since December 2007 and has not edited Wikipedia for over one year. Graham Colm (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think RoyBoy listed them as a courtesy, given their contributions to the article. Guettarda (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the procedure; it implies they support the nomination. They might not. Graham Colm (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – sorry. Articles on evolutionary biology attract a huge amount of attention. This one, while giving an excellent synopsis of the arguments that support the theory, has too many faults to be considered for promotion. Most importantly, it lacks sources for controversial statements, often the ones that begin with "Creationists". The title is also wrong. It should be "Objections to the theory of evolution by natural selection", and should probably add "in the US", since the article is almost totally about the debate in America. Many of these "objections" are not an issue in other English-speaking countries. I saw WP:MoS issues, but on the whole the contribution is well-written and engaging, albeit too long. I don't think Wikipedia is the place to debate with creationist theories—there is an important distinction between describing a debate and taking part in one. Actually, I think this nomination should be withdrawn. It has not been properly nominated, it has not been fully prepared and is in danger of languishing at FAC for months while all its problems are fixed. Graham Colm (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with Graham. One can't object to evolution, simply to the various theories of evolution. This creationism vs Darwinism debate is a peculiarly American phenomenon in any event, particularly as it's portrayed in this article. There was, of course, some initial resistance to Darwin's ideas in England when they were first made public, but that was obviously a long time ago. If this was a general overview of objections to all theories of evolution, then I'd be expecting to see much wider coverage of pre-Darwinian theories. Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:32, 8 April 2010 [30].

Scooter (band)

Nominator(s): AlmanacManiac (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that Scooter are large players in the Electronic Dance Scene. They have been around for a very long time, have had an album go number 1 in the U.K., and many top 10 singles AlmanacManiac (talk) 19:54, 5 April 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 10:09, 8 April 2010 [31].

Alien Nation (film)

Nominator(s): Theatrickal (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A few months back, this film article was nominated by a user for the FA Queue. At the time, the article was essentially a skeleton. It had a foundation, and certain elements necessary for FA approval, but nothing in terms of comprehensive researched content. Although not a huge success at the box office, the film still retained a popularity for its original concept. I've taken a passing interest in the film, and spent my own time sprucing it up in trying to meet the criterea necessary for FA Status. It is thoroughly filled with referenced content this time around, and I believe in its current incarnation, it merits FA inclusion. Theatrickal (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response I fixed the dab link and resourced those Barnes & Noble, Amazon etc. citations. Theatrickal (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now per evaluation below:
  • Should the film really be called a buddy cop film? I can understand the element existing, but it seems first and foremost a science fiction film.
  • The "Cast" section is missing links to actors. I assume this was an attempt to avoid overlinking, but I'd like to say two things: 1) The lead section is an overview of the article body, so you shouldn't avoid linking in the body just because it's in the overview, and 2) the "Cast" section really is the most navigable for readers, where names are lost in the "Plot" section. Links to actors in "Cast" section is better accessibility.
  • "Production" has no sense of how the film came to be. It goes right into "Makeup", which is a little confusing.
  • "Critical response" has weasel wording: "Between critics, reaction to the film was generally mixed." Only individual reviews are cited; it is better to find a source that reports the critical reception in retrospect for this overview. Also, these two reviews lack reliability: 1 and 2.
  • The "Post development" section should be outside the "Production" section, probably best placed in the same area as "Sequels".
  • "Box office" does not mention the release date, and theater does not need linking. It's a recognized enough word in the English language.
  • The article seems to be missing a section that involves academic analysis of the film, especially its themes. Was no such coverage found? See an article like American Beauty (film) for what I mean.
  • Here, here, here and here are examples of what I mean. Google Books and Google Scholar may reveal more like this. I asked another editor to search about the film in JSTOR and Academic Search Premier.
  • There are very large paragraphs that amount to "walls" of text through most of the article, especially "Production". Any way to alleviate that with quote boxes or even images? I think that "Makeup" in particular would help support the inclusion of a non-free image of the alien appearance.

I do particularly like how much content is available about the production, and it's nice to see Cinefex used. Hard periodical for me to find! Anyway, these are the broad strokes, for a start. I'll have to read the content more closely for additional suggestions. [edit: I would like to say about this article, though, it is a vast improvement from when it was previously nominated. Nice job! It's now a matter of meeting the FA criteria, obviously.] Erik (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hello, Erik. I've read what you've wrote and I believe I can address all of your concerns.
  • First issue is the buddy cop genre point. This film is indeed a buddy cop film. Every film critic organization or authority labels the film as a buddy cop genre. It is a buddy cop film although with a science fiction twist. There are other buddy cop films that have attempted a twist to differentiate from the standard theme too. Films like Turner and Hooch - pairing a cop with a dog. Red Heat - pairing an American cop with a Russian cop. In this film, its pairing a human with an Alien. But it is indeed a buddy cop film. You won't find a film authority that disputes that.
  • Second issue, the Cast Section. I indeed did not link those names for that exact reason which you pointed out. To avoid the over-linking. I will change that, if you feel thats the way it should be.
  • Next concern is the makeup sub-section. Basically, the entire film element that made this film different from others is the aliens. So I began the production with the background and application of the makeup. I don't really see an issue there. I thinks its an appropriate way to start the paragraph because of the central idea of the movie. If you want, I can switch around the Set Design and filming section to appear first. Let me know on that one. But I don't personally think its necessary.
  • Next problem, critical response. I understand where your coming from as far as criticizing the reliability of some of those critics. But here is the situation. The film does not have an abundant amount of reliable critics you see in the media today that reviewed the film. Those were the critics that were available. As an example, noted critic James Berardinelli didn't even review this film because it came out it 1988. He started reviewing in the early 90s. I worked with what I had. The abundance of famed film critics were simply not available for this film. It came out 22 years ago. The critical reviews from Rotten Tomatoes are not really built up with many dead links. Additionally, there's not even a listing for the film on Metacritic. Now as far as the weasel wording, I'll make an attempt to correct that issue.
  • Next issue, Post Development. I will make that change as you wish. I thought it would stand in better as a section alone, but I'll merge the two.
  • The Box Office section, I will make those corrections. No problem there.
  • Next issue involving Academic Theme and Google Books. Truthfully speaking, a theme analysis section is not always required if the article in general explains the themes throughout the page. This is according to WP:MOSFILM. Theme elements are run-through for instance in the production section with the alien language as being a foreign language from another country. Or the subtle makeup job is explained as making the aliens appear as just a discriminated minority group dealing with racism. So that section is not really needed. As far as the Google search is concerned, I'm trying to keep the article in accordance with standard prose sizes. The article should be within 50kb to 70kb of readable prose. I think it stands as 53kb which is fairly acceptable. Also if I might add, some of those google searches only produce a trickling of minor mention of the film. Not necessarily enough to formulate a few major sentences or a complete paragraph. And some of the books contains info which is already in the article, making it redundant. If you'd like to make a contribution from there, go ahead.
  • Last issue, is the walls of text. Ok, I guess you got me there. It does appear like a mountain of text. I didn't obtain any images to supplement it. I don't believe there is a rule that says you must have images with the text. But if your able to help out and make additions, please do so. I'm just not that fluent with the images part. Later tonight, I will make an effort to perhaps add some quote boxes to help as you say, "alleviate" those walled sections. (oh, and by the way, I purchased the Cinefex article. It was hard to obtain. But I made the additional effort to get it so that it would help the article get to FA.) Theatrickal (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not have any problem with how it can fall in the buddy cop genre. Could you not say that it is a science fiction film with a buddy cop twist? It seems better organization to identify it out of the gate as a science fiction film and mention later in the same paragraph how it is also a buddy cop film. Unless you want to mash up genres in the lead sentence? Just a thought.
  • RESPONSE - Made the changes. Science Fiction theme put in with a side project as a buddy-cop film.
  • Regarding "Production", I was more looking for a better lead-in to the whole section. Outside of the lead section, this is the first real exploration of the topic, and it warrants some kind of opening. A lot of film articles start out with how the film took off in the first place -- whose idea it was, who wrote it, who backed it, etc. Maybe one summary-style paragraph to start "Production"? Hope you know what I mean about a lead-in.
  • RESPONSE In a few short hours, I'll be home and I'll insert an introductory paragraph entitled "origins".
  • For critics, I don't think the lack of reviews is an excuse to have to use these two. They should be removed, and some of Andy's listed references look like reviews.
  • RESPONSE - Deleted those reviews. Will try to add Andy's additions later.
  • "Post development" could be its own section, too. I just mean that it is outside of this particular film's production, so a section covering the TV series should go outside that film's "Production" section.
  • RESPONSE Changes made.
  • Regarding themes, I think this film warrants a section discussing them because they are potent in this case. Weaving themes is one approach but works better for when they are simpler, like the director explaining what theme he intended with his script or with a given character. With the links I shared, I think that it would be worth a stand-alone section to explore the themes, since they are neither production- nor reception-related.
  • RESPONSE Changes made. I combined the origins section with themes. Although, it may appear slim on the outside, please keep in mind, the subject matter in that paragraph is repeated numerous times throughout the article. It almost seems redundant. But I included it there as per your instructions.
  • As for the wall of text, there's no rule, but I think there is precedent to at least break it up with something. I only suggested an image as a two-birds-with-one-stone approach -- it would break up the wall of text in "Makeup" and also be a contextually significant visual aid.
  • RESPONSE - Added Quote Boxes to help with text wall.
I won't be able to respond to any followup statements until tomorrow. And I suppose I will have to fork out money for the Cinefex issue for Dark City, my own project. :) Erik (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Erik asked me to search through some academic databases to see if any papers have been written about this film. I came up blank in the academic department. But, I did find several newspaper and magazine sources that you haven't used. They might be useful in rounding out information about production, reception, and so on:
  • Barlow, Mike (May 5, 1989). "Alien Nation a satirical sci-fi". The Windsor Star: p. C5.
  • Beck, Marilyn (October 8, 1988). "'Alien Nation' may give Caan the boost he needs". St. Petersburg Times: p. 2D.
  • Blowen, Michael (August 6, 1989). "'Alien Nation' Sophisticated sci-fi". Boston Globe: p. 76.
  • Boyar, Jay (October 10, 1988). "'Alien Nation' just cops and robbers with intergalactic angle". Orlando Sentinal: p. C1.
  • Elliott, David (October 13, 1988). "Caan fine, but movie just another cop-out". The San Diego Union: p. C8.
  • Groen, Rick (October 12, 1988). "Dirty Harry buckles up with E.T. in latest buddy-cop variation". The Globe and Mail: p. C8.
  • Kehr, David (October 7, 1988). "'Alien Nation' has too little wit, too many cliches". Chicago Tribune: p. K.
  • Miller, Richard (October 7, 1988). "Two Elite events: Baker's film is out, Mitch Kanner joins. (Elite Films, Graham Baker)". Back Stage 29 (41): 1–2.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New Comment Ok, thanks. In a few short hours when I get home, I will look through those and try to incorporate those additional references. Theatrickal (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few articles earlier that seem promising. I was going to post them after I'd read them all (discarding the useless ones and those you've already got), but I'm out for most of the evening and won't have time today. As you might want them sooner rather than later, take a look here. Steve T • C 17:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Theatrickal, if you need copies of any of these articles I listed, e-mail me and I can reply with them. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment Hi Steve. I will look through that scrapboard as well. But just after a quick run-through, some of the information from that list is already in the article. Posts from Ebert, Maslin and Kempley. The racism card and references towards Outer Heat/In the Heat of the Night are also present. Plus, other references with immigration officials and the alien mix are mentioned numerous times. But I will do a thorough check tonight. Thanks. Theatrickal (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak object Comment While there are many things that are good about the article, there are a few things that are bothering me:

  • The "Cast" section needs expanding, as there is nothing there except the character and the actor who portrays them. You need to write about what kind of role the character plays in the film, and (if possible) how that character originated. For and example, look at this.
  • You need to expand the "Music and soundtrack" section. It is very bland and short, barely telling you anything about the soundtrack. For more information, look at this.

Cheers.--Guy546(Talk) 22:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, well I'm not sure thats exactly the right course of action. Much of the information added to the cast section would simply be redundant info. Information about the cast members are given in the plot section. There's no need to list it twice. Also, many of the cast members in the list are just minor characters. They have a few lines in the film, and are shown for only a few minutes. 90% of the film has 3-4 characters that are shown fairly often. So I don't think that expansion is necessary. If anything, perhaps the article doesn't really need a casting section to begin with. According to WP:MOSFILM, the casting section is not necessarily needed if the characters are described completely in the plot. As far as the music is concerned, there isn't really much expansion that can be done. There was no soundtrack release of the original score by Sobel, and I've put all the information I could find so far. If you can come up with referenced content to supplement it, feel free to make an addition. But I wasn't able to. Theatrickal (talk) 00:03, 2 April 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 10:09, 8 April 2010 [32].

2009 World Series

Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 19:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I feel this article is up to the FA snuff. It's been through a PR, a failed FAC, got listed as a GA, and here I am again. The previous FAC really just went stale, I was happy to respond to any comments people brought up. As per Yellow Monkey's request at the time a Series Preview section was added, and a section noting the scandal involving NY governor David Paterson and his attending this World Series has now been added to the aftermath section. I have used 1926 World Series and 2004 World Series (the current FA World Series articles) as general style guides. The only major current issue of contention is the inclusion of a "Quotes" section. I have reverted the addition of uncited quotes (and will continue to as uncited material). I personally do not feel a quotes section follows Wikipedia's style guidelines (whether cited or not), but would welcome input on this subject. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links; external links working. Alt text is acceptable. You have one picture, that of Cliff Lee, with distracting dark and light bands; do you think that is acceptable in a featured article? Ucucha 20:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a question of accuracy of image versus quality of image. We also have this picture, much crisper and cleaner, but of Lee with the Indians. The image currently used unfortunately has the crowd's protective netting disrupting the image, but is of Lee actually with the Phillies. I'd be happy with either one. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another possibility is not to give a picture of the man at all. Not knowing much about baseball, I wouldn't know how to weigh the issues of accuracy and quality. But I am not sure whether the current image is of acceptable quality for a featured article, especially when better images shouldn't be that hard to get, as for a recent event like this. Ucucha 21:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is this. Cliff Lee was traded to the Phillies midway through last season and has left the team in this offseason. This leaves a brief window of 3-4 months worth of baseball where a potentially better image of Cliff Lee in a Phillies uniform could have been taken and released into a free license. Cliff Lee was far and away the central figure of Game 1 with a complete game nearly-shutout performance, if any player should have an image there it's him. If you don't think this image is of suitable quality for a featured work, do you think the alternative would be (assuming the caption included a note, as many of the images do, explaining when the photo was taken and thus why he's in a non-Phillies uniform)? Staxringold talkcontribs 21:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't know, since I am unsure how the different issues should be weighed in a sports context; I'll leave it for you and other reviewers to decide. Ucucha 01:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll try to give a full review at some point, but some of the captions might be improved. Some of them are a bit too detailed.

  • "U.S. flag during Opening Ceremony" – as I can't really see flag at the size the image is currently at, this might be better as "The opening ceremony for Game 3"
  • "Phillies second baseman Chase Utley, pictured during the 2007 spring training, hit another two home runs this game for a total of five in the Series, tying a record held by Reggie Jackson." is much too long. How about "Phillies second baseman Chase Utley, pictured during spring training in 2007, tied a record with five home runs in the series." or something similar. Also (very minor), Matsui's caption says "pictured here" while Utley's just says "pictured"
  • "The Yankees celebrate their 7–3 win against the Phillies and the franchise's 27th World Series championship." One would assume the reader knows the teams playing.
  • "New York Yankees ticker-tape parade at New York City Hall" you don't need to repeat the franchise's full name, and I'm not sure you even need "Yankees" at all.

This is just from a spot check, so please go over the captions, particularly in the ones in the Series section, and see if anything can be shortened. Also, reference 15's publisher is AOL Sports, and you have both "MLB.com. Major League Baseball." and "MLB.com (Major League Baseball)." Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - as I go through this article in the next few days, I will leave comments.

  • The lead seems to be composed of various trivia (e.g. 2nd Phillies/Yanks World Series, nicknames for series, latest start), rather than a summary of the article's contents. Most of the article's body gives context to each team's season, previews the series, and then gives a synopsis of each game. I think the lead needs to be rewritten to incorporate this information (see 2004 World Series for a good example). Remember, according to WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article."
  • Grammar issue in the lead ("The Series was the only the third to end in a month other than October.")
  • Some prose concerns - see my edits
  • Wikilinking - some work needs to be done, as positions/baseball terms seem to be randomly linked within the first few sections (e.g. the Phillies' season summary doesn't link free agent, whereas the Yankees' summary does; some baseball positions are linked while others aren't). Remember, the first time a term is introduced in the body, it should be Wikilinked, and subsequent usages should not be linked (unless there is a good rationale for doing so).
  • The series preview section should probably discuss the bullpens briefly. There was some concern with the Yankees middle relievers' reliability, but Rivera was still thought to be a large advantage over Lidge.
  • Player names should be consistently written throughout the article. For example, Raúl Ibáñez is spelled with and without the accent marks/tildes throughout the article. Make sure that any names that use these marks are consistently used.
  • Use a non-breaking space for numbers that have labels or numbers that are made up of a numeral and prose (e.g. 25 million - place the non-breaking space between 25 and million).
  • Inconsistent reference formatting - the ESPN.com references were cited using a mix of "cite web" and "cite news", and the Associated Press was given as the work (should be the author). In some cases, ESPN was given and in some cases it was ESPN.com, and in some cases they were the work while others they were the publisher. I've fixed all of the ESPN references to be consistent. Make sure that other sources are modified accordingly for consistency.
  • I think a little more context is needed about why the Yankees employed a 3-man rotation (e.g. no confidence in other starters, Joba's role was undefined). This was a major point of discussion during the series, and many sports writers criticized the Yankees for trying to win the World Series with a limited pitching staff. Maybe for each game, also mention how many days rest each Yankee starter was pitching on.
  • I think the days rest count would be a bit of a stretch, and I can't think of a source that would directly provide it. Beyond that, the discussion of the 3 man rotation requires sources I don't know of, and selecting which ones to use. Do we name the reason as a lack of confidence in other starters, Joba's undecided role, an attempt to get maximum innings out of the Yankees best arms, what? The strategy choice of using 3 men is something you can directly point to, the why is far more ethereal and will only ever really be known in Joe Girardi's head. If he ever releases a biography and discusses why he made the choice, that's one thing, but which journalists opinions should be included in trying to decipher why? Staxringold talkcontribs 04:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing the pitchers' rest is easy, and vital to understanding the predicament the Yankees faced in pitching their best starters on short rest - would they come back and pitch well or would they be tired and risk putting their team at a disadvantage? Each ESPN game summary says it - Game 4, Sabathia pitched on 3 days rest[33], Game 5, Burnett pitched on 3 days[34], and Game 6, Pettitte pitched on 3 days rest[35]. Here's good sources[36][37] about the criticism the Yankees received for pitching 3 starters, as well as a source for saying their 3 man rotation was a product of other unreliable starters that hadn't pitched often enough in the postseason. This source also goes into the 3-man rotation (and how Sabathia and Burnett thrived on 3-days rest), but it also goes into a few other reasons why the Phillies lost that aren't discussed (e.g. slumping hitters). There may not be definitive answers for any of these questions I'm raising, but many writers seemed to think they had the answers.
  • Ok, so only the rest for within the Series itself (Games 4-6), not rest from ALCS-WS (Games 1-3)? I guess that's doable with the sources you mention. I'll try to include this stuff later today (in class right now). Staxringold talkcontribs 16:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw your adds. For the most part, it looks good. I think in the series preview section where you mention Gene W's criticism of Girardi and his support for Gaudin in Game 6, you should mention why he felt that way - did he believe Gaudin was a better pitcher, or did he think the rest of the starters needed to be well-rested? (this) Right now, it sounds a little oversimplified. Also, I would still mention what Gene W or a few other writers thought the reason for Girardi's 3-man rotation was. It isn't a very common strategy in a 7-game series, so the speculated reason behind it is important to understand. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think it's worth mentioning a Philly paper printed an ad that prematurely congratulated the Phillies?
  • Looks good to me. I wish FAC let you use caps for resolved stuff like FLC. This review is already complex enough I am going to go ahead and guarantee this nom will fail due to lack of reviewers for a 2nd time even though I'm continually happy to respond immediately to comments. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue to add to this section as I have more to say. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense for the game summaries. It probably doesn't apply to the other areas of the article, though.Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the rationale for linking players name in each of the game summaries, but why the aftermath section, too? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been a while since I've worked with a proper article and not a list, do links in the lead "count" so to speak? For example, should I not link Mariano Rivera in the Yankees season summary because he's linked in the lead? Staxringold talkcontribs 16:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience, links in the lead/infoboxes/templates do not count towards whether they should be linked in the body. As far as I know, everything should be linked in the body, even if linked elsewhere. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment – I don't want to look into this one in too much detail because of my Yankee-fan bias. However, I did find this sentence to be troublesome: "Later, the play would be called Johnny Damon's Mad Dash by various news outlets, a reference to Enos Slaughter's famous play in the 1946 World Series." There is only one reference for this statement, which says nothing about multiple outlets or the name being derived from the other play. For all we know, this could have only been used in this article; I have no way of knowing, but I don't recall any widespread use as a nickname at the time. The author doesn't sound like he's trying to create a nickname, either. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:21, 30 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 02:48, 8 April 2010 [39].

School Rumble

Nominator(s): 陣内Jinnai 22:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has been some time and I have done my best after a PR to clean up what little remained about the article. No major info on the subject has appeared since the last FAC either.陣内Jinnai 22:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Alt text is not sufficient. The alt text for File:School Rumble- Episode 2 Clip.ogv, for instance says: "A male cyclist chases a female cyclist who chases another male cyclist as they speed past other fast-moving vehicles". I defy anyone to tell what sex those two dots in the middle and far distance are supposed to be, and I see no fast-moving vehicles in that image. The prose even in the caption needs work: "A bike chase where Harima is chasing Tenma who is chasing Karasuma at an impossible speeds eventually passing Initial D's Trueno". --Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Yes, we really do need an easy how-to-do-it guide to writing alt texts. Eubulides? Are you there?
  • "enigmatic"—normal English word; do we really need a dictionary link? If so, I see lots of others that would need light-blue links: damsel, amnesia, protagonists. Let's not, unless it really is rather technical or unlikely to be known by educated English-speakers.
    • Eh, I'm not so sure it is as common as you think, but maybe I'm wrong. At least several people I've mentioned the word to either didn't know or confused the meaning.
  • No hyphen after -ly adverbs. Please see MoS.
  • "thereafter" is a bit old-fashioned nowadays. Just "after"?
    • After doesn't really work as it doesn't have the same meaning. I can use "after that" or "afterward", but this was one of those item i describe as being changed in by an independent copyedit before.陣内Jinnai 08:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is writing "in order to"? Spot the two redundant words.
  • An awkward noun plus -ing: "Kobayashi never envisaged the series being adapted into an anime". Why not: "Kobayashi never envisaged that the series would be adapted into an anime."

These are just a few points I picked out of the opening. I think it needs an independent copy-edit; but it's really not bad at all. Tony (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll fix the issues you raise, but please, please find the perfect copy-editor. This article has been through 3 exhaustive independent FA-quality copy-editors and numerous lesser ones, each independent of the other. Every time I bring this here, someone finds something else they don't care for or other minor issues and suggests a full copy-edit is in order, which usually makes someone else the next time not like something that the copy-edit from last time changed. I feel for the most part that the copy-edits, unless they are specific are beginning to go into circles for this article.
  • I'll address the specific points raised though, especially those that are MoS problems.陣内Jinnai 08:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes it does seem a little too long, just improve it and eventually I will see one of my favorite anime grace the Main Page. Currently Neutral. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by it? The article? If so, then some clearer ideas for how to condense it while keeping the information intact would be appreciated.陣内Jinnai 08:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The plot section may or may not be too detailed. Anyway, at this rate, I don't feel like this article will pass (again) but should it, I will award my reward (see the reward board for more info) to those who helped. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's 23 volumes involving a large cast of characters each with their own relationship. You can't really compress it much more without losing some key bits of understanding. Believe me, it used to be shorter and I had problems with the first FAC understanding what the series was about.陣内Jinnai 20:47, 17 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 02:41, 8 April 2010 [40].

Parity of zero

Nominator(s): Melchoir (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I started this article in September 2007. Since the peer review in August 2009, I've moved it from "Evenness of zero" to "Parity of zero" and made improvements to the prose. Very recently, I've also rearranged some of the material in the "History" introduction (per the PR) and in "Group discussions".

I haven't done a FAC in years! Hopefully this article is like 0.999... — except, you know, better. ;-) Melchoir (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—sorry. I know it is expected to include the title of the article in the first sentence but it is not working here at all. The introductory sentence from Parity is much better. There are other expressions that are difficult to understand. The second sentence, for example is tantamount to gobbledegook: "Such proofs follow immediately from the definition of the term "even number", whose applicability to zero is not arbitrary in the least; it can be further motivated by the familiar rules for sums and products of even numbers." What on earth does "further motivated" and "not arbitary (sic) in the least" mean? And, what are these "familiar rules"? What is meant by "On the human level"? Does this mean it is better understood by chimps? And who are we writing for? I get the impression that the article is written for teachers of mathematics, "Discussing the parity of zero in class can spark vigorous debates as students encounter basic principles of mathematical reasoning". The term "students" is used relentlessly throughout this article. I feel the article is not about the parity of zero at all—it is about how to teach it.Graham Colm (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I often omit the title of an article from the first sentence myself, when it feels unnatural or artificial. Back when this article was named "Evenness of zero", that phrase certainly wasn't in the first sentence. Since it's been moved to "Parity of zero", which works better, I thought I'd include it. Why do you think it's not working / worse than Parity (mathematics)? Melchoir (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second sentence: Does this edit help? I've replaced those phrases. Melchoir (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On the human level" is a transition phrase between paragraphs. The preceding paragraph is all about how zero is definitely even; the following paragraph is all about how it's not so simple in people's minds. I'll admit that these four words have a low information content, but if they make the prose easier to read, they're worth it. Melchoir (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word "student" or "students" appears around 25 times in the first top-level section: "In education". It appears just once in the other four sections, which make up the bulk of the article: "Numerical cognition", "History", "Mathematical contexts", and "Everyday contexts". Isn't that what you'd expect? Melchoir (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have toned down my comments, they were a little over the top, sorry. Let's see what other reviewers have to say. Graham Colm (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No prob! Please feel free to follow up on individual points as well. I'm willing to make big changes, but I'll want to have a conversation about them first. Melchoir (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The structure of the article, and the length of the text under "in education", make this read like a classroom guide or education essay. The education section should not appear so early in the article - history at the very least should precede it; possibly so should the mathematical contexts. There appears to be too much detail on educational / developmental studies. The lead is not a summary of the whole article, but emphasises education and cognition at the expense of history and mathematical context (all should be there). BTW i didn't really understand the use of the expression "on the human level", so i would re-think that transition. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have the "In education" section first because it has the "Explanations" subsection. This subsection is the most accessible part of the article, and it explains why zero is even. Wouldn't you agree that it's a high priority to get that in as early as possible? If "In education" were split up into two top-level sections, I could see "History" going in between them -- not "Mathematical contexts" though (it's too long). Melchoir (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "History" and "Mathematical contexts" are represented in the first paragraph of the lead. Is there some additional sub-topic from those sections that you would like to include? Melchoir (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • For "on the human level": are you commenting on the transition itself, or the wording used to execute it? Melchoir (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Charles Edward

  • General
    • The opening sentence in the lead is somewhat confusing, and as a single sentence, it should be integrated into the following paragraph. Maybe something like "Zero is an even number. The evenness and oddness of a number is its parity." You need to define and link parity somehow in the lead. Many readers won't know what it is.
    • Maybe I misunderstand this subject, but it seems like the primary topic of the article should be the fact that zero is an even number. But throughout all the explanations, the article keeps coming back and explains how the concept effects education. It would be much better, in my opinion, if you made a couple straight up sections only talking about the parity of zero, and leave out all mention of students, teachers, etc. Focus on defining the topic. Then put all the education related stuff into separate sections.
      You say that "the article keeps coming back" to education. I'm not sure what you mean by that, since most of the article has nothing to do with education and doesn't mention the issue. Could you please clarify? Melchoir (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The section concerning education should come later in the article, while the section laying out what the parity of zero is should come first. Right now the article jumps into the education aspect at first without fully defining the topic. Correct me if I am wrong, but the primary application of partiy of zero would be in mathematical contexts, so those sections should come first.
      • The "In education" section is the section that explains the parity of zero. It begins with a simple proof that zero is even, and its first subsection is all about elementary explanations of that fact. I agree that this material should come first. In fact, "In education" is the first section precisely because I wanted to present that material as early as possible. Did you have another section in mind? Melchoir (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The above comment and this one go together. The mathematical sections also make a good explanation of what the parity of zero is, and how it is mathematically determined. It also gives a bit of history of it all. However in the education section, the article defines the parity of zero in a basic way in the first sentence, but throughout the section it ties it back to education, students and teachers. You could take that opening sentence out of the education section, move it to the head of the mathematical section, and use the mathematics sections as your opening section. That would give a very thorough overview of the parity of zero and its mathematical application before delving into its educational usefulness. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmm. I'll give it a try. My practical concerns are: (1) Presenting the explanations without commentary means that an Education section later on will have to refer to those explanations when it says "explanation X is suitable for audience Y". This seems like duplication of material, and the reader might be forced to scroll between the distant sections to understand what the latter is saying. (2) Much of the material currently in "Mathematical contexts" is very advanced. Most readers won't appreciate it, and in the worst case it will cause them to stop reading, so they'll miss the more accessible discussion of education and cognition.

            I also have a theoretical concern, namely, all the material about explanations is taken from books and journal articles written by educators, for educators. The cited sources are discussing explanations with the assumption that the reader doesn't need them. If we just state the explanations, implying that the reader does need them... it's not exactly sticking to the sources, and it's a little condescending. Of course you could argue that my version is patronizing in its own way. We'll see how the execution works. Melchoir (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree with the above comments that the article reads much like and essay. It is very editorial-like in places, especially the education sections. Check out WP:TONE. Here are a few examples.
      • "There are several ways to determine whether an integer is even or odd, all of which indicate that 0 is even:" How about "Each method used to determine whether an number is even or odd proves zero is even:"
      • "First of all, the concise definition of "even" is often not intuitive to children.", who says this is the first most important thing? Drop the "first of all"
        • The "first of all ... moreover" construction helps to demarcate the two related problems, the first straightforward and the second more subtle. Anyway, I can see how it could be read as indicating importance. Changed. Melchoir (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Often curious students will directly ask if zero is even"
      • "It is important for teachers of mathematics to understand such basic facts as the even parity of zero." - says who? Needs attribution and citation
        • Removed. The journal article distinguishes between "specialized context knowledge" and "common content knowledge", giving the parity of zero as an example of the latter, which justifies the "basic facts" label. But it's not worth it to try to introduce that distinction; it would just distract. Melchoir (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Unfortunately, many teachers harbor misconceptions about zero, although it is hard to quantify how many." - Unfortunate? Needs attribution and citation.
      • "There is some subtlety here: subjects are known to compute and name the result of multiplication by zero faster than multiplication of nonzero numbers, but they are slower to verify proposed results like 2 × 0 = 0." - I am not sure just what "subtly" is referring to here, perhaps it could be spelled out more clearly
        • Removed. Naively you'd think that the speed of computing a result and the speed of certifying a result would be well-correlated, so it's a surprise that one is faster and the other is slower when 0 gets involved, and it's not completely obvious which result is more important to mentally deciding if 0 is even. But it's perhaps not necessary to warn the reader that something tricky is going on. Melchoir (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "This strong dependence on familiarity again undermines the mental calculation hypothesis." - Attribution and citation needed.
      • "It is difficult to say when in the history of mathematics the first person examined the parity of zero;" - but the article goes on to explain the first known clearly known instances of the discussion of the topic in the 7th century. I would put more emphasis on the first known instance, rather than the unknown.
        • They discussed zero in the 7th century, but not necessarily its parity. I can find no evidence of any discussion of the parity of zero earlier than a primary-source example from 1849. That leaves a gulf of over a thousand years when the first discussion might conceivably have happened -- we really don't know! Melchoir (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Some other mathematical contexts, where the presence of 0 in the even numbers can be felt, follow.", you could drop that whole sentence
      • There is quite a few other examples, but hope this helps to identify them
  • Citations needed
  • MOS
    • The notes section should precede the reference section. See WP:CITEX
    • The references each contain a short paragraph following them explaining them. Those descriptions should be removed and put into the body of the article if they matter, otherwise removed completely.
    • The article mixes shortened refs with full refs. That is a little confusing, although not required by the MOS, I'd suggesting fully using the shortened citation method.
      • I'll give it a try. The reason for the current references style is that there are really two distinct kinds of references being used. First, there's a handful of authors who provide "significant coverage" of the parity of zero in the sense of Wikipedia:Notability. These are the backbone of the article. Then, there's the rest: sources that mention the parity of zero only in passing. Calling out the significant sources in References, while leaving the rest to Notes, helps make this distinction for the reader who wants to do further research.

        One drawback of the current scheme is that Ball has many entries, but only one is called out. Mostly for that reason, I'm willing to move to a more standard-looking format. But I would still want some text at the top of References that points to the most valuable sources. Melchoir (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why is the TOC moved to the right? It should probably be left to default.
      • Agreed, and removed. Another editor introduced the template with the edit summary "whitespace". I didn't care enough to challenge it at the time, but now that someone else has complained, I'll use the opportunity. :-) Melchoir (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images
  • Other images check out
  • Prose looks great
  • References are acceptable

Oppose, this article still needs a fair bit of work. The referencing issues are my biggest concern, followed by the tone of the education section. I have not listed all the issues with the references or tone, but this should be enough to demonstrate where the issues are. Good job on the article so far, its really is a very interesting read and I can see alot of research has went into it. Keep up the good work and you will soon have it up to FA standards. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed comments! I'll get to work on the individual items, and I'll also want to follow up on the larger points. I'll make all notes inline above, and I'll add another comment down here when I'm done (for now). Melchoir (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I struck what you've resolved and replied to a few. After this review closes, I'd suggest taking the article to WP:PR where you could get some more useful feedback on improving it. It is an interesting topic and would make a worthy featured article. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confused by the statement above; this review is already closed (see below). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the bot hasn't came by and archived the discussion and fixed the talk page. The editor would want to wait until after that to do the peer review, otherwise the PR template will give him errors because it will think the FAC review is still open. Sorry, I should have been clear. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The previous PR was disappointing in that it didn't attract significant feedback. I can certainly try another, but I don't have high hopes that it'll be useful... Melchoir (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I'm done for today. Some of the line items remain unaddressed; I might work on them and/or do some of the heavy lifting (layout) over the weekend. If this page gets locked down by a bot, so be it -- there are always talk pages! Melchoir (talk) 02:54, 9 April 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 21:32, 8 April 2010 [41].

Horses in World War I

Nominator(s): mynameinc (t|c) 19:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it addresses the subject completely and fully and meets the quality standards of a Featured Article. mynameinc (t|c) 19:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was a previous Peer Review, and all the points have been met, the best I can tell. I will withdraw, if that's better. Also, I thought the community would perceive 'drive-by noms' better, since it was by a third party who thinks it's ready, rather than a contributor. mynameinc (t|c) 20:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the large instruction box at the top of WP:FAC. – iridescent 20:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Nope, see the top of the page: "Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." A withdrawal would be advisable, unless Dana feels the article is up to snuff. María (habla conmigo) 20:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Dana doesn't think the article is ready. I apologize for the inconvenience. mynameinc (t|c) 21:03, 7 April 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 13:24, 6 April 2010 [42].

2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because the prior FAC was closed although I had addressed most of the concerns. I believe this is one of the finest articles on WP. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 23 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 17:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The prose is way below featured standard. I have only looked at the lead, where I found a whole parcel of problems. It would have been wise, after the last FAC, to have had a thorough prose review and major copyedit, because that's what looks like is required now. Here are the more egregious issues from the lead:-

Someone needs to go through the remainder with the proverbial fine toothcomb and check out the prose. Can't be fixed quickly, I fear. Brianboulton (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These responses are all good and may be considered resolved. I'd like to wait a few days and come back in the hopes that the rest of the prose will have been checked out, so I can reverse the oppose. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 30 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 13:24, 6 April 2010 [43].

Northwest Airlines Flight 253

Nominator(s):  fetchcomms☛ 16:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This article just finished a peer review and I think it satisfies the criteria for becoming an FA. It's well referenced, covers the subject comprehensively, has been stable, and reads well.  fetchcomms☛ 16:40, 18 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 16:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, it doesn't take too long to load, but I agree that it is long. However, I don't know if it's possible to split the article up even more. I could probably cut down on the "Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab" and "Ties to Anwar al-Awlaki" sections, but I don't think it would be appropriate to have a stand-alone article called "Reactions and investigations to the attempted attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253" or something like that. Many of the dead links are from Yahoo! News, who unfortunately does not keep articles very long. As many of these were added long ago, Google no longer has a cached version and I have no idea what to search for to see if there are duplicates elsewhere--which I suspect there may be. I have never used the {{vcite news}} templates, but after a quick look at the doc, it seems like it has the same paramters--is this correct, can I do a simple find/replace of {{cite news}} to {{vcite news}}, or are there any larger differences?  fetchcomms☛ 19:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are some differences, see Template:Vcite news#Compatibility, but they may not even be applicable to this article.
I do think there is some potential for daughter articles there. There are many for 9/11, and here you can perhaps have articles on reactions, investigations, and the general aftermath of the attempt. Ucucha 21:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll try to get these two bits sorted out.  fetchcomms☛ 21:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template switch was a big improvement. The size of the HTML from the references was reduced from 238 kB to 122 kB, and the page loads much faster. Ucucha 21:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And for the dead links, have you tried http://www.archive.org? Ucucha 22:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

← I have created Reactions to the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 attack, but I think a bit more can still be cut out of the main article. I tried the web archive, but none were found, unfortunately.  fetchcomms☛ 03:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • first read thru, its heavy going theres a lot of duplicated and unnecessary information in the lead try cutting it back to 3 paragraphs,
  • first paragraph of lead a Delta Air Lines liveried Airbus A330-323E operated by Northwest Airlines, was on its final descent, 20 minutes before landing, with 289 other people on board. The plane made an emergency landing in Detroit without any fatalities. try maybe a Delta Air Lines liveried Airbus A330-323E operated by Northwest Airlines, was on its final descent, 20 minutes before landing, with 289 other people on board while on final descet. The plane made an emergency landing in Detroit without any fatalities.
  • second para of lead The suspected bomber in the incident was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Muslim Nigerian passenger who had studied engineering in England and came from a wealthy family. The plastic explosives Abdulmutallab concealed in his underwear failed to detonate properly, resulting only in flames and popping sounds. try The suspected bomber in the incident was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Muslim Nigerian passenger who had studied engineering in England and came from a wealthy family. The plastic explosives Abdulmutallab concealed in his underwear failed to detonate properly, resulting onlyin flames and popping sounds. then throw away the Dec 26 info, that information is covered in the article proper. Keep from On Dec 28... until the last sentence starting If convicted... and delete that agains its not critical information to the article and is addressed in the article proper.
  • third para of lead -- throw the whole thing its background information thats covered in the article and isnt directly relevent to establishing the articles context.
  • fourth para of lead -- drop the first sentence then remove also from the start of the second keep the rest.

Voila one condensed lead, now for the rest of the article I'll await your response to these suggestions. Overall its got a lot information and is well written its just there is redundancy within the prose. Gnangarra 11:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right about the redundancy, I've removed the suggested bits from the lede, are there any other glaring spots? If not, I'll try to go through each section and remove unneeded material as well.  fetchcomms☛ 16:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check: Passed - 9 images; 8 free, 1 fair use. Free images are all PD-self or PD-USGOV, and are at commons. Fair-use image is the one of the plane, and is not reproducible. --PresN 22:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged a couple and replaced one.  fetchcomms☛ 20:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Oppose Just based on headache I got from the frenzied glare of the little blue bracketed numbers behind every other sentence. There is sometimes a legitimate reason to add more than one or at most two references to a sentence – when the sentence is particularly controversial, and you want to have the word of more than one acknowledged expert to back it up. But that is not the case here. Please go through and find the clearest and most reputable for every cite, and use only one (unless it is controversial). • Ling.Nut 15:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll remove some unneeded references, which should also help reduce the page size and loading time.  fetchcomms☛ 20:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Your citations need to be consistent with placement of the publisher/newspaper etc. Most are: Author, title of article, Newspaper, retrieval date, but some have the publisher/newspaper AFTER the date, and not italicised in the cases of newspapers. I noted current refs 13 and 14 at first, but there are lots of others.
  • 11 deadlinks in the refs (current ref 19, 71, 77, 83, 93, 108, 120, 144, 157, 183, 184)
  • Current ref 22 (Roberts, Soryay) lacks a publisher
  • Current ref 40 (Heldenrol...) needs a last acess date
  • Current ref 73 (Devlin..) lacks a publisher
  • Current ref 137 lacks a publisher (it's currently run into the link title)
  • Same with current ref 138
  • Current ref 142 ("Christmas bombing Try...) lacks a publisher
  • Current ref 144 (Bin Laden...) lacks a publisher
  • Current ref 153 (Aftonbladet) needs a last access date... also more information on this would be helpful to satisfy WP:V
  • Current ref 161 (Wilders...) lacks a publisher
  • Current ref 173 (Hughes..) lacks a publisher
  • Current ref 174 (Mack) lacks a publisher
  • Agree with Ling Nut about over referencing, it is very severely overreferenced.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is quoting Kurt Haskell. I'll probably get rid of it as you said. The second is a flight tracking website and could be removed as well as a duplicate. The last is a news website, I believe. I'm dreading getting all the citations consistent and together, but I'll get it done as soon as I can, as well as adding all the ref info.  fetchcomms☛ 02:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, pending the resolution of the issues identified above. I've looked at this article from the perspectives of sourcing, reliability and comprehensiveness (aren't these the most important issues?), and think it easily passes those standards as they are reflected in the FA criteria. I agree the multiple references can be shedded, but the existence of multiple references is indicative of how well sourced the article is. Every statement I checked was very well supported by the sources cited. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article has entire sections completely without summarisation in the lede, a blatant violation. Not to mention the the article title is still totally deficient, and is now not even clarified in the lede either. See the talk archives for the past attempts to fix both those issues, which appear to have been stealthily rolled back when I left the article. In addition, it has a no-free image in the lede which offers nothing over and above the free images already in it. I cannot imagine how that got past the free content supporters. MickMacNee (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was told above to shorten the lede because it was too long... now it's too short? How exactly is the title deficient? I thought the standardized title of airplane incidents was just the flight name? The image is in the article because there is no free image taken of the incident. Apparently, whoever checked the images above thought it was OK.  fetchcomms☛ 21:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I am not mistaken, a requested move you filed, as well as another requested move filed by someone else shortly after, both did not succeed. Large incidents like United Airlines Flight 93 would not be moved to 9/11 attack in Pennsylvania or something, I don't see the need for this to be retitled either.  fetchcomms☛ 21:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The airline naming convention is a nonsense and goes against all other policies, but what is worse is that it is doubly wrong for this specific article. See the talk archives for the reasons, I'm not going over this for the billionth time. And in my experience, use of that non-free image will be challenged at some point, so if someone above has said they think it would pass, they should take it to PUI right now. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And by the by, Flight 93 is the proper name for that article by all policies, not just the not fit for purpose aircraft incident naming convention. MickMacNee (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going argue over the naming convention, as that's something for consensus to determine what's "nonsense" and such. I don't quite understand: how is it doubly wrong if two requested moves have both failed? Obviously, there is not a lot of support of the page to be moved--if you want, go ahead an request another one, but I'm not sure why this affects the article's status. About the image, there's no way to take a free version of the plane now, this says its registration has expired.  fetchcomms☛ 23:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - File:NWA_Flight_253_landed.jpg conveys no information beyond what is already contained in the caption, therefore failing wp:nfcc Fasach Nua (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, this shows that the plane's registration has expired and it would therefore not be possible to take a free photo of it now. That said, do you intend to keep an oppose over such a seemingly small item? If you wish, take the image to PUF or FFD, but I'm not sure why that affects the article as a whole, as I feel that it does fall under the non-free criteria. This is also one of the only images taken of the event, and the only free one--should we delete the video of the 9/11 attacks too, as it is there was no free equivalent of that?  fetchcomms☛ 03:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not find the m:mission trivial, and while the article continues to fails FAC, I will continue to oppose. Fasach Nua (talk) 04:08, 6 April 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 13:24, 6 April 2010 [44].

Exploration of Io

Nominator(s): Volcanopele (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This article covers the history of astronomical and spacecraft studies of Jupiter's moon Io. It recently completed its peer review (though it only incited one reviewer to comment), which was helpful in assessing new official and unofficial FA criteria. I now believe the article is of sufficient comprehensiveness for an FAC run. Thank you all in advance for your comments, suggestions, and constructive criticism. Volcanopele (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I have fixed the sublimation dab link and adjusted the wikilink for "Electromagnetic induction sounding" to avoid the dab page. I have edited some of the alt text. I think this fixes the verifiability issues, avoiding making specific references to which planet/moon is displayed (Jupiter becomes "banded planetary body" for example). --Volcanopele (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was not my main concern; I think Jupiter may be well-known enough that we can assume people know what it looks like (cf. WP:ALT#Proper names). But you can leave it as it is now. However, there are some other things: that the handwriting is Italian is not verifiable from the image alone at the resolution you see it in the article, and in the Pioneer 11 image, it is not verifiable that the right image has been darkened (rather than the left one brightened). There are a few other issues: In the I32 Pele image, rather than saying that there is a scale, you should say how large the multi-colored region is, which is the important information. Someone who can't see the image wouldn't be helped much by just learning that there is a scale. Ucucha 21:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for being more specific on the issues you found. I changed the Pioneer 10 image alt text to just say that the image on the right is darker (rather than it having been darkened), and that dark features are more easily visible. I mentioned that the I32 Pele image was approximately 60 kilometers across as suggested by the scale bar in the image. Finally I fixed your other issue with the mention that the notes were in Italian and changed the mentions of Jupiter in the alt text for the relevant images. --Volcanopele (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's my fault for not being specific the first time around. I think it is good now; I made some further edits to remove non-essential details. Ucucha 22:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this article is well sourced, well written and satisfies all FA criteria. (I copy-edited it slightly). Ruslik_Zero 16:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUpport. Actually it needed a bit more of a copyedit, and i'm not the world's best at this, so i hope i caught everything. Otherwise clear, well structured and very interesting. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a problem with the sentence that begins: "Despite this, it is one of Marius' naming scheme for the moons of Jupiter that is regularly used today" This shoud either say "it is Marius's naming scheme for the moons" or "it is one of Marius's nameing schemes for the moons". I suspect after reading one of the sources cited by the article it should be the former, but I am not sure enough to make the edit myself. One of the reasons I am not sure is that the source [45] cited for this sentence and for the next one doesn't seem to discuss the assertion about Marius coming up with the the names based on Kepler's suggestion. Rather those assertions are supported by another source [46] cited earlier in the paragraph. I suggest you explicitly make clear what the source for the assertion is and then follow that source and make it clear whether or not this was one of mulitple naming schemes suggested by Marius or it was the only naming scheme suggested by Marius. I will keep looking for more nits to pick, but it is a great article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be "Despite this, it is one of Marius' naming schemes for the moons...". I have made this edit. I have also fixed the references used for the two sentences that cover this. The first is the JPL article. The second is Simon Marius' own book (used as a reference earlier in the paragraph). I've added that reference. In that book (toward the end of the section used at that link), he describes the naming schemes he came up with along with the circumstances of how the Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto scheme came about. This should back up the statements in the article. --Volcanopele (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the passage: "but he sent along his measurements to Dutch mathematician Christiaan Huygens, who calculated that light traveled 16+2⁄3 Earth diameters per second, misinterpreting Rømer's value of 22 minutes as the time in which light traverses the diameter of the Earth's orbit" could you please make it clear what the value was that Huygens misinterpreted? Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to take another look later today at the references used. I think I...borrowed some of this section from the speed of light article. --Volcanopele (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the current text of the speed of light article, the relevent source, and other interpretations of it. I think the text was simply in error. I have replaced it with text that is consistent with what the speed of light article now says and what I think is a more reasonable interpretation of the source. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The following text in the lead is misleading: "such as helping mariners determine their longitude". In fact as the text of the article makes clear Io and the other moons of Jupiter were never very useful for finding longitude at sea. I would suggest instead "such as helping map makers and surveyors measure longitude", which is a more accurate summary of the body of the article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Thanks for the catch. The lead was actually one of the first things written, before I had written the "Io as a Tool" section. After a re-reading the available sources and looking at a few others, it was clear that Io wasn't used for maritime navigation, but ground-based surveying. I have made your suggested edit. --Volcanopele (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Overall it's good work. However some parts seem wordy and perhaps overly dramatic. The article could possibly benefit from a word-smith to tighten things up and make sure the tone remains encyclopedic. (E.g. "Stunned by...", "...was not completely surprising...", "...result was quite tenuous...", &c.)
      • I'm not the nominator, but will respond to these specific points - as a reader with an interest in these topics, the story of Io's exploration is one of the most dramatic in studies of our solar system, particularly in regard to the discovery of active volcanism, so i think some of the language appropriately reflects that - specifically i would retain "stunned by..." The "not completely surprising" and "quite tenuous" bits i thought were not great, and in one case i didn't think the reference substantiated the qualifier, so i have changed these two instances. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm just going by WP:TONE, which recommends using a formal tone in a clear, businesslike manner.—RJH (talk)
    • The following jargon terms are not linked: perturbation, occultation, equatorial, spectroscopic, spectrometer, absorption band, electrodynamic coupling, mid-infrared, thermal emission, pixel, high-gain antenna, low-gain antenna, data compression algorithms, and solar panel. I might have missed some others.
    • Many of the names used throughout the article don't identify the profession or nationality of the individual. Who are "Witteborn" and "Fanale et al."?
      • Witteborn and Fanale references have been edited out in favour of other ways of expressing the material. I think most other names in the article are historical researchers / figures whose names are wikilinked, and in some places (eg first para of "Io as a world: 1805–1973") it would be cumbersome, and probably unnecessary for the interest of the typical reader, to include further detail. In the case of this: "A few days before the Voyager 1 encounter, Stan Peale, Patrick Cassen, and R. T. Reynolds published a paper in the journal Science..." I don't think anything else can be usefully added, but the use of the names is intended to set up a cross-reference later in the article. Are there are other instances that concern you? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately then, I'll have to say that the information about individuals is presented in an inconsistent manner. The lead paragraph list the widely known Galileo Galilei as an "Italian astronomer", but says nothing about Simon Marius. (Later Galileo is listed as a "Tuscan astronomer".) In the same paragraph, Giovanni Cassini is listed as an astronomer, but Pierre-Simon Laplace is not listed as a mathematician. I'm not sure what the best approach is, but the variation struck me while reading through the article.
    • "...elliptical outline aligned with the direction of its orbital motion." Please clarify this by including a mention of the major axis.
    • "abundant water ice", "greatly restricted" and "...substantial greater imaging coverage..." are vague.
    • There is some parenthetical text that could be modified to remove the parentheses. E.g.: "(no images were available to...", "(though IRIS was not sensitive...", "(though a software algorithm...", "(forcing Galileo to transmit data..."
    • What does "...unique science..." mean?
    • In the list of references, "T. C. Van Flandern", "R. W. Carlson" and "R. T. Reynolds" are not formatted as per the other cited names. I.e. not "last, first MI".
    Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I have reviewed so far definitely prevents me from supporting this nomination, and very little has been done to address the concerns I've brought up. As such, I am opposing for now. I also think the nominator may have been eaten by bears about a week ago. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments just on the lead:

Well done: this is an admirable nomination, and it deserves to succeed. I do think these issues in the lead indicate the whole article needs a run-through by an independent copy-editor, though. Tony (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the rest of it? Tony (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently Leaning Oppose If this nom were new, I wouldn't be typing this. But the writing just isn't there yet — see forex "In the late 1960s, an opportunity known as the Planetary Grand Tour was identified by the United States' NASA and Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) that would allow a single spacecraft to travel past..". I did a little ce, and can do some more, but am afraid the nom will be promoted and the text will plateau. Will strike my Oppose if the prose gets help. • Ling.Nut 11:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did some CE and fixed some clumsy wording including the passage you mention. I will do some more presently. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:59, 5 April 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 13:24, 6 April 2010 [47].

2008 Hungarian Grand Prix

Nominator(s): --Midgrid(talk) 21:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it satisfies the criteria. It is also part of Apterygial (talk · contribs)'s Insane Idea to make 2008 Formula One season a featured topic; 2008 Monaco Grand Prix, 2008 Japanese Grand Prix and 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix are the articles which have already reached FA status in this series, and may be useful for comparison. --Midgrid(talk) 21:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Haven't gotten to the race recap itself yet, but am somewhat concerned with what I've seen so far. There is quite a bit of wordiness lurking in the article, along with some punctuation issues and a referencing concern. A copy-edit from someone new to the article may be worthwhile.

  • "It marked Kovalainen's first Formula One victory, which made him the sport's 100th driver to win a World Championship race, and it was also Glock's first podium finish." Some wordiness exists here with "it was also". These three words can easily be removed to make the prose tighter without changing the meaning at all.
  • Report: "Sebastian Vettel set the fastest time of the first day and second days". The first use of "day" should probably be removed to avoid a glaring redundancy in the prose, which causes a grammar error.
  • Reference 4 is to a Wikipedia article, which should not be considered a reliable source in general, let alone for an FA. If it's covered in a later reference, you could consider making this a seperate note.
  • "Amongst the other teams...". Usually, it's better to use simpler words when possible, such as "Among" in place of "Amongst".
  • The same goes for "whilst" a bit later; "while" would do just fine. This is something to be searched for throughout, as I see it on at least two occasions.
  • More wordiness exists in the form of "also", which should be used sparingly. In Background, I spotted at least four of them in a two-paragraph space. Please check whether these are all needed; the "and also"s usually aren't, from my experience.
  • Overlinking: there's no need to link something more than once in a section; anyone interested will have already clicked on the first link. In this section, I see repeated links to Force India and Bridgestone.
  • "That left him behind Kubica and Glock on the grid; the BMW Sauber driver achieving his competitive time despite handling problems that led him to describe his lap as his best so far of the season." The semi-colon should probably be a comma. Picky, but it's important to have punctuation spot-on in an FA. If you want to keep it, switch "achieving" to "achieved".
  • "his eleventh-best time of 1:20.131 just over a second of Massa's pace in the second session." "of" → "off".
  • Again, the semi-colon after "for impeding Heidfeld during the first part of qualifying" should probably be a comma. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • "The two championship protagonists commenced a battle for the lead that was resolved when Hamilton suffered" very writerly. Please ce. • Ling.Nut 17:27, 3 April 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 13:24, 6 April 2010 [48].

Smedley Butler

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the criteria for a featured article. It recently passed an A class review under the milhist project and since then I have added a lot of content so that it would meet the criteria. Kumioko (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. One dab link, to Charles Francis Adams. No dead external links. Alt text good.
  • And a question: what have you done to address the issues raised in the previous FAC? Ucucha 04:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the fast review. I see that link keeps coming up but I can't figure that one out. There is only one place in the article for that link and it is correctly linked directly to the article. Please let me know if you see whats causing it. In regards to the previous submission I have greatly expanded several sections including his time in Philly, the business plot and his death among others. I have cleared up the references I think, I have reviewed the article and reworded many of the wandering butlers that were mentioned and fixed many places were grammer and prose were an issue. Aside from that if you see anythhing that needs attention, please let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe there is a problem with the portion of the lead that discusses the Business Plot which says: "Those he said were involved denied it, and the media ridiculed the allegations.", but does not balance that statement by mentioning the fact that the house committee found the accusations credible or that most historians believe that while a coup was not imminent, there was a "wild scheme" under discussion. This makes the impression left by the summary in the lead significantly different from the impression given by the body of the article or the article on the plot itself. This is important because many people who do a quick look-up on a topic, especially if they do it from a mobile device such as a Kindle or an iPhone, are more likely to read the lead than the body of the article. Right now the way the lead is worded it would give me the impression that it was likely that Butler had fabricated the plot accusation, which I don't think is the view of most historians. It is a very good article on a fascinating topic and I will probably have more comments as I work through it, but this one jumped out at me as soon as I read the lead. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ill fix that tonight once I get home. --Kumioko (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done I completely reworded the last paragraph. I also didn't like how the lead transitioned from the business plot to his death so I streamlined that a bit. Please let me know if you see anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but remember you asked for it :)
  • Comment I think the lead should also mention how many countries he served in during his 34 year career. Something like "During his 34 year career as a marine that included combat in the Phillippenes, China, and the banana wars in Central America and the Carribean as well as service in France during the first world war, Butler was awarded 16 medals, five of which were for heroism."
Done another one down, Ill start working on the Vera Cruz section next. --Kumioko (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the "Central America" subsection of banana wars you should mention that Coyotepec is in Mexico. If it refers to another Coyotepec then the link is wrong.
Done --Kumioko (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the "Veracruz, Mexico, and his first Medal of Honor" subsection there is a jarring jump from Veracruz to Haiti with no explanation. I assume that what happened was that a detachment from the garrison at Veracruz was dispatched to deal with the crisis in Haiti but I think you need a few words to make that clear. Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Took a while but I think I have expanded this section enough know. If not please let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I'l work on that. --Kumioko (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I will certainly expand on that. It may take me a day or too to scrounge up the refs but I should be able to get this done in the next day or two. --Kumioko (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NP, Semper Fi!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great Job, Marine!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Kumioko (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the material you added on the Bonus Army is very good. I believe all the significant problems have been fixed, and I think the article is now quite comprehensive. It is also fascinating (touching as it does on some far too little known aspects of American history), informative, and quite readable. Therefore I am happy to support it for FA and to congratulate you and the other editors involved for the good work. Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I've had a look at this article and have a number of comments. Apologies for the long list.
    • in the Early life section, paragraph two seems a little ambiguous about whether it is referring to Smedley Butler or his father;
    • in the Military career section, the first paragraph does uses a lot of the word "he", could this be substituted;
    • in the Military career section, "first lieutenant" could be wikilinked;
    • in the Philippine-American war section there is some inconsistency in how you deal with numbers. You have "1 dead and 60 wounded", then "ten from combat and fifty from...". I believe that the WP:MOS usually prefers numbers greater than 10 to use numbers and those less than 10 to be depicted with words "e.g. one killed and 14 wounded";
    • the Philippine-American war section heading should probably be capitalised as "Philippine-American War" as that is a proper noun (war being part of the name of the conflict);
    • in the Boxer Rebellion section, "Commanding Officer" should not be capitalised as it is not a proper noun in this case;
    • in the Veracruz section, there is inconsistency in treating numbers greater than 10 (e.g. "seventeen dead and sixty-three wounded);
    • the final paragraph of the Veracruz section needs to be reworked as it is a bit akward and repeats the clause about it being his first Medal of Honor;
    • in the Haiti section, USS Connecticut should be linked on first mention (i.e. in the second sentence);
    • in the Haiti section "3 companies of Marines" should be "three companies...";
    • in the Haiti section there is inconsistency in capitalisation of Marines (as in John is a Marine, rather than John served in the Marines). You have mostly used Marines in this instance, but there is also "marines". I am not sure which is correct, though, but I'd have thought that it should be lower case as soldiers or troopers etc are not capitalised (if so, you would need to change this throughout the article);
Comment - Marine is a title, it is always capitalized.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • when refering to the Medal of Honor, sometimes you use the "Medal", again I'm not sure about this capitalisation as I believe that in that case it is being used as an improper noun and therefore shouldn't be capitalised. For instance one wouldn't say the "Cross" to refer to the "Victoria Cross", one would say "medal";
    • in the World War I section, relating to Rinehart, you have "She later described how he tackled..." This is a little ambiguous, did she describe how Butler tackled the sanitation issue or Baker? This can be fixed by substituting "he" with "Butler";
    • in the China and stateside service section the link to "Civil War" should be changed to "American Civil War" as it is currently linked to the generic term rather than the specific;
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Director of Public Safety section, this sentence needs to be reworked: "Philadelphia's municipal government was notoriously corrupt and Butler refused at first, but when Kendrick asked President Calvin Coolidge to intervene, and Coolidge contacted him authorizing him to take the necessary leave from the Corps." The issue is that it is not complete due to the word "when", which implies something else will be said (i.e. that he accepted), but that is not said until the next sentence;
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence is not grammatically correct "...don't believe there is a single bandit notch on a policeman's guns" (the issue being the word "guns"). This is a quote, however, so if it is an error that Butler made with his syntax it can be fixed by changing it to this "guns [sic]";
    • in the Military retirement section, "Major General" as in "senior Major General in the corps" is incorrectly capitalised, as is "corps". In this case it should be "senior major general in the Corps";
    • in the Military retirement section you have used the contraction "didn't", this should be changed to "did not";
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that "senate" should be capitalised in the Military retirement section;
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in Speaking and writing career section, I believe that "corps" should be capitalised;
Somebody fixed it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in Speaking and writing career section, remove the wikilink to World War I as it has already previously been linked and would as such be overlinking the term;
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the same section "twenty years" should be "20 years" and the emdash before "17,000 should be unspaced;
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the same section you have "World War 1" (1 being the issue) [in the sentence about the Bonus Army], but elsewhere have "World War I";
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Speaking and writing career section, you have used the word "rite", I think however that this should be "right";
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the same section should congress be capitalised and "bonus army" also (you have capitalised it sometimes, but not others, e.g in the sentence "...Douglas MacArthur dispersed the bonus army";
I have capitalized every occurance to match the usage in the Bonus Army article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • the first sentence of the Death section could be reworded to be a bit stronger. Perhaps the date should come first?
    • a query: with the ribbons, you have depicted two MOH ribbons. Is this correct, or would it be a single ribbon with a star? I don't know myself, just thinking out loud (the MOH article states "indicate multiple presentations of the Medal of Honor, the U.S. Army and Air Force bestow oak leaf clusters, while the Navy Medal of Honor is worn with gold award stars);
      • Well, there are 2 reasons for this really. The first is that regardless of what the Medal of Honor article may state, there are no devices authorized for the Medal of Honor and based on that when he wore his ribbons he wore them seperately. If you look at the image in the infobox you can kinda see it. --Kumioko (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Published works section, the titles should be capitalised per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital_letters)#Composition titles;
    • the page ranges in the citations should have endashes;
    • the Further reading section is a different size to the References section, I suggest adding the refbegin, refend tags to it also. Also I suggest removing the spacing between the works listed in the References section, as it has an unnecessarily different spacing format to the Further reading section;
    • could the Marine Corps navbox be collapsed as its quite large?
    • the Burk work is cited (Citation # 53), however, it is listed in Further reading, I suggest moving it to the References section;
    • Littleton Waller is linked in both the Phillipine-American war section and the Boxer Rebellion section. This is overlink, so I suggest removing the link from the Boxer Rebellion section.

Once again, sorry for the large number of comments. Overall the article looks quite good. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • Find a Grave is not a reliable source, it's user submitted information, just like a wiki.
    • In this case I don't agree its not reliable. Yes its user submitted but its use is well established in WB and is on literally thousands of articles. If this has been determined to be an unsuitable reference then it shouldn't be allowed to be used. Additionally, I have edited on WP for several years and have worked on many articles in FA, GA, A, Peer review etc and this is the first time I have ever heard it suggested that this is not relieble so for know I am going to leave this one. --Kumioko (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't matter about what other articles do, you aren't contesting that it's user submitted, and thus not reliable. It should not be used, period, but at the moment, we can only address THIS article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done I replaced it with a source from the cemetery, itself. Maybe Find-a-grave could go to the external links section? That's what I did on John C. Cremony.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, good find. I still think this is a bigger issue that needs to be addressed but I'll present that argument at the appropriate forum and return to the task at hand. I marked it as done, hope you don't mind. --Kumioko (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have to understand that sources are scrutinized closely at FAC even more than they are in GA reviews, and as for most articles, their sources aren't usually scrutinized at all unless somebody challenges the content. I wouldn't consider find a grave a reliable source (certainly not for an FA class article) but I think that it is fine as an external link. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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
  • Current ref 66 (Smedley D. Butler Brigade...) lacks a publisher.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely satisfied with the prose. Here are issues just at the top.

  • "During his 34 year career as a Marine he participated in military actions all over the world including the Philippines, China, and the Banana Wars in Central America and the Caribbean." Longish sentence, so perhaps a comma after "Marine" or "world"? Hyphen for 34-year ...
  • Should there be a "both" before "Marine Corp Brevet Medal"? I think so ... and you could avoid repeating both Honor names ... "awarded the Medal and the Honor for ...". Still not entirely sure what you mean, actually. The other two were awarded both for a single action?
  • I think "veterans" and "pacifists" are on the boundary of not being desirable as links. Ration them and the readers are more likely to click on the really important ones such as "Business Plot", which comes up next. Readers rarely click on links as it is. I think we also know what a "military coup" is ... does that article add anything sufficiently focused on this article?
    • I would agree with you, and I have delinked these (and several other rather common terms as well) several times in the past but within a couple days someone will relink them so I stopped doing it. --Kumioko (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "probably" is odd to me, when it's couched in such determined wording. I think just remove the word: "they determined that there was sufficient evidence to prove that such a plot probably existed".
    • I don't agree on this one, the report states they they believed that it was probable, by removing this it makes it appear as though they were positive and prove conclusively of the plots existence. --Kumioko (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Butler continued his speeches"—what, he ignored the time's-up bell? Better a wording that clarifies you're referring to his speaking engagements or tours. Unclear relationship to the rest of that sentence.
  • Remove "in a family"?
  • Commas: "His father was a lawyer, judge, and for 31 years a Congressman, who chaired the House Naval Affairs Committee during the Harding and Coolidge administrations."
  • "Against his father Thomas's wishes"—> "... the wishes of ...".
  • Please note the en dashes I've put in. WP:MOSDASH also says not to write "From 1927–1929".
  • Some of the images are tiny for the amount of detail: "Capture", for example. Can you boost the size of some of them? I'd go for 250px for that one, to start with. Tony (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check: Passed - 7 images, all free-use from commons (PD-GOV or PD-OLD) plus some ribbons that don't need to be checked. --PresN 22:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. It's informative, but the prose is currently far below FA standard. I found problems everywhere I looked. It needs a lot of work. Examples, mostly just from three paragraphs:
  • "and was an outspoken critic of U.S. military adventurism" Where is this written about in the body? I see criticisms of war profiteering, but that's not the same thing.
  • This particular comment doesn't seem valid to me. There is a reference to military adventurism in the text (perhaps it was added after the comment ws made) and in anycase the extended quote from War is a Racket clearly made the point. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the urging of his father, the newly elected mayor of Philadelphia, W. Freeland Kendrick, asked him to leave the Marines to become the official in charge of running the police and fire departments, the Director of Public Safety." This sentence begins a heading, but is indicative of an article-wide problem of nebulous "his" and "him" statements. Whose father? If someone started reading here, they'd be stymied. Also, consider "his father, the newly elected mayor"; but we have to read on to discover it's someone else. "Director of Public Safety" is awkwardly tacked on at the end.
  • "but Kendrick asked President Calvin Coolidge to intervene, and Coolidge contacted him" The problem appears again in the next sentence. "Him" in this context would be Kendrick... but it's not Kendrick.
  • "tell them how things would be" Too colloquial for our voice.
  • "in some cases switched entire units from one area to another" Nebulous. Physical area? Organizational area? Be more precise in your writing. Police don't serve "areas", they serve precincts, etc.
  • It could be physical area or organizational and a precinct by definition is an area. Since the references don't mention precincts, I cannot assume that the city was broken up into precincts, they may have done things differently there back then and its also very possible that he did away with the precincts as part of his restructuring, just a guess on that one I really don't know. Either way I don't agree with this change. --Kumioko (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Butler ordered raids ... ordering them padlocked"
  • "In addition to the speakeasies he ordered the raids on brothels, bootleggers, prostitutes, gamblers and corrupt police officers." What is "the" doing? How do you raid a person?
  • "Being more zealous than political he ordered crack downs" What does this mean? The two certainly aren't mutually exclusive or even opposites. Also, "crackdown" is a noun and "crack down" is a verb. The rest of this sentence is confusing... what are drinking "dives"? Much too colloquial. Then, you mention that the Ritz-Carlton and the Union League weren't spared, but they're certainly not dives?
  • MoS: The "[sic]" is supposed to be spaced, I believe.
  • "Although many of the local citizens and police felt that the raids were just a show, they continued" As written, it's the citizens who continued, not the raids.
  • "In his next move Butler started new programs, changed policies and changed the police uniforms." More imprecise writing. What do you mean by "his next move"? All of this is one "move"?
  • "These changes included military style checkpoints into the city, bandit chasing squads armed with sawed off shotguns and armored cars and changing the uniforms so they were similar in appearance to the Marine Corps." A complete wreck. Grammar... too much to list.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - structure of history section seems to get off to a strange start with the hybrid Early life and family section. Why combine "family" here, in what is ostensibly a "background" section? It causes the history to jump from 1905 back to 1898 as we enter the next section—and, meanwhile, we have been confronted with the idea of "his former commanding officer in China". PL290 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree with you here. There is no "history" section. There are separate sections on his family life and on his military career, which are on the same level, as are the sections on his time as Public Safety Director, and his post military career. I understand your desire to keep everything chronological but sticking the discussion of his marriage in the middle of the section on the banana wars, which if I understand you correctly is what you would be advocating, would strike me as strange. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This raises concerns regarding criterion 2b (appropriate structure). A biography is a life history, and biographical articles are therefore typically structured chronologically, with any topical sections separated from the history section. I suggest the first four sections of this article do in fact constitute an implicit History section, being distinct in character from the remaining sections, which are topical: 
(History)
   Early life and family
   Military career
   Director of Public Safety
   Military retirement and later years
Honors and awards
Published works
See also
Notes
Footnotes
References
Further reading

I am unconvinced that deviating from this general pattern produces an intelligible biographical article. PL290 (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that Smedley has been dead for a number of years now so the entire article is "History" If this article were shorter and the individual did less I would probably agree with you that the family short be in chronological order. However, this individual did a multitude of things throughout his life making the "story" of telling his life complicated. With this complication in mind I believe it is more beneficial to the reader to leave it were it is. If I move it into chornological order his marriage info would essentially be buried in his military career making it difficult to locate. The whole chronology thing is really a "recommended guideline" anyway and not a hard and fast rule inflexible to change. Or one could invoke WP:IAR or state Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. In any rate I believe in the end it is more benficial to the reader to leave it as it is, in this case at least.--Kumioko (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about this and I decided that contrary to my first comment PL290 has a point. Having the marriage and children stuff out of order in the midst of so much material that is in chronological order is a little jarring. Therefore I have been bold and taken a shot at a minor reorganization. I think the result works a little better than the previous organization and makes better sense of what was happening in his life between his adventures in Honduras in 1903 and the interventions in Nicaragua, and Panama in 1909. If you don't like what I did feel free to revert or modify it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind at all and I still don't agree with it. In fact it now looks as though his marriage and time as a coal member are somehow a "part" of his military career instead of things that occurred "during" his military career. In the spirit of getting this article approved finally I recommend if we are going to structure it this way then we change the military career section above the marriage to something like Military career from 1898 - 1905 and then after the marriage do something similar. This way the marriage won't be embedded int he military career. --Kumioko (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After looking again I do think the new order is better. If you had a whole bunch of material on his life outside the Corps it would make sense to have a separate "biography" or "personal life" section separate from the military career section (as you did with the Director of Public Safety material), but since you have only a few sentences on his mariage and brief stint as a miner, it makes more sense to insert them inline in the chronological narrative. Changing the heading name was fine. You could also consider a title such as "Life as a Marine" or "Time in the Corps" that would make it clear that you were talking about his life while he was in the Marines not just his military career without being quite as cluttered as the section heading you have now. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to support (prose) - Further to my comment on structure above, I've now been right through the article, and copyedited a few things that jumped out along the way. The relocation of the marriage passage is, I think, effective, and I see no other structural problems (and agree with Rusty Cashman that the resulting section titles can perhaps be simplified without fear of implying a section is exclusively concerned with military service). I found several minor loose ends (missing words and the like) which I tidied up as I went. There are one or two passages where the prose seems a little casual or informal, such as "Not all of the city felt he was doing a bad job though and when the news started to break that he would be leaving ...". A few specific points (some of which are very minor ones that I couldn't fix as I went):

  • The Fighting Quaker - a telling nickname, given that Quaker beliefs and practices have long identified peace as a fundamental principle. Is nothing known about Butler's own religious beliefs? He is termed a Quaker by this nickname, but the word only appears once in the article, where we learn only that his parents were both members of local Quaker families. Was he even a Quaker himself?
  • For his actions on April 22, Butler was awarded his first Medal of Honor. - paragraph then ends. Yet April 22 is never mentioned before or since, nor are Butler's actions that day identified. I realize the subsequent paragraph implicitly has a bearing, but surely something specific must have taken place on April 22; is there nothing more that can be said about that in this paragraph?
  • The FBI, then known as the United States Bureau of Investigation, checked its fingerprint records to obtain the police records of individuals who had been arrested during the riots or who had participated in the bonus march. (my bold) - 43,000 people participated in the bonus march; were they really all fingerprinted?
  • He implemented sweeping programs to clean up city safety and security. - "clean up" seems odd here.
  • sawed off shotguns (as, I learn to my amazement, they are called in the US!) should be hyphenated (and probably wikified too).
  • His second year as Director of Public Safety started less dramatically than the first. - hardly surprising, since it was a continuation and not a new start: perhaps better left unsaid.
  • A link audit may be in order: "captain" is linked, but not the less common "prohibition" (of alcohol).
    • As I answer this I keep finding myself rewording it because I sound irritated but Im not so here goes. I have linked unlinked and relinked and unrelinked a number of things in this article over the last few months. One editer will link and another will unlink it and this is one of those examples. I will relink it though but I expect it will be unlinked within a few days as being a "common term". --Kumioko (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • During his Senate campaign, one of the issues that Butler spoke about strongly was the veterans bonus. - should this perhaps be either "veteran's bonus" or "veterans' bonus"? I could not ascertain this from the linked Bonus Army article so perhaps you could check. (The WWI "soldier's bonus" is mentioned lower down.)
  • on the corner of 8th and I Streets - we don't have these streetnames in the UK, so I'm unfamiliar, but just to check, is that really meant to be just the letter I?
  • In December 1909, he commanded the 3d Battalion - is 3d correct, or should it be "3rd"?
  • To pass the time, Butler had a very large Eagle, Globe, and Anchor tattoo that started at his throat and extended to his waist. He also met another Marine with whom he subsequently maintained a life long friendship, Littleton Waller. - it's unclear how simply having a tattoo would pass the time; is something missing? Also, "He also met another Marine" seems a choppy follow-on from the tattoo (and is anyway slightly oddly worded: he had been with the Marines for some time).

PL290 (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards supporting What is the current status? Has Andy been asked to comment on the changes. Have Tony's comments been fully addressed, including those regarding the images? I don't think the structure of the article is a problem, but there are still one or two long sentences that lack flow. Graham Colm (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all of Tony's comments have been addressed but I have left several messages on his talk page and he hasn't replied so silence I consent I guess. I also believe that Andy's comments have been addressed but if he feels they have not I would be glad to address them. You mention a couple long sentences! Could you point me at those please and I will try and reword them. --Kumioko (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments What is the status here. I had promised Kumioko that I would give the article a ce, and I've done that. The longest sentences are more manageable, and the verb on verb on verbs are fixed. There are still some areas that I just didn't know what to do with, particularly in the last part of the Dickson committee section. Kumioko, if you look at it in edit mode, you can see where someone has left you some notes. I think it reads better now, although it's still choppy. In terms of content, I think this is a very good article. I'd have appreciated some more context at places, but I'm not as familiar with early 20th century American history as I might be. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oh, and I fixed the link on Charles Francis Adams III (that is why the dab kept showing up). Anyway, it's fixed now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thats great thanks for the help. To answer your other question I think all of the comments have been addressed. I have requested Tony come back and review his comments several times but he hasn't responded so I am assuming all is ok. You said there were a couple areas that needed expansion? Could I ask what they were? --Kumioko (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Kumioko, the prose is still weak, but it is better. The area that needed explanation was under the Business plot, open it in the edit mode and you'll see a comment that someone inserted. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What I consider a severe problem with the lead has re-appeared. It is a conflict between what the lead currently says about the business plot and what the body of the text does, and I consider it very misleading. The lead says:"The committee determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove such a plot existed". The body of the article says "confirmed some of Butler's accusations in its final report" and includes a quote from the committe "...There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient." There is a clear contradiction here. There is also no mention in the lead that while most historians believet that there was no coup imminent there were almost certainly wild schemes under discussion. The way the lead reads now it sounds like Butler likely fabricated the incident where as I pointed this problem out earlier in this review it was fixed (although not as strongly as I would have liked) but at some point that fix disappeared. When I tried to fix it again just now, my changes were reverted. If this contradiction is not resolved I will have to switch my earlier support to an oppose. The lead of an article should summerize the body of the article not contradict it! Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with your comment that it makes it appear like he made it up adn should be changed. I wil try and fix that. I also apologize for the revert, I think we were both in the process of making changes and I made my changes after your, or at the same moment perhaps, but it was unintentional and the point you make was there before my edit. I have noticed a disturbing trend with this article though and that is the longer it is open, one editor changes something so it meets their approval and that overrides anothers. To be honest I am beginning to see why so few editors participate in FA's.--Kumioko (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, this seems to be just the sort of edit conflict that happens when someone makes a copy of text, edits it offline and then replaces the original text without checking first to make sure no one else has made changes. I have done it myself in the past. I have restored my changes. Feel free to edit them as seems appropriate. Sorry for the strongly worded comment, but I was a little frustrated because I couldn't tell whether you had wiped my changes out accidentally or reverted them because you didn't like them. I didn't want to just restore them and risk an edit war. I do like the rest of the changes you made to the lead. I think it reads well now. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Do you have a hard copy of "above and beyond"? Amazon lists the authors as "Congressional Medal of Honor Society". Even in Google scholar, everyone else punts on the question...
      Not sure what you mean here? Can you clarify. --Kumioko (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Please verify the author(s) of "Editors of the Boston Publishing Company (1985). Above and Beyond, A History of the Medal of Honor from the Civil War to Vietnam". • Ling.Nut 04:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • hey, Lelle appears only once in the notes, and is fully specified both in the notes and the refs. Klehr also appears only once, and is in the notes but not the refs. Which approach are you employing? I've seen folks do it both ways in different articles, but you can't do it both ways in the same one.
    • Is the FBI website public domain? You copy/pasted overly-long passages from it.
      Yes but tell me where this is. I don't like using cut and paste even from Public domain sites and I would like toi clean that up. --Kumioko (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      It's in note 44, but here it is again.• Ling.Nut 04:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please help me find where Schmidt (1995) mentions Roosevelt on p. 85 (note 24b). I do not see it on that page or any page, although it does record other comments by Roosevelt. • Ling.Nut 04:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In a quick search, I was unable to locate a reliable sourcing noting Butler as a winner of the Sampson Medal (West Indies campaign). Apparently, neither were you...
      I had it somewhere and thought it was in there, good catch. Let me see if I can find that again and if not I will remove it. --Kumioko (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have the NYT article, "Gen. Butler Bares a 'Fascist Plot'". It specifically mentions the House Committee on Un-American Activities in the first para. How then can the McCormack Dickstein cmte. be a precursor to the former (see note 51)? • Ling.Nut 04:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Certainly per WP:LEDE and potentially per... there isn't anything in WIAFA about "not well organized for clarity; not underlining points strongly or clearly enough." I suppose it's a hybrid of 1a and 1b. So here's my point: his father had more than a little political pull, he was passed over for Commandant of the Marine Corps; he ran unsuccessfully for Senate (and felt he was abandoned by Pinchot), he leaned leftist in his later years (despite being a Republican), he played a prominent role in the Bonus march, he gave his money from his speeches to unemployement relief, etc etc etc. All or at least most of these things are actually in the article, but the article isn't well-organized or well-structured enough to give the reader skimming/scanning a heads-up about all this political stuff. The WP:LEDE certainly needs work along these lines. The entire article itself... could use a bit of reorganization. I'm partially thinking of painfully clear topic sentences, which (in the case of an encyclopedia article) should be the first sentence in the para, and should summarize the... you know.. main point. I'm also thinking.. forex, his father's influence is not mentioned until far down in the article. It does list his various political offices in a far earlier section, but no mention of how he used his pull in his son's favor (mmm, the book "Maverick marine" at least seems to suggest that at least some of Butler's initial rise was due to his father working in the background to support him) Etc. I don't believe these brief remarks fully cover what I feel is missing from the article; you'll have to think for yourself about the best approach. However, although almost all of the facts are here, the reader has to read the whole darn article very carefully and read between the lines to connect the dots before he/she can put together the political aspects of Butler's career. I don't think these things can be straightened out in time for the nom to succeed. • Ling.Nut 05:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well in some of this all I can say is your right but the fact is entire books have been written about him and it would be impossible to capture all of these details without making the article hitting critical mass. The same goes for the lede, its very long now (longer than I would like it to be in fact) and it will be hard to cover all of these details without adding extra length or chopping something else. He simply did too much in his life, but Ill try. --Kumioko (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After I reviewed this a little closer I wanted to add a little follow up. I think the article flows quite nicely so I don't understand what you mean by this article isn't well organized and is unclear. But if you have some suggestions for clarity please let me know what they are. In regards to the political ramifications of how his father helped his career, Im sure he did honestly but when I read back through the references its mostly speculation and probibilities. Except in one specific case when he asked the president to ask him to be director of public safety, which is mentioned in the article. --Kumioko (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your patience. When I was talking about organization, I wasn't talking about how the article flows per se. I was talking about whether the info is presented in highly accessible fashion. I think many readers of Wikipedia skim for information. Therefore, I think all articles should be as skim-friendly as possible. Think "summarize key points". In the beginning he was a soldier; in the end he was a political ranter with a decidedly leftist lean. OK, you kinda got that covered in information scattered throughout the article. You did a good job in that respect. But the points are never really driven home; you didn't say (or I didn't see) generalizations along the lines of "he supported many leftist causes despite being a Republican" etc. You need these not only in the WP:LEDE but in the topic sentences of various paragraphs, especially at the beginning of each new section. The problem is, you can't just throw some quickie summary in there. You have to think carefully about what you write, staying within the bounds permitted by the text of your reliable sources. You also have to make it read well... so it takes a little time or skill or both... I'm especially talking about hist leftward leanings here, but perhaps other points as well. I think it's quite possible to read the lede and the article and not come away knowing just how left-of-center some of his ideas were...• Ling.Nut 13:42, 4 April 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 01:54, 5 April 2010 [49].

Manchester United F.C.

Nominator(s): Tomlock01 (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has recently been dramatically improved and has been promoted to GA status. I feel that the article meets all the FA criteria, and is comparable in quality to Manchester City F.C. and Arsenal F.C., both of which are FA. Tomlock01 (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both.Tomlock01 (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I do not believe that this Featured Article nomination is a good idea right now. I think we should see what results the current Peer Review yields and then bring it to FAC, but not just yet. – PeeJay 20:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PeeJay, I think it meets all the criteria, and surely this process is a form of peer review? Tomlock01 (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. – PeeJay 20:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, sorry. The article does not get anywhere near using the range of sources that would be appropriate for an FA. Only three books are cited, but on this topic, there are obviously going to be many more out there: [50]. I'm therefore not confident that this article represents comprehensive coverage of the subject. Under FA criterion 1(c), the article must be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". --Mkativerata (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comments, but I disagree. Arsenal F.C. is probably the most comparable FA, and has only 4 books listed, but in uses just 2 of these in actually providing references, the other 2 being listed simply as 'further reading'. Furthermore, the 3 books listed in the Manchester United article are complete histories, and as such represents comprehensive coverage.Tomlock01 (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arsenal is probably at risk of de-listing as it was listed a long time ago when criteria were laxer. I understand that the books cited in this article might provide comprehensive histories, but the FA criterion is "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". That's for good reason: even books that cover a topic comprehensively will take different angles and have different focuses. This is a good article, no doubt, but to be the best work of an encylopaedia, I would expect all relevant literature to be consulted. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, with sadness. I've been thinking about this nomination for the last couple of hours; my initial thoughts were that the prose is terrible, and marginal even for GA, but that can be addressed in fairly short order. My real concern having considered it though is in the article's coverage, somewhat mirroring Mkativerata's point above. This club is a global phenomenon, it can't be compared to Arsenal or Manchester City, and that needs to be explored in the article. Also, FAC is not a peer review, and should not be treated as one. I'd recommend that this FAC was withdrawn. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, I appreciate your comments. But this article has nothing to lose, and plenty to gain from going through the FAC process.
Wikipedia has a chronic shortage of reviewers across the board, and FAC is not the place for a peer review. FAC is about assessing whether an article meets the FA criteria, and this one clearly doesn't. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Considering that there are two opposes already, and the main editor of the article (PeeJay) believes the article isn't ready for FAC, I see no reason why this should continue. I also agree with the previous reviewers about the need for less reliance on online sources, and the need for more on their worldwide popularity—the whole section on their supporters could use some expansion, for that matter. There should at least be something on how they became so popular. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to flog a dead horse. Withdraw with my blessing.Tomlock01 (talk) 01:24, 5 April 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 23:40, 3 April 2010 [51].

Gillian Welch

Nominator(s): Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I present an article on singer-songwriter Gillian Welch as a FAC. After an extensive revamp, improvement during GA nom and promotion, and a PR, I feel it is ready. Thank you in advance. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from his uploads that "Filberthockey" is indeed "Forrest L. Smith, III" (he at least claims it). He makes it clear in other file descriptions, which all exclusively credit him. I would suggest contacting Filberthockey via email or talk page to find out if he is indeed Mr. Smith. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this photo of a waterfall, uploaded by him and credited to Forrest Smith. It looks like everything checks out, unless we have a strange case of impersonation on our hands. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now. Thanks for clearing that up. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment On the note on her name: Maybe it would be good to include an example of another word that is pronounced with a hard G? --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Per 1a. The writing just isn't quite there yet. The paragraphs are all too often a string of straightforward simple declarative sentences, creating a too-repetitive feel. The sections are all to often similar in structure: a short, simple-declarative opening then a cluster of quotes that are all preceded by a general observation... It all got a bit repetitive, again. And that one-sentence section at the end was a puzzler. I'm not knocking the article too hard; it's better than many I've seen. But not there yet. And finally I must make myself vulnerable by saying something vague and unactionable: I kept getting the feeling that "something was missing" from the content, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. So I'm not including this last bit as part of my Oppose, but I think I have to mention it even though it isn't really actionable. I'll think about this more.• Ling.Nut 15:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Agreed, the prose isn't quite there yet. In the lede alone:
  • The third sentence of the first paragraph does not parse. One of various possible ways to make it work is this: "Their sparse and dark musical style, which combines elements of Appalachian music, bluegrass, and Americana, is described by The New Yorker as 'at once innovative and obliquely reminiscent of past rural forms'".
  • Revival, which is in apposition to "1996 debut", requires a comma after as well as before.
  • By the end of the second paragraph, it is clear that the article fails to consistently apply or reject the serial comma.
  • The first sentence of the third paragraph uses a nonidiomatic preposition. The possible choices are on and of; the current for is incorrect.
  • "Bestselling platinum album" is effectively redundant. Just bestselling or platinum will do.
  • "Throughout her career" is entirely unnecessary.
  • In the same sentence, "several" is not idiomatic, given the context. Try "many". Or simply cut the adjective and replace "including" with "such as".
  • "In addition" is entirely unnecessary.
  • "Notable" is unnecessary and thus smacks of peacockery.
  • A glance at the rest of the article reveals similar problems throughout. It does look strong on substance and sourcing. Please retain a good copyeditor to work on it and then bring it back.—DCGeist (talk) 07:27, 1 April 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 23:40, 3 April 2010 [52].

Tropical Storm Leslie (2000)

Nominator(s): 12george1 & Hurricanehink


I am nominating this because it is well written, images are good, and it is well referenced. None of the references are dead links (I checked). The article is also made of a variety of sources, not solely from one source; like FEMA, NHC, or NOAA. It is a good size of information for a storm that barely affected land as a tropical cyclone. It is clearly not a skin and bones article like it was about 4 years ago. 12george1 (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As im one of the "secondry authors" im gonna have to stay Netural on its promotion.
  • Comments -
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Generally well done, prose is still a bit weak.

  • I don't think that almost a billion dollars in damage is "little impact" -- I suggest cutting out "Leslie had little impact as a tropical cyclone." completely, and changing "Because of the lack of impact as a tropical cyclone" to something like "Because of the limited impact as a tropical cyclone".
  • It's a bit wordy -- I did a few quick fixes in the Meteorological History section; perhaps you can get someone who isn't as a familiar with the general subject to go through prose?
  • To that effect, "Flood waters ... caus[ed] severe problems for farmers.", that sentence was weird, isn't it obvious that heavy flooding = bad news?... I removed the last part of it, and further, the idea was expanded upon in the next sentence too (start of planting season).
  • "The floodwaters, which were 4 feet (1.2 m) deep in places, also flooded thousands of cars. Many were stranded in their houses, forcing them to use canoes or inflatable rafts to move to higher grounds." -- Isn't the cars part kind of obvious, especially if you have people stranded in their homes? Perhaps you can change it to something like "The floodwaters, which were 4 feet (1.2 m) deep in places, stranded many in their houses, forcing them to use canoes ..."?
  • Impact section, "nonessential" or "non-essential"? The first looks weird to me, I think the one with the hyphen is the preferred Canadian spelling (or at least by far the most common), so the "nonessential" could be the preferred American one. That's perhaps why it jumped out at me.
  • Perhaps you could nix at least Tropical cyclone and List of Atlantic hurricanes from the see-alsos? They don't seem very useful. Also considering the sheer amount of Florida hurricanes, perhaps it would make sense to remove that section altogether?

Maxim(talk) 15:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • About the "little impact as a tropical cyclone", I guess I wanted to emphasize that the damage was from the precursor disturbance, and not from the actual storm. However, that's confusing, I'll agree, so I removed it. After all, it's explained later. I cleaned up the MH on my own, but I found someone else as well. I'm cool with the farmers flooding thing, since you're right, it's obvious there were problems. The agricultural damage has its own paragraph, after all. I hated the thousands of cars sentence! Seriously! So your version was much better. I'm cool with the non-essential, since it's essentially the same thing. Question though: should that be non-essential or non–essential? Lastly, I removed those two links, but I kept the Florida hurricanes one, since I like having a see also section in general, and Leslie was one of the bigger Florida storms of the past decade. Also, I added a link to the 2000 AHS timeline, as per Tropical Storm Henri (2003), another FA. Hope things are better now. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:10, 3 April 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 23:40, 3 April 2010 [53].

Paul E. Patton

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


An extensive article about Kentucky's only modern governor to succeed himself in office. Unfortunately missing a picture of the man, but hopefully an editor in or near Pikeville can remedy that in the future. I look forward to addressing everyone's concerns. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CJ articles have a habit of disappearing. We might have to go archive.org on this one or something. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked to the abstract of the article. CJ is getting really tight with their content. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. "His proudest acheivement, however,"—it doesn't contradict the previous statement. Please remove "however". See MOS: no hyphens after -ly. Some people would regard the use of the word "mistress" as sexist. Why are "indoor plumbing", "electricity" and "telephone" linked? Please do an audit on overlinking. Tony (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What word do you suggest instead of "mistress"? I wasn't aware it was considered sexist, but then again, I've never been accused of being closely attuned to PC language. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • "Patton to be reappointed" link deadlinks
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to abstract now. See above. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me; I'd love to have one, but Pikeville is six hours from me. It just isn't feasible for me to get it. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped a note to User:Bedford regarding the Pike County courthouse image; I'm confident that one will be cleared up in short order. The user who uploaded the image of Memorial Hall appears inactive, so I guess you can FfD it, at which point, I'll remove it from the article. I'll also drop a note at WP:KY in the next few days to see if someone in or around Lexington can take and upload a free replacement. Either way, I should hope the promotion of the article wouldn't hinge on the presence or absence of that image. I was just trying to break up the text. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Former Wikipedia W.Marsh, now known as "Retired Username", gave me the pic to use as the photos of KY courthouses was a pet project of his. The image was his, taken for the purpose of it being on Wikipedia. So it is usable, but may need to have its copyright check changed. There are probably other courthouse pics of his that need to be fixed; anything I personally took I either PDed, or kept copyright status but allow WP to use it.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 06:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to abstract. See above. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I've only had a chance to look at the lead and the "Early life" section so far. Some comments follow:
  • Is the presidency of Pikeville College such a big deal that it justifies relegating Patton's Governorship to the second sentence of the lead?
  • "Jones appointed Patton secretary of economic development..." Not a proper noun?
  • "...and improvements to the criminal justice system." Is this NPOV?
  • "When he was hired by a railroad..." as a teacher?
  • "He was later awarded an honorary Doctor of Public Service degree from the University of Louisville." I assume this was quite a bit later. Might it fit better in "Later life" than "Early life"? Steve Smith (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why Brown decided not to appoint Sights party chair after all?
  • "Just days before the primary it was reported that Cowan's campaign had sent a fundraising letter to a firm that his office was investigating for criminal conduct regarding state contracts." Was the letter or the conduct regarding state contracts?
  • I don't understand this sentence: "Particularly onerous to Rose was Patton's stated support of collective bargaining for public employees but his declaration that he would not fight for it in the upcoming 1996 legislative session." Steve Smith (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:03, 3 April 2010 [54].

Nobel Prize

Nominator(s): Esuzu (talk • contribs) 11:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Nobel Prize is a important part in Wikipedia. Many articles link to it and if a person has received the Nobel Prize it is bound to be mentioned in the lead (even in Winston Churchill who undoubtedly did greater things than win a Nobel Prize). That is why I am nominating this article a second time, the last time the major problems were sources and images and I believe those have been addressed. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 11:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. A dab link to Berling; no dead external links. Ucucha 11:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surely the most notoriously "overlooked people" controversies of recent decades are Rosalind Franklin, who missed out when Watson and Crick got theirs for dna and Graham Greene who one of the judges had supposedly taken against. Neither is mentioned. (ec)One would also expect the controversies over Barak Obama and Henry Kissinger to be mentioned. Prose needs a bit of polishing - eg "oriiginating" in the first sentence. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rosalind Franklin is mentioned: "Rosalind Franklin, who was a key contributor in the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953, died of ovarian cancer in 1958, four years before the achievement was recognised by awarding Francis Crick, James D. Watson, and Maurice Wilkins the Prize for Medicine or Physiology in 1962." It doesn't mention Greene but I'll look into it. But he's probably not the most notorious "overlooked people" but he might deserve a mention. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As to what you added: First of all, I can't see any problem with "originating in" seems completely grammatical to me.
Yes, the article has had no section about "Controversial Recipients". It is located on Nobel Prize controversies#Controversial recipients but it might be good to have some of them present on the main page as well. Anybody who has any opinions? --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Images
  1. I was reviewing the Nobel images as fine then began questioning things for File:NobelPrize.JPG and File:Nobel Prize.png. I'm know a bit about images but would like someone (a lawyer?) to clarify the position with these as it is complicated.
    • The (Nov 2008) photograph is of a "3d" work but is released into the public domain so that is fine.
    • The design was decided in 1902, and published pre-1923 so that bit is okay.
    • The design was changed in 1980 but this image of a design prior to that so is okay.
    • This is a 1950 medal (presumably cast after 1923) and I know there is no originality in making images. My question is whether there sufficient originality in creating a replica (i.e. casting a medal) to make this medal copyright when it was made? This suggests not but is not really backed up by anything. Is there a court case or license to cover this? Basically, even if the image is okay the licensing needs tightening. I'm prepared to do it if someone asserts I am correct but this is a legal thing and I don't want to put myself in the wrong position.
    Turns out this has got plenty of attention in the past it just isn't linked to from the current images.
    That would be very helpful. I'm not a lawyer neither am I very good at image licensing. So before I nominated the article I asked User:Elcobbola on the talk page of Nobel Prize: Talk:Nobel Prize#Images Copyright (from FA page). From his response there I understood it was OK to use but perhaps not. How do we find somebody, like a lawyer or similar who could help us with this? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 11:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, or perhaps try User:MGodwin, someone who represents the Wikipedia Foundation and I think may have past involvement with these discussions. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've contacted Mike Godwin so hopefully we can get some help from him :) Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the answer I got: "In general, merely casting a replica of an out-of-copyright image is not regarded as original enough to create new copyrightability. Assuming the facts are as you report them, I think you are fine.

--Mike" Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. File:Paul Krugman-press conference Dec 07th, 2008-8.jpg and File:Giovanni Jona-Lasinio-Nobel Lecture-2.jpg state that "This file is published under the following Creative Commons license: Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 2.0". Wikipedia requires commercial use, but the images have also been attempted as licensed under GFDL-1.2. User seems active so might be worth contacting to clarify.
Contacted the user so hopefully we'll get an answer soon. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is nothing to clarify, the file has simply two licenses to choose from. Since the file is published under GFDL-1.2 only commercial use is possible. --Prolineserver (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks for clarifying. It isn't something I've seen before. As for File:Alfred Nobels will-November 25th, 1895.jpg I am I right in thinking it isn't actually a PD work and that this change reflects the actual status of a (potentially copyrightable) photographic reproduction released by you. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other images seem fine. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want I just release my part of the will as PD, I want to put it on a stable license basis rather than support a stupid Swedish copyright regulation. --Prolineserver (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • References that link to Bibliography e.g. 8. Elizabeth T Crawford ..., 69. Irwin Abrams ..., and many others. These should be listed Surname, Forname consistently like ref 11.
  • Ref 10 needs accessdates
  • Ref 23 Alfred Nobel. "Alfred Nobel's Will (English version)" needs tidying up
  • Ref 38 (news.bbc.co.uk, Nobel prize for viral discoveries) needs citation template to format correctly
  • Same goes for ref 41 (The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2008)
  • And 94 (Nobel Prize Foundation Website)
  • Use links in references. For example link to The Local in ref 96 (Nobel Banquet: the feast of feasts – The Local) instead of writing "Thelocal.se"
  • Ref 128 (Remarks by the President on Winning the Nobel Peace Prize). Format to say where it is from. Don't say "the same day".
  • Ref 132: Not dead, but does need citation template etc. so it is correctly formatted.
  • Ref 133: "5:34 p.m. ET" is not the author
  • Ref 145 (Akademien väljer helst en europé) needs formatting as proper reference. Also add the |language= field.

This isn't comprehensive and issues like odd/inconsistent linking, not putting Surname first seem to recur regularly. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Just some examples of prose which isn't of a professional standard:

  • "After the award ceremonies banquets are held at the Stockholm City Hall and the Grand Hotel in Oslo." full stop?
  • "Al Gore and the IPCC, 2007 winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, have had the validity of their winning of the prize disputed as well as being politically motivated." What is politically motivated
  • "Before 1930, the banquet was held in the ballroom of Stockholm’s Grand Hotel." Which banquet, all of them or the Peace prize one as the preceding sentence indicates there are many.
  • "10th of December" don't use th and of
  • Fixed. Couldn't find any more similar problems either.
  • "The recipients' lectures are held in the days prior to the award ceremony." - you later say this isn't always the case
  • "Since 1902, the King of Sweden has presented all the prizes in Stockholm" how can he if the Peace Prize is in Norway.

These were found without really reading the article and came from just one section. This only passed GA the other day and is a long way off FA standard. Suggest withdrawing and getting this peer reviewed.

Perhaps. How do I withdraw it? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just tell one of the FAC delegates, here for example, User Talk:SandyGeorgia. Graham Colm (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the promotion of this article because currently it fails 1a and 2c (at least). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose -sorry. The article is far from FA standard, the prose is clunky and not at all engaging. The long quotation from Nobel's will spoils the look of the article and adds very little. It might make a useful footnote. There are odd expressions like "happens to die", which presumably just means "dies" and more worrying, inaccuracies. Frederick Sanger did not receive his second prize for "in 1980 for virus nucleotide sequencing", he was awarded it for inventing a method of determining the nucleotide base sequences of all DNA. And, to say he got his first for "the structure of the insulin molecule" is lazy prose; he determined what the structure was. These errors made me lose confidence in the article's overall accuracy. The gallery of the 2009 winners seems most out of place and although not quite contravening WP:NPOV, it goes against the spirit of it. Only time will tell who were worthy recipients. The Lead is also very poor, with all those blue links, and this "The Nobel Prizes in the specific disciplines (physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature) and the Prize in Economics are widely regarded as the most prestigious award one can receive in those fields", while repeating the categories already given a couple of lines above, just means the prizes for peace and economics are not regarded as prestigious, which I don't think is true. Because of the subject, I was looking forward to reading this contribution, but I was disappointed; it's a very dull read. Graham Colm (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please clarify what isn't WP:NPOV with the gallery?
  • About the "The Nobel Prizes in the specific disciplines (physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature) and the Prize in Economics are widely regarded as the most prestigious award one can receive in those fields" sentence. I believe all of them is prestigious too. I'll change the sentence. Would "The Nobel Prizes in the specific disciplines are widely regarded as the most prestigious award one can receive in those fields." be better? That way it includes all the prizes. Also fixed the "happen to die".
  • Fixed Sanger part. OK now?
No, it wasn't "nucleic acids" it was just DNA.
Changed it. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the citation from his last will. I'd wouldn't be against removing that one either. That together with the "Lack of a Nobel Prize in Mathematics" section is probably the weakest. However when I tried to remove the latter I was met with people who wanted to keep it extremely badly. I'd say it is enough to have it on the Controversies page. Anybody have opinions? --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 23:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You have one link to "Discover magazine", no other info. Yesterday I couldn't access it. If it's accessible, it needs to be fully specified; if not, it needs to be rmv'd.. It seems as though you've been working on the references. That's good; they were looking a little rough a few days ago. You give the full title of every book in every reference. You are free to do so, but is it necessary? Forex, I count 16 instances of "The Nobel prize: a history of genius, controversy, and prestige"... wouldn't that clutter the page a bit, and conceivably slow load times? • Ling.Nut 03:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the Discover Magazine reference. It is accessible for me at least. Might have been temporary down-time perhaps. About the book refs: I've been planning on doing that too. Since they link to the book directly it should be enough to have the name perhaps. ThanksEsuzu (talk • contribs) 09:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/April_2010&oldid=356304233"