Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archive 1
archive 2
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOC limit}}
{{TOC limit}}
== June 2010 ==
== June 2010 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester United F.C./archive4}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paul Kelly (musician)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Treaty of Ciudad Juárez/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Treaty of Ciudad Juárez/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Age of Discovery/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Age of Discovery/archive1}}

Revision as of 01:24, 26 June 2010

June 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 01:24, 26 June 2010 [1].

Manchester United F.C.

Nominator(s): Tomlock01 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone significant improvements over the past few months. It has had several peer reviews, and I now feel it meets all the criteria for a featured article. Thanks, Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you consulted PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs)? If not, the FAC should be removed. If so, why isn't PeeJay a co-nom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, during my peer review, I praised Tomlock01 for his hard work and thorough research. He replied: "Most of the credit should go to PeeJay for this article, who has been tirelessly working on it for years. I've only been working on it for a few months." PeeJay2K3 then said: "You give me too much credit, Tom. I have merely kept the article in order for years. It is other editors, not I, who have done most of the cleanups and addition of content." For what it's worth.. Also: [2] Scartol • Tok 01:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Scartol. And for what its worth Sandy, I had no idea you could co-nominate an article, what difference does it make who nominates it? Tomlock01 (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'I just want to make a quick point. People keep saying that the article is not balanced. I absolutely agree that there should be balance in an article, and am fully aware of WP:Recentism. But just to put things in perspective, since Alex Ferguson took over (i.e. 1986 onwards, which is - I accept - by far the largest of the 4 history sections), Manchester United has won 34 honours (that is, honours according to the 'Honours' section at the bottom of the article). In the preceding, that is 1878-1986 (108 years), Manchester United won a total of 25 honours. Trophies are the primary measure of a football clubs success, and whilst - of course - this article should not just document successes, I think this comparison clearly justifies that there is greater quantity of material on the last 25 or so years, as opposed to the preceding c.110. I have read in detail the FAC criteria, and I am confident that this article meets them all. In my opinion, all notable events in the early years have been covered in sufficient detail. Thanks, Tom.' Tomlock01 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. New sources found for both. Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criteria 1b, 1c and 2a (I haven't even looked at the prose yet):
1b (comprehensiveness) concerns -
  • The entire first 70 years of the club's existence is summarised in about 10 sentences, whereas the last 20-odd years have about 10 paragraphs. This is unnecessary slanting towards recent events.
With a football club whose successes have been limited largely to the last 20 years (take a look at the 'Honours' section), I think its likely that any article on it will devote more space to the the past 20 years, simply because there is more to say.
I do realise that Manchester United has become more popular and successful than it used to be. That doesn't mean the article just just gloss over the very origins of the club. BigDom
Given that there are sub-articles for each period, do you propose I add to the earlier sections, or take away from the later ones? Tomlock01 (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to bulk out the earlier sub-sections. Since my original point was that the original section was not detailed enough, it would be equally remiss to omit the later successes of the club from the article. BigDom
I've had a look and I really can't find anything that is particularly notable that we have missed from the earlier sections. The early years covers all the important information about the formation of the club and name change. Aside from the this, the club really did not achieve much, or do anything of note that is not already included. Not to mention the 2 world wars during which no football was played! I don't want to bulk out this section for the sake of it. Alex Ferguson has won 26 major honours during his time in charge, this is more than all the other managers combined - of course this section is going to be longer, and rightly so. Tomlock01 (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this was a lie. I've added in a few lines about the club's run in with bankruptcy in the 1930s, which I thought was already in there. Tomlock01 (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Crest and colours" section claims that the club badge is derived from the City of Manchester coat of arms. Well, it looks nothing like it to me, how about a reference or two to back it up? From what I can see, the coat of arms does not feature either footballs or devils so I can't really see the comparison.
Sorry this is my fault. There was a picture of the club crest in the 60s, which I removed. I've now added it back in.
That still doesn't sort out the issue of a source stating that the badge was based on the coat of arms. BigDom
OK, I've added a ref. I quote "the badge of the Manchester Country Football Association, featuring the Manchester coat of arms, was sewn onto the chest."Tomlock01 (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the club found a temporary ground for one match in 1902. Where did they play for the next seven years before moving to Old Trafford? This is a fairly major fact.
They played at bank street. The ground was re-opened, I've changed the preceding sentence to reflect this.
That's fine. BigDom
  • The "Ownership and finances" section only starts at 1989. What about the other 120 years?
  • Listing so many staff in the "Club officials" section seems overly excessive. The names of the "Commercial director", "Head of human performance", etc. are just not important.
I've cut the list down, but kept commercial director, because this is relevant to the 'global brand' section.
Agree that list has been trimmed appropriately. BigDom
1c (reliable sources) concerns -
  • What makes StretfordEnd.co.uk a reliable source?
The fact that it is the official club statistics website, and is now used by the club itself as the primary source of statistics.
Can you provide a link to the section of the website where it lists the sources used then, beacuse I can't find it. Without knowing where the site was compiled from, it goes down as original research. BigDom 16:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, what makes ManUtdZone.com a reliable source?
I've no idea, but I don't think this site is active anymore, so I'll look for alternative sources.
Replaced or removed any references from this site, as I agree it isn't reliable. StretfordEnd.co.uk though is entirely valid. Tomlock01 (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the article is referenced to primary sources e.g. the Manchester United official website
Is this a problem then? The Manchester United official website would strike me as a pretty reliable source. Would the official museum, which is maintained by the club, be a reliable source?
Have a look at WP:PRIMARY. Secondary sources, such as newspaper articles, are much preferred to press releases by the club. BigDom
OK, but ManUtd.com isn't used to reference any "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims", therefore I don't see it as a problem. It's mainly used to verify club appointments, for which I couldn't find any secondary sources. Tomlock01 (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the references are to match reports on the Man Utd official website, these are going to be inherently biased reports. I find it difficult to believe that there are no other reports available that you could use. I understand that for some of the more obscure things, e.g. new kits, there might not be other available sources so the official site would be OK in these cases. Bear in mind that a featured article is supposed to be a comprehensive summary of all existing material about the topic in question, not just the things you can find easily. Sometimes, trips to libraries to browse newspaper archives etc. are required. BigDom 16:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The match reports you mention are used because they mention attendances (which is what is being referenced). The club is the ONLY source of match attendances. Tomlock01 (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to let this point slide because of Brianboulton's comment below, as he is admittedly more knowledgable about sourcing than myself. BigDom 21:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2a (lead) concern -
  • This one speaks for itself really – the lead is far too short for an article of this length and neglects all manner of details.
Any suggestions on what should go in the lead? When there is so much to say, its hard to know what pieces of information should go in over others?
According to WP:LEAD, the lead section should be able to stand alone as a short article about the topic in question. So the lead here should at least cover something from every section. BigDom
Right, well I've added in a section in the lead about Ownership, which was the only missing that was covered in the article itself. Having read WP:LEAD, I think it meets all the criteria set out by this page, and it certainly reads as a short article on the topic. Tomlock01 (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once these comments have been addressed, I will have a look at the prose and reconsider my stance. BigDom 14:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General sources comments

Some of my concerns on reliability have been raised above. On balance I think you are just about all right on your use of primary sources. The rest of the sources generally look OK, but there are numerous formatting issues that require attention:-

  • Non-print media sources, e.g. CBS Sports (ref 3), should not be italicised. There are many cases.
  • Print media sources, e.g. Daily Mail (ref 38) should be italicised. Check for others
  • Well-known papers, journals etc (The Guardian, The Sunday Times, etc) do not need separate publisher information. Likewise, organisations such as BBC News don't need their parent organisations added. This helps to avoid information clutter in citations
  • Where possible, give the publishers of on-line sources rather than website names or web addresses (ref 6, refs 136-40)
  • Some retrieval dates look very old. Best to update these.

I'd like to look again when these tidying-up operations are done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I think. Tomlock01 (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. the balance of the article is wrong, with too much emphasis on recent events. It's also looking a little out of date in a few places. For instance, "The strength of the Manchester United brand is bolstered by intense off-the-field media attention to individual players, most notably David Beckham (who quickly developed his own global brand)." Beckham hasn't been a Manchester United player for many years. A few other points, chosen at random:
It doesn't matter that David Beckham no longer plays for the club. He was one of the driving forces behind the club's brand development in Asia, and helped establish the brand in this region.
The article says "is", not "was". Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good point. Tomlock01 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a 2002 report by a researcher at Manchester Metropolitan University found that a higher proportion of Manchester City's season ticket holders came from Manchester postcode areas (40% compared to Manchester United's 29%), although the lower percentage could be attributed to Manchester United's higher overall number of season ticket holders (27,667 compared to City's 16,481)." That doesn't make sense, and isn't what the source says.
Agreed, I've removed this entire paragraph because I don't think the point being made is clear, or valid.
  • "The club developed a strong on-pitch rivalry with Arsenal in the late 1980s ...". not sure what "on-pitch" is supposed to mean here. All teams playing against each other are by definition rivals.
I've removed this also, just because I don't think its notable.
  • "... the team played their "home" games at Manchester City's Maine Road ground ...". In what universe is "team" plural?
Done.
  • "The club's third kit is traditionally all-blue, as worn for their first European Cup win in 1968". Similarly, "club" is singular.
Let's not rake up old graves, hey?
  • "Manchester United's current home kit features a red shirt with a shallow black chevron and the club crest on the left ...". It doesn't "feature" it, that's what it is.
Done.
  • "The stadium's record attendance was recorded on 25 March 1939 ...". Awkward, to say the least.
Done.

Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any other thoughts? Perhaps you could elaborate on your first point? Thanks, Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made my position clear on the article's talk page. It's being held back by the intransigence of one editor. Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well thanks for your thoughts thus far. To be fair though, if you are not prepared to elaborate further, perhaps you should have chosen not to get involved in the FA review this time round? Tomlock01 (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this shouldn't be at FAC now, as it's not ready? Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could explain why you think it's not ready? Tomlock01 (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already given you a few examples, but just take a look at the lead if you want more: "Manchester United is one of the most successful clubs in the history of English football ...". "Manchester United were the first English club to win the European Cup ...". "... the club was purchased by the Glazer Family". That should be "Glazer family". This article isn't ready. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, whether you like it or not, the discretionary plural it is an established part of the English language. I tried to stay out of the petulant argument on this last time, and its not something I want to argue about here. Even so, I don't see how this alone is enough for you to oppose this article's promotion, neither would an incorrect capital 'F', which I have now changed. You are clearly determined to see this article fail. Tomlock01 (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen Aston Villa F.C., Manchester City F.C. and Gillingham F.C., all featured articles? Take a look at the leads on each of those articles. Tomlock01 (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you miss the point. I am quite happy with "Manchester United were ...", but even the lead is not consistent in that usage. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really believe that this is an improvement? "Beckham's popularity across the Asia has been integral to the club's commercial success in that part of the world." FAC is not a peer review. Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, I know FAC is not peer review, hence why the article has undergone two peer reviews since the last FAN, both of which were positive. Regards the above point about the discretionary plural, I quote: "A number of words like army, company, crowd, fleet, government, majority, mess, number, pack, and party may refer either to a single entity or the members of the set that compose it. Thus, as H. W. Fowler describes, in British English they are "treated as singular or plural at discretion"; Fowler notes that occasionally a "delicate distinction" is made possible by discretionary plurals: "The Cabinet is divided is better, because in the order of thought a whole must precede division; and The Cabinet are agreed is better, because it takes two or more to agree."[20] Also in British English, names of towns and countries take plural verbs when they refer to sports teams but singular verbs when they refer to the actual place: England are playing Germany tonight refers to a football game, but England is the most populous country of the United Kingdom refers to the country. In North American English, such words are invariably treated as singular."

"Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." You repeatedly saying 'this article is not ready' is not helping ANYONE. All you seemed to have raised of note so far is a highly questionable point (covered above) and a few typos. Tomlock01 (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again, you miss Malleus' point. BigDom 21:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Tomlock01 (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is riddled with prose and MoS issues, to say nothing of its recentism. Here's another example: "... their first successful defence of a knockout cup competition". How do you defend a competition? I was one of the editors chased away from this article, so I don't intend to say anything else other than that my oppose stands, and the FAC delegates may make of it what they will. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The same way a boxer defends a boxing title? I appreciate you taking the time to review the article Malleus, and I'm sorry you were 'chased' away (I thought we were making good progress last time you were helping out with it), but I really don't think it's sufficient to say the article is 'riddled with prose and MoS issues'. I've been working hard on this article over the past few months and I welcome any comments that will help to improve the article, but a blanket dismissal of this articles chances is just frustrating. Tomlock01 (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. Of course you can defend a title, but how do you defend a competition? Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well because if you win that competition, you win the appropriate title. If you win the Champions League, you become the holders of the Champions League trophy. Therefore, in next years competition, you are attempting to 'defend' that title. If you win the competition again, you have successfully 'defended' it. Tomlock01 (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. I'm done here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks again for your comments. Tomlock01 (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, with the disclaimer that I don't generally review sports articles and so may be unaware of topic-specific conventions. However, my concerns are fairly universal: prose, MoS, images, some sourcing...

  • A few short choppy (1-2 sentence) paragraphs that would be better merged or rewritten
  • Did the club win 26 awards during the Ferguson years, or was Ferguson himself the recipient of said awards?
Well, both. It certainly makes sense to say that 'Ferguson has won 26 honours'.Tomlock01 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of grammatical errors and inconsistencies - not at the "brilliant prose" level that FACs aspire to (IMO).
  • Very long ToC, with some sections that are mere hatnotes - merge? Also, why is the third subsection of History the only one with just dates?
I could not think of an appropriate name for that section, any ideas? Which sections would you propose merging?Tomlock01 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The hatnote for "Former players" could be included above the first-team table; "Award winners" could potentially be made a single prose paragraph
  • Do you have proof of permission from the Lordprice Collection for the 1905 team picture? The site claims full copyright, and I don't see an OTRS number on the image page
I have no idea what an OTRS number is, but I believe that the picture was uploaded by the Copyright owner, if that helps. I'll ask PeeJay. Tomlock01 (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image description page claims that the image is used with the permission of the copyright holder. We would thus expect to see confirmation of that permission (or, if the uploader was indeed the copyright owner, confirmation of his or her identity). See WP:PERMISSIONS
This is an easy one to get around. Since the photograph was first published in the UK before 1923, you can claim that it is in the public domain in the US. See this template for more info: {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. In all honesty, I think the claim from the Lordprice Collection to hold copyright of the image is a fallacy; it's pretty likely that either the photographer died more than 70 years ago, or if the author is unknown, it was definitely published more than 70 years ago. BigDom 17:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've done it. Is it correct? Tomlock01 (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davies didn't die in 1827
Done, thanks. Tomlock01 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source for first FA Cup title?
Why? The fact that the club won the FA cup title in this season, and that it was their first FA Cup title has never been challenged, nor is it ever likely to be.Tomlock01 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright info for Manchester United 1960s badge? Also, check source link
Right. Yes the source website is down permanently as far as I know; it certainly hasnt been active for months. What do we do here?Tomlock01 (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Find another web source, look for an archive of the missing page (see WP:LINKROT), find a print source that details copyright status. If all of those steps fail, the image may have to be removed and deleted from Wikipedia.
Found another web source, is it correct now? Tomlock01 (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some undue weight on the more recent details of the club - historical events are at least as significant, although they can of course be harder to source
Yes there is weight on recent details, but I wouldn't say it was undue. Did you look at the paragraph I wrote on this issue, and if so do you still take this opinion?Tomlock01 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did and I do, although to a lesser extent than previous commentators.
  • What are the criteria for relegation? In 1986, they were in danger of relegation due to a 4th-place finish?
Well the way that football seasons work in the UK is that they bridge calendar years. I've changed the wording to make this clearer.Tomlock01 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should mention ground opening date in article text, not just in infobox. Also, discrepancy in construction costs between infobox and text
Well the construction costs in the box include the land purchase. Regards date, DONE. Tomlock01 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Given that the infobox specifies construction cost, why would it include land costs?
  • Source for stadium's record attendance?
DONE.Tomlock01 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need more consistency in number formatting - for example, you use both "fourth" and "3rd"
Good point. All those over 10, I've kept in number format. Those under 10, are now in words. Tomlock01 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about 10 itself? You use both "10" and "ten"
Of course. 10 now in words. DONE. Tomlock01 (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While" is generally preferred over "whilst"
Hmm. OK. DONE.Tomlock01 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in using "F.C." vs "FC"
Good point. DONETomlock01 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source for the paragraph about the ladies team? As far as I can tell, the given citation only supports the last 2 sentences
I've removed the entire section on Ladies. I don't think its notable, and it helps cuts down the ToC.Tomlock01 (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Edwards the honorary president, the chairman, or both?
He WAS the chairman, but is now the honorary president. This is supported by the given source.Tomlock01 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honours - use consistent bolding
Forgive my ignorance; where is it inconsistent?Tomlock01 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You use bolding for all of the cup names, except in the Doubles section
Duh, sorry. I've changed it so that it is consistent, but do you think it looks right now? Tomlock01 (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the 1950s Double not included in Honours?
They didn't win a Double in the 1950s.Tomlock01 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, my mistake, I misread the earlier section
  • Why are footballsite.co.uk and european-football-statistics.co.uk reliable sources? www.t3.rim.or.jp/~sports? historicalkits.co.uk? unitedkits.com? prideofmanchester.com?
www.t3.rim.or.jp etc, agreed and changed to more reliable source.
historicalkits.co.uk, unitedkits.com and prideofmanchester.com are all excellent sites, with contributors pages and photographic evidence.
footballsite and european-football-stats are great statistics websites and again meticulously maintained and updated.
I'm really hate the assumption that fan sites are intrinsically unreliable, when in fact they are usually the most reliable source of stats. This is why stretfordend.co.uk, a fansite, has now been adopted by the club as the official source of statistics.Tomlock01 (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in referencing format - for example, in italicizing or not italicizing "BBC News" and "BBC Sport"
Sorry, thought I'd got them all. DONE.Tomlock01 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 145 (Companies House UK) needs citation details, as does current ref 153 ("Alex Ferguson")
DONE and DONE.Tomlock01 (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Bose, Morgan, and the Whites are included in Bibliography, you should omit full citation details from Notes. Also, Bose and Morgan should be incorporated into the alphabetical list. DONETomlock01 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest about 60% for before and 40% after Ferguson. I initially said 50% each, but the earlier period has more events:

  • Founding
  • Near bankrupty in 1930s
  • Munich air disaster 1956
  • 2nd UK club to win European Cup in 1968 (after Celtic in 1967). George Best destroyed Benefica in the final (needs mention, w cite) - the rest is IMO and superfluous to the FA: Best is 1 of 2 UK players in the same class as Pele (the other was Gascoigne, another one-man destroyer of top opposition).
  • Club's relegation in earlier 1970s. --Philcha (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you comments. Current word count is c. 1050 words in history section before Fergie, and c. 620 after him, so just under 40% is currently devoted to Fergie, which I'd agree is bang on. Everything you have mentioned is already covered, except the information about George Best and Celtic, which I will add. Do you have time to review the rest of the article? Best, Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, at present I need to do other things, some in WP and some in RL. If I can deal with these, I'll have another look. --Philcha (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thanks again for your comments. Good luck with whatever else you're up to. Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 06:24, 25 June 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 01:24, 26 June 2010 [3].

Paul Kelly (musician)

Nominator(s): Dan arndt (talk) and shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because we believe it meets all the criteria. We are substantial contributors to this article and have worked together on it since August 2008, initially improving it to B-class and then onto Good Article by September. In March 2010 we returned to working on it, first updating its contents and then improving it further. We subjected the article to a peer review and followed up its comments. We also used the Guild of Copy Editors. Either or both of us will respond to the comments in this candidacy, as this is a joint submission for featured article by Dan arndt (talk) and shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Fabulous effort, hope it gets there in the end, BUT:
  • Key concern: where is the critical evaluation; where are the descriptions of his influence.. Where are the discussions in reliable sources of his albums, their effects on Oz music etc etc? This guy is one of the most important figures in late 20th century Australian popular music. I'm pretty sure a lot has been written about him, and it doesn't generally appear to be here.
  • Possible sources:
  • Craig Mathieson, Playlisted: Everything You Need to Know About Australian Music Right Now
On-line [4] at GoogleBooks gives three hits but no useful information.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ann Atkinson, Linsay Knight, Margaret McPhee, The Dictionary of Performing Arts in Australia: Opera, dance, music
  • Forster, Robert. Thoughts in the Middle of a Career: Paul Kelly's - Songs from the South. The Monthly, Apr 2009: 62-64.
This is excellent—I've used it in the article in a number of places—thanks.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cited reference for the significant Fricke quote (from Rolling Stone) isn't Rolling Stone - in fact it isn't even a link to the article it says it is (current note 23). Need to locate the original article - it should be a rich vein for this WP piece, not just the source for a quote that everyone else keeps reproducing. Kelly's own webpage has the issue date: 5/8/08.
Kelly's webpage does cite a review of Stolen Apples by Fricke from 8 May 2008 but it is not the source of the quote. The quote is already used in 2005, see here and according to another part of Kelly's webpage here it was running around in 1997, possibly with the compilation Songs from the South (first volume). I'm still looking for this important source.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is from Fricke's liner notes to Songs from the South, I've put in a new ref for it. I haven't found an on-line version of these notes and so there is no external link.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Susan Horsburgh's SMH piece is cited, but not to bring out the evaluations of other major figures such as Neil Finn.
Added a Finn quote to Musical style and song writing section.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added a Linda Bull quote to show his influence and song writing style.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found Murray Bramwell's reviews for Adelaide Review online - admitedly not in original form, but could be sourced i htink
Used one so far.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Used a second one which covers four Kelly-related releases.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added: commentary from Russell Crowe (influences), description from Ed Nimmervoll (evaluation), reviews of various Kelly albums by Allmusic's Mike DeGagne and Brett Hartenbach (evaluation).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a number of influences and critical evaluations to the article. Some of the evaluations are positive but there are some with slightly negative analyses of Kelly's work. Where I've used quotes/summaries I've tried to be representative of the overall tone of the evaluation. Are these additions now sufficient to cover your concerns?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll come back to the article later - just a quick comment to say that negative as well as positive comments should be included, as long as they reflect the balance of views across the literature as a whole. Might be a few days before I get to do a proper read-through. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More minor pts:

  • Is there any way to make a short para about Hilary Brown, their marriage, birth of son Declan, and not have it as a single sentence sandwiched in with other stuff?
Not a lot of information about Kelly's first marriage to Brown but will see what I can track down to expand this area. Dan arndt (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has been removed from the Dots section as Brown and his first marriage is mentioned again in his Personal life section.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is coming along well, but the tinkering with the personal details has created a new problem. The text has this: "Problems with his marriage and drug use disrupted his career, and by late 1984 the marriage had broken up" - only now there is nothing telling us about that marriage because that sentence has been removed. I think your general impulse - to have some of this information in the chronology - wasn't a bad one, but it just hasn't been executed that well. I don't think weeding it all out and just having it at the very end will work with Kelly, because that personal life - particularly his second wife and partner Sian Prior - have also been part of his career. I want to see it worked in there, it just needs to be done better. Not easy i accept, but i encourage you to stick at keeping it included. Let's also see what other editors think as this progresses. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken—I've reverted my removals—I'll reconsider how to expand Brown & Prior's introductions into Kelly's article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tackled both of these. Made a separate paragraph per person. The Brown paragraph is more about their son, Declan.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • phrase "had no chart success" is used twice close together in the Dots section. Can one of these be changed for variety?
Done Adjusted nearby sentences & refs.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same sort of problem on his personal life: "Prior is Kelly's girlfriend and is a former opera singer" (in the 2000-current section) is just wedged in as we read on about the detail of albums, soundtracks etc. Take it out or footnote it, i think.
Has been removed from this section as Prior and his relationship with her is mentioned again in his Personal life section.
With both of these, we were trying to include the information in his overall musical chronology.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Near the end of the article is this: "Frawley, a guitarist in Paul Kelly and the Dots, who co-wrote "Look So Fine, Feel So Low" (1987), had died of cancer in May 2009" It needs to lose a comma, but my main concern is that he wasn't (according to earlier text) "a guitarist in Paul Kelly and the Dots" - he was with (the?) Paul Kelly Band, and The Drive-in Motel. Has some info gone missing from the earlier section, or is the later one incorrect? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frawley was a member of Paul Kelly & the Dots between 1981-82, and subsequently a member of the Paul Kelly Band between 1983-84. Frawley replaced previous guitarist Michael Holmes, who replaced Chris Worral, who replaced original guitarist Chris Malhebe. Frawley was also in Kelly's then wife, Kaarin Fairfax, backing band, The Drive-In Motel, in 1990. Apologies if that is a bit confusing will see if I can't remove the commas and try and tighten it all up a bit more. Dan arndt (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed phrase to more general "a guitarist for Kelly in various groups," otherwise this part reads as if he was only in the Dots. Should there be a wikilink to Bands and accompanying musicians of Paul Kelly since Frawley does not have his own article yet?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answers own question! Probably not as there's already a wikilink to that article earlier and a whole section titled Bands and accompanying musicians with a direction to that article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First two are the original urls for the related archived urls at web.archive.org (Wayback Machine). Should the original urls be removed, leaving only the archived ones?--shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I stuffed up some of these by mixing up archiveurl with url. Hopefully most are better now.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Four urls for the on-line copy of Spencer et al appear to have lapsed—I get the same ISE notice. They were active in March: these urls can be removed if you wish as the citations apply to Spencer's book but I don't have page numbers for these entries: I was relying on the on-line version. I could replace the existing Spencer cites with e.g. Spencer et al, (2007) High Rise Bombers entry. without any external link.shaidar cuebiyar (talk)23:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my suggested changes for these Spencer refs. If an on-line ref is a must the relevant information can be covered by Holmgren's Australian Rock Database site. I used Spencer as being nearer the original data (Holmgren cites Spencer as one of his sources for that site).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checked at Wayback but these are not archived (as yet).
users.bigpond.com is the original url for archived file at Wayback.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.drumperth.com.au/ Previously went to the Jeff Jenkins article in Drum Media (Perth) but it seems to have been commandeered by its parent company, Street Press Australia which does not appear to store the older files. A Wayback search has not found anything usable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
replaced some lapsed links with archive urls where possible. Second Sian Prior ref is cached by Google but does not provide much extra from first ref so I'll delete it.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed urls from news items with no longer active address.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm checking the other EL problems.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've covered all of these ELs, either by: fixing url vs archiveurl, removing urls and leaving the text ref or totally removing the offending ref.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; all external links seem to be working now. Ucucha 18:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources comment: Apart from the numerous non-working links that need fixing, can you explain your criteria for listing some of your sources as "General references"? I'm unclear as to why this term is applied to some sources but not others. Brianboulton (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The general refs provided extensive biographical information on Kelly's life (Doyle, Leser, radio transcript) or his professional career & releases (McFarlane, Nimmervoll & Spencer). Some of these also provided support for specific claims in the article. Other sources, most of the specific refs, were not used extensively or only apply to the indicated portions of the article. Are there any that you believe should be switched over? I'm willing to discus these.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There don't seem to be any citations to the radio transcript, so it's not clear how this was used in compiling the article. Otherwise fair enough. I will go ahead with a full sources review now. Brianboulton (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From memory, we had some citations to the radio transcript in any earlier form but ref clutter was occurring in some places (five or six refs for the one claim) and so we trimmed them back. It looks like the radio transcript, although used in creating the article, does not independently verify any contentious claims.

Further sources comments

  • The links in the following references are still broken: 6, 19, 25, 26, 32, 35, 39, 126 and 144
  • The link in Ref 23 does not go to the required page.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tackle these in reverse numerical order—seems easier if ref order gets changed in the process.
144: Attfield. As indicated in the note, its a long pdf, but my browser still delivered it without timing out. I'm not sure whether the warning note is sufficient for editors checking the article's sources.
126: Tour08 (paulkelly.com.au) Official website seems to have been cleaned out in his tours section: only two shows are currently listed and no archive. I've changed the content of this ref to a magazine preview of his tour, which announces dates in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland: covers the claim.
More to follow, later.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
39: Dragon. Had no problem here.
35: Leser207. This relates back to the general ref on Leser which is directed to a pdf of nine pages. I had no problem in downloading and then opening this pdf.
32: TVMemStarstruck. Had no problem here.
26: SpencerHighRise. No longer has any external link. Am I getting these ref numbers right? Has the order changed from when you made your list?
25: ARDb. Had no problem here.
23: Howl. Goes to Nimmervoll's Howlspace article on Paul Kelly. As an aside: this is the expanded form of his Allmusic biography of Kelly and could replace his Allmusic biog as a General ref.
19: WRecords. Had no problems here.
6: Spirited Men116. Leads to google copy of Doyle's book: limited preview is available. I had no problem getting to p 116 (couldn't view p 115 though).

If these are not the correct refs you wanted fixed you might have to give more information so those may be identified better. Order/numbering was changed recently when I checked the url list from above; and also when I moved the Civics ref to number 1 to cite the quote in the Lead per comment below from Tony1.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some numbers have changed since I did my checks, but it seems that the problems I encountered were temporary, because I rechecked all the links this morning, and they all worked. The only query I have is with 20 (Bridget Magner) which goes to a "search results" page with no obvious route to the source document. Is it possible to create a direct link? Otherwise, I have no further issues with the sourcing. Brianboulton (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Archiveurl has been changed, hopefully you'll go to a pdf download now.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  1. Hamiltonstone has made valuable comments above.
  2. "He is acknowledged as one of Australia's best singer-songwriters and described as its poet laureate." Even though it's the lead, my teeth are grinding that it might be seen as peacockry in such an exposed position; needs a ref at the very least, but many would be happier to find out this good stuff further down, where the detail can support the claim. Or just let his achievements shine per se. There's no one prescription. And then there's a bit of repetition a few lines later. The last quote in that opening paragraph is good indeed: that will make readers want to continue. I'd source it, though, on the spot.
Deleted "He is acknowledged as one of Australia's best singer-songwriters and described as its poet laureate." from Lead, left in main text later where each part is separately reffed. Last sentence in opening paragraph is now reffed there.
  1. Deceptive link to "1997"—it's actually a valuable link, and too much like the very next one. I'm wondering whether, at this point, you might pipe the underlying link to 1997 to "ARIA Hall of Fame" instead, to remove the deceptive link. If they really are quite different articles, perhaps one could be linked explicitly later? Unsure.
Adjusted links to just 1997 ARIA Awards article in Lead, left general text where both ARIA Awards of 1997 and ARIA Hall of Fame are separately linked.
  1. Infobox links: Normally, we don't link "acoustic, folk, musician, singer-songwriter, vocals, guitar, harmonica, unless there's some particular reason. Why is "acoustic" there at all? Maybe there's a reason ...?
De-linked all suggested. Acoustic is there as much of his work is electric (especially in groups and early work) but some is performed acoustically including whole albums.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "including "To Her Door", solely written by Kelly,"—you might be able to make it neater as just "including Kelly's "To Her Door"—the readers will understand it as his alone given your contrastives further into the sentence.
Adjusted sentence.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I really don't think Sydney and Melbourne need to be linked in an overtly Australian article. They're supposed to be international cities—or they think they are. Up to you. Adelaide was repeat-linked, and, well, the states are bunched up with those cities, and linked prominently in the city articl, so I wouldn't double-link. Our readers need you to focus them on link points, as specific as possible, and lots of blue is distracting if it's highly unlikely to be used by readers. It's a sad fact that they rarely click, anyway.
De linked Sydney & Melbourne.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Do check that you need the abbreviations (VCASS?). Are they used enough to justify the clutter of spelling out and bracketing? Perhaps ABC is worth it for the recognition factor.
Removed VCASS from main text but left in ref: won't affect casual readers there.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kept ARIA & APRA: they're used a fair bit in this article and in Aus music articles in general. Deleted NCADA, AGSC & CMAA.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sound-bites are reassuringly old, so are less likely to attract the copyright police, I think. After seeing three I was hoping not to see a fourth. But it's there. Let sleeping dogs lie, but in the future someone might come along and complain that there are too many. It's a fuzzy area of policy.
No action required.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1985 pic is not of good res, but heck, the owner has given it to us. Nice work.
No action required.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during 1978–1982"—MoS says avoid mixing punctuation with a preposition or time phrase, I think. Consider "from 1978 to 1982", unless those four years were a distinct period in his output or life.
I think I got all of these.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the bottom half, but I'm inclined to support WRT Criterion 1a. Tony (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments have been addressed.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - just looking at the article very quickly, the lead seems to be unnecessarily long. It needs to be trimmed down at least by a paragraph. There are/were also some places that didn't follow the Music Manual of Style - I fixed a few, but there may be others. For future reference, use Checklinks to see if any of your external links are dead. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:32, 25 June 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 01:06, 26 June 2010 [5].

Treaty of Ciudad Juárez

Nominator(s): radek (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has achieved GA already, meets FA criteria and the suggestion to nominate it for FA was made during the GA review.radek (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "Zapata" to "Zapatismo" "Liberation Army of the South" (Zapata's army) since the brothers are linked separately (and Zapatismo links to modern day army). Changed all to "Juárez".radek (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Ucucha 04:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: The sources themselves look OK, but there are issues of formatting:-

  • References should not contain bare links to the Google book pages. These links should be incorporated with the book's title. A suggested format for the first reference is:
Katz, Friedrich (1998): The life and times of Pancho Villa Stanford University Press, pgs 104–119. (The remaining book references should be similarly formatted)
  • Ref 4: This needs to be properly formatted, showing author (Martin Donell Kohout), title (Orozco, Pascuel, Jr.), publisher (Texas State Historical Association), and retrieval date.
  • Convention requires appropriate use of captitals in book main titles. Thus, for example: ""Mexico: Biography of Power"; "In the Shadow of the Mexican Revolution:" etc
  • If "pgs" signifies page ranges, it should be used consistently. Adjust "pg" in final references

I also notice an uncited paragraph at the beginning of the "Military developments leading up to the treaty" section. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations formatted as suggested. Please check ref 4 to make sure the format is ok. I'll add sources to the uncited paragraph later today.radek (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added ref for the opening paragraph of the "Military developments" section.radek (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, regretfully, on comprehensiveness and prose concerns from Mm40 (talk)

  • I'm a bit concerned that the only sources used are books freely and fully available on Google Books or online. This suggests that not all potential venues of information have been explored.
  • The article needs a good copy-edit. Some examples, from the Results and implementation section
  • Shouldn't the header be reversed? The results follow the implementation
  • The first four sentences form a short, choppy paragraph. (Throughout the article, there are a number of short paragraphs)
  • "and for the time being the fighting"
  • "with time he became more and more increasingly"
  • "were not being fulfilled" – goal's can't really be fulfilled; they can, however, be met

The article isn't bad, but I think some work is needed before it can be considered "our best work". Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re: "I'm a bit concerned..." - can you suggest any other sources that you think need to be used? Or do you see any areas in the article that look like they are in need of expansion? If not, I'd assume good faith with regards to author using sources that are good enough for the article to be comprehensive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, on this one I'm afraid that I must regretfully reject both the criticisms and the suggestions as I do not see that they are at all helpful in improving the article. You'll excuse a detailed response, but since I just took the time to read and study some of the recommended sources I believe the favor can be reciprocated:

"only sources used are books freely and fully available on Google Books or online" - why is this supposed to be a minus rather than a plus? The fact that these sources are available online facilitates verification of the text in the article and also helps to alley any potential concerns about NPOV. Should I simply remove the online links? If I had used more esoteric, hard to obtain sources I'm sure someone would have raised that as an issue at this review.

Furthermore, I'm sorry, but typing the article title into google scholar and showing that there are other works which mention the subject is not at all helpful. I'm assuming that since you're recommending "results 2, 3, and 4" you've read them. Could you suggest what information from these other sources that is not presently in the article needs to be included? Please be specific. As far as I can tell the sources you recommend only mention the treaty in passing.

Specifically: "result 2" is on a more narrowly defined topic and is not about the treaty that is the subject of the article but rather about revolution in the state of Pueblo. It mentions "Treaty of Ciudad Juarez" in passing only three times, each time only as a time-marker and nothing more: "in the months following the Treaty of Ciudad Juarez", "In the turbulent days following the signing of the Treaty of Ciudad Juarez", "following the signing of the Treaty of Ciudad Juarez". Basically, there is no information on the treaty in this article that could be included in the Wikipedia article so I really don't understand why this source is being recommended.

"result 3" is even more inappropriate as it mentions the treaty only once, in terms of establishing general background: "On 21 May, the Treaty of Ciudad Juarez was signed, marking the end of 35 years of Porfirian rule." Nothing more is said in the article about the treaty - it's about cotton production under Madero. Of course someone could start an article on that topic and use the article there. Again I am completely at a loss as to how this source would be useful.

I'm not sure if by "result 4" you mean "The spirit of Hidalgo: the Mexican Revolution in Coahuila" - which I don't have so I can't comment on it - but it appears to be, again, about a different and more narrow topic. If this is the work you are referring to, would you please indicate what kind of information is in it that needs to be included (if you could email me a copy or suggest a venue of access that'd be great)? If by "result 4" you mean "Latin America's Wars: The age of the professional soldier, 1900-2001" (or the following search result, M Gonzales, for that matter) then I assure you that I am quite familiar with that source (and the following search result). In fact ... it (and the following search result) is already being used in the article.

For good measure, the next item in your google scholar search appears to be an undergraduate thesis (though Honors), which I would not consider reliable enough for a FA article (or any Wikipedia article for that matter).

Overall, the article uses quite a range of sources, all of which are standard and widely recognized works in the topic area. The sources and the article are comprehensive and I don't see a need to cite every article on Mexican Revolution which might mention the treaty in passing.

As to your stylistic suggestions:

  • I've changed "Results and implementation" to "Implementation and results".
  • "Fulfilled" in reference to goals is more appropriate when it is a matter of degree, "met" is more appropriate where it's a yes/no 1/0 pass/fail kind of situation so I'm keeping original wording.
  • Short and to the point sentences are generally seen as a good form of writing, better than long, meandering ones. The division of text into paragraphs is done thematically but I can combine some of them if you really think it better.
  • I've changed "more and more" to "increasingly" per your suggestion. However, the qualifiers "for the time being" and "with time" belong in the sentences as they contain important information (i.e. first one indicates that this situation didn't last, while the second references the fact that this was a gradual process rather than an abrupt change) - keeping those.

Finally note that the article was found to be very well written in GA review.radek (talk) 16:08, 25 June 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 23:24, 22 June 2010 [6].

Age of Discovery

Nominator(s): Uxbona (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is now quite complete, giving an extensive and referenced view of historical occurrences crucial to understanding the early modern era and globalisation. There are several interesting articles related to the theme in different areas (such as economics, geography and even medicine) and the "Age of Discovery"/Exploration article helps with context. I thank any collaboration to help tune details. The topic is extensive, so tried to avoid excessive detail, and focus on exploration and travel, keeping the chronological order, to help understand the evolution of events often linked.Uxbona (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It appears that two sources are broken; the Robert L. Hall link does not check out and neither does the scitizen link. There are no disambiguation links. ceranthor 02:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cerantor: Hall and Scitizen links activated; hatnote with disambiguation done (assumed that was the issue)--Uxbona (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, corrected all the links. Hall's is not on-line now, but it his widely quoted, and got a link with limited access to the article; Re-connected Diamond, changing from the publisher's page to the wikipedia entry, which is quite informative, as the book itself its not readable on-line. --Uxbona (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There's now another dead link to http://www.dedicatedwriters.com/pape Ucucha 16:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, now it links.--Uxbona (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Ucucha 17:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: Considerable work is necessary on the References and Bibliography sections:-

  • References
    • Many of the short citations lack page numbers
    • None of the on-line citations are properly formatted (73, 74, 78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 89). See WP:CITE for information on citation formatting. It is essential that, in each case, the publisher and last retrieval date be given.
    • In some cases it is not clear what sources are being cited: Refs 2, 7, 75 for example
    • 18 is an unreferenced footnote which needs a source. It also needs to be corrected grammatically.
    • 82 is in Russian
    • 104: inadequate information - this book is not listed in the bibliography. We need author's full name, date of publication, publisher, ISBN if relevant and page number(s) cited.
    • Page ranges should be separated by endashes, not hyphens
  • Bibliography: Lack of consistency in entries: publishers omitted in some entries, missing ISBNs, unnecessary page range included. The Alvarez book is presumably in Spanish. Why are some online sources listed here but not others?

Also, I am a little concerned by your comment, above: "...Re-connected Diamond, changing from the publisher's page to the wikipedia entry, which is quite informative..." Does this mean that you are citing to a Wikipedia page? Brianboulton (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page ranges endashes: done.--Uxbona (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for careful review, Brianboulton: will correct it; I've never meant citing wikipedia, just linked to the overview page about the book, as the book itself is not on-line. I can remove it if its misleading.--Uxbona (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources comments: Some but not all of my concerns have been addressed. There are many referencing issues that need to be settled before this article is ready for promotion. Outstanding matters:-

  • A number of short citations to books still lack page numbers, e.g 41, 42, 47 and no doubt others
      • Page numbers are there, but you need to be consistent about page number formats. In general you do not include a space after "p." but on several occasions a space is included, e.g. in refs 19, 21 and 52 (also others). Page ranges require "pp." (see 49, 71 and various others). Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the formatting of online sources has improved, there are still numerous problems:-
    • "Exploiting the Earth": UC Davis is not the publisher of this site. Thar author, Richard Cowens, says "I am posting these here for your entertainment", and later syas that the material is "in various stages of readiness for a book in preparation." In these circumstances, can this source be considered reliable?
    • "History of Europe by Richard J. Mayne" is a combination of title and author. They need to be separated.
    • "Jacques Cartier": why is this Britannica online article formatted differently from the Richard Mayne article? Both should show author, title and publisher (Encyclopedia Britannica online)
    • "The Cabot Dilemma": it should be noted that this is obtainable through a subscription service.
    • Smithsonisn, being a magazine title, should be italicised.
    • Some of your web sources remain unformatted, for example ref 75, the three Russian rfs 79–81, and 87. It is not clear why these are not listed with the other web sources
    • Some of the retrieval dates look ancient, e.g. "14 January 2007". Has the site not been accessed for three years? Note: this point not addressed yet. Also:-
      • L'Histoire is a magazine and needs to be italicised
      • The "on subscription" message should be formatted consistently
      • What is the "The Northern Lights Route" entry that appears at the end of the list of online sources?
  • The long footnote, now ref 14, remains ungrammatical ("short" should be "shortly") and remains uncited to a source
  • Ref 79 (formerly 82) still not marked as in Russian
  • Still no details given of he Hochstrasser book, in ref. 102
  • Alvarez book still not marked as in Spanish. Same for the Garcia (1991) book
  • Loewen item lacks publisher and date information
  • The Mutch entry should state that this is from the journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society. Details are on the Gutenberg link page. "Project Gutenberg" is a facilitator, not the publisher, and should not be shown
  • A very small point: formatting of ISBN numbers needs to be consistent. In most cases you have used a straight sequence of digits, in others you have divided using hyphens.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short citations page numbers done.
Formatting of online sources done (souce Richard Cowens replaced)
Long footnote corrected and sourced
Ref 79 marked as in Russian
Details given to Hochstrasser book
Alvarez source removed as unverifiable, Garcia replaced
Loewen item lacks publisher and date information
Mutch entry corrected
ISBN numbers made consistent--Uxbona (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Brianboulton, that really helps. I'm addressing issues point by point, when not able to find page numbers, searching for similar alternative sources, meanwhile formated isbn numbers, ref 101. Left russian sources because intend to find sources in English. Hope to adress it all.--Uxbona (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would ping my talkpage when you are through, and I'll check again then. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few outstanding points per above. Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Page numbers made consistent: done.--Uxbona (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I love to see big topic FACs, but this needs a deal of polish and upgrading sources. The sentiment in the lead that "Along with the Renaissance and the rise of humanism, it was an important driver for the start of modern era, ushering in a new age of scientific and intellectual inquiry.[4]" is utterly unexceptional, and could be referenced to almost any historian, so why Walter Pater? Also there is an obvious grammatical error. I see other issues along both of these lines. Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Johnbod: Walter Pater and redundant references removed in introduction.--Uxbona (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Please be specific on English grammar/syntax or, better - heaven, really - help improving it, as I'm not an English native speaker (actually I'm portuguese). I've asked for peer review before for this also, but, as in collaboration, it was scarce. Thanks.--Uxbona (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose and Comment - Interresting topic! I will probably not have time to review the whole article but a thing that struck me was that the lead is quite short compared to the length of the article. Could it be expanded? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry but I have to oppose this per criterion 2c. There are very few inline citations, many more will be needed for this to acheive FA status. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 19:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally there seems to be missing a lot of inline citations. Many of the paragraphs does not even contain one single citation. I'm sorry but I don't think this is ready yet. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and will add more references were needed. Please consider that most of the assertions in the article are present in any common history book: I didn't felt the need to reference data such as Columbus having reached the Americas in 1492, as it would be fastidious. Still, I will make an effort to better reference some other parts. About the lead section it can be slightly extended, to give a more detailed overview, although three to four paragraphs are the norm. Hope it helps you changing your view. Thanks--Uxbona (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead probably won't be needed to be expanded that much but some would probably be good. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 11:37, 22 June 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 23:24, 22 June 2010 [11].

William Stanley (inventor)

Nominator(s): -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the criteria. I may be biased, as I am the main contributor, and I did almost all of the research - and I am proud that it was judged a 'good article'. I feel that this article is interesting, and covers the subject in as much detail as is available in the research which I did. As Stanley died just over 100 years ago, there is relatively little news coverage available! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the article should be renamed to William Stanley (inventor) or something that does not use the "Victorian" (William F. Stanley).--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a good idea! I'll do that later today (I've got to go out soon) - the reason why I'm not going to do it just now is that I'll also change any "what links here" links to the article, and I want to do that when I have the time to concentrate on it, rather than keeping an eye on the clock! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me clarify that! I mean the links from other articles, and from the GA page, as well as the link here (I presume)? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues

  • Refs 7, 27 and 31 are all inaccessible. 7 nad 31 give "access forbidden", 7 times out.
  • I commented on this on the talk page: 7 & 31 is hopefully a temporary problem (my guess is that the organisation missed a payment to their hosting company!); 27 has other problems, as you say it is timing out. I have removed them. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One way or another, this problem seems resolved. Many ref nos have changed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 38 needs a publisher: "Plaques of London"
  • Refs 53 to 57: what is being cited here?
  • Refs 59 and 60: redlinks unhelpful. Is it possible to give more information than "Unknown title"? Otherwise, how would I verify these?
  • The parameters weren't correct; corrected. The source I used did not have issue/page details (it was in Akpan's book), just the fact that they were caricatured in those pu blications- along with a copy of the caricature - but no further details. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 61 and 62: what is being cited here? }
  • Refs 64 and 65: what is being cited here? }
  • Refs 69 and 70: what is being cited here? }
  • Refs 72 and 73: what is being cited here? }
  • Ref 75: what is being cited here? }
  • Akpan references: it is not necessary to repeat the book title in each citation; "Akpan, pp. 13–14" etc is enough. There is also much scope for combining some of theses, as I notice that some page numbers are duplicated and others are adjacent.
  • I have changed it as suggested. I am going to go to the library and get the book out again (hopefully tomorrow or Saturday) - I'll change it to be "Akpan, chapter 1", "..chapter 2", etc (I will also get the page for the caricatures mentioned in refs 59 and 60 above) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is only the Akpan book listed as a "Source"? Aren't the online websites, the magazines and newspapers, also "sources?

Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me try again! I counted the book as a source because it was the main... source... of information for the article. Unlike the websites, newspapers, magazines (where information about Stanley formed a small part of the medium, for example 1/2 a column in a newspaper), the whole of the book is about him. I have moved the book to the "Further reading" (as, obviously, she goes into more detail than the article, otherwise the article would probably be about 50 pages or more long!) - if you can think of a better way of listing the book (as the references use it a lot!), then I'd welcome it! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking the time to look at the article and respond here, Brianboulton. Apart from the Akpan references, I trust this addresses your concerns, please let me know if there is anything else which you think that I need to do! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reworked the Akpan references so they are by Chapter - I still need to add a couple of references from it, but I need to re-read it to find them! I'll try to do that tonight. I have also made all the "Notes and References" to be "Notes" and the book itself in "References" as at WP:CITESHORT. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't honestly think that WP:CITESHORT gives much help here, where the article is supported by references to many journal and online sources, and only one book. It just looks wrong to have that single book listed as "References". What would a reader unacquainted with Wikipedia's MOS make of this? Personally, what I would do is to give the Akpan book's full details in Ref. 5, the first citation to the book, and use the short form for the subsequent citations to the book. You could then remove the one-item "References" list, and use the References title instead of "Notes". That way you have a complete listing of all references under a single appropriate heading. Brianboulton (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good advice, Brianboulton - thanks. I have done as you have suggested. I am going to get a coffee, and then I'll look at your remaining points (for the patents, I'm going to see if I can find them via Google, and use that instead) - and then I'll update the status here (both for your comments and for Nikkimaria's below) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I think I have addressed all the issues now! I have also added a few more patents using Inwards! Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done, and once again thanks for taking the time to respond to this FAC discussion, it's appreciated! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsWeak Oppose - interesting article, but needs some improvement still. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC) My opposition is based mostly on prose concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based on article length, lead should be at least 3 paragraphs
  • Cumberlow or Cumerlow Lodge?
  • I fixed a couple of typos, but there might be others. If you can find someone to copy-edit the article, that would definitely help to achieve the "professional prose" required by FA
  • Some section headings need to be changed for clarity. Also, per MoS, section headings should start with "the", and should avoid repeating "Stanley" where not absolutely necessary
  • "He was also a skilled architect who designed and founded the UK's first Trades school, Stanley Trades School — later renamed as Stanley Technical School (now Harris Academy South Norwood), as well as the Stanley Halls in South Norwood." - sentence is overly complex, should be broken up.
    Done (I've put the final sentence in this point on a separate line, as I still need to deal with it!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several other run-on sentences to change
  • "He was an engineer who designed and made precision drawing and mathematical instruments, as well as surveying instruments and telescopes, manufactured by his company "William Ford Stanley and Co. Ltd.""; "Stanley worked in his father's unsuccessful building business, becoming adept at working with metal and wood, later to obtain employment as a plumber/drainage contractor and joiner in London"; "Stanley designed and set up a factory in 1875 or 1876 (called The Stanley Works, it was listed in the 1876 Croydon Directories as Stanley Mathematical Instruments) in Belgrave Road near Norwood Junction railway station, which produced a variety of instruments for civil, military, and mining engineers, prospectors and explorers, architects, meteorologists and artists, including various Technical drawing tools"; "His 1890 catalogue shows that the company were selling Magic Lanterns, with a variety of slides including such subjects as the Siege of Paris, the travels of Dr Livingstone and Dante's Inferno, as well as improving stories for children such as Mother's Last Words and The Drunkard's Children, while in the catalogue for 1891, Stanley refers to the company having 17 branches, with over 130 workmen"; etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the one-paragraph subsections would be better incorporated into larger sections
  • Could you give some examples - the ones I see are in "Final years and death" and "Legacy" - and I'm not sure how they can be incorporated easily into larger sections (although I will look through it again on Monday, as I'm about to go to bed, so could be missing it because I'm tired!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two subsections of "Personal life" could be combined, or the second subsection could be combined with the first; the third and fourth subsections of "Entrepreneur" could be combined; the second and third subsections of "Legacy" could be combined. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally speaking, it's less disruptive to put footnotes at the end of sentences, and where possible to combine them
  • Numbers under 10 should generally be spelled out
  • Some of the extensive lists should be converted to prose
  • Avoid one- or two-sentence paragraphs
  • What was the school called when it first opened? Be consistent in naming between lead and article text
  • Be consistent in naming - World War II or Second World War?
  • Last patent needs citation
  • Magazine articles should be in quotations, magazines should be italicized
  • Since Akpan is used as a reference, it shouldn't also be listed in Further reading
  • Citation formatting (in both references and Further reading) should be consistent, and avoid double periods ("..")
  • Subscriptions are free for holders of a British library?
  • "he had sold enough to produce enough" - repetitive
  • I have done a lot of them, but will continue on Monday. I have also obtained a copy of "William Ford Stanley: His Life and Work" edited by Richard Inwards (presented to Croydon Library "With the compliments W.F. Stanley & Co. Ltd") from 1911, which may give me more citations if required and/or new information... I should get the chance to read it over the weekend (it's only 82 pages long!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I think I've got practically everything on your list - but if there are any more ideas for what needs to be improved to get this to FA status, let me know! Life is hectic over the weekend, but I should be back online on Monday (if I'm not on before), so will re-read the article then, plus any comments here! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:41, 18 June 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 23:24, 22 June 2010 [12].

Hod Stuart

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth article from List of ice hockey players who died during their playing career and the third player from the 1945 Hockey Hall of Fame induction class, the Hod Stuart article is currently a GA, and has been reviewed by two experienced editors at WP:HOCKEY, as well as countless reviews I've done myself. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: all sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media Great job with the images, can these be moved to commons so other language projects can benefit from your excellent work Fasach Nua (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All four of them are already uploaded in Commons. But I went ahead and grouped them all together over there, and linked that to this article. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comprehensiveness? Has a full length book been written on this guy, or even a mini-bio chapter in a book somewhere? None appear to be used and most of the books are apparently only used in passing. At the moment, the article is very short given that he was an inaugural HOF member (therefore regarded in the top/most important 12 off all time up to that point) in a mainstream sport and described in the article as an all-time great (In ACHOF for instance, all of the ten inaugural have at least one full length book, but usually 3 or more, and the same for most of the others, including all the oldies) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortuanetly, there is little information about most of the early HHOF members, and most of what is written is often either a brief summary of their career, or mentioning them in passing in regards to significant events they were part of. This article includes essentially all available information I could find about Stuart, which I'll agree is not much; if there were more information available, I would have definetly included it. Regardless, I don't think the length of the article should affect this or not; past short articles have passed, so long as they are comprehensive, which I believe this article to be. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:47, 11 June 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 23:24, 22 June 2010 [13].

His Band and the Street Choir

Nominator(s):  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 18:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I nominated it before but the general consensus was it needed a copyedit. Now the article's been copyedited I'd like to renominate it. Thanks  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 18:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues

  • What makes http://www.oocities.com/sfloman/vanmorrison.html#3 a reliable source?
  • There are several formatting problems in your references list.
    • Date and publisher location missing from Van Morrison Anthology. Format should be title, date, location, publisher, isbn.
    • Website names should not be shown as publishers. For example, the publisher of the Ankeny source is Allmusic, not allmusic.com. Likewise, Robert Christgau and others.
    • Titles should be shown as per the website. For example the three Christgau titles are "Consumer Guide Reviews". "Consumer Guide (16)" and "Consumer Guide Album". Check other titles
    • The "Dutch singles" source lacks publisher details
    • The Dave Marsh site is a subscription service and should be marked (subscription required)

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Floman, writer of the oocities review, is a music critic for Goldmine (magazine): http://sfloman.com/faq.html; http://www.disclaimerband.com/musiclinks.html. I've fixed the sourcing issues appart from the Alfred Music Publishing date which isn't listed on the publication.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 12:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the formats of the first two references; the Unterberger entry looks in need of attention. According to Abebooks the publication year for the Alfred Music Publishing version of the anthology is 1999. Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the date and changed the Unterberger ref title. Cheers  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 10:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Some of the sources used do not check out for the material that is referenced. References cited in books by Heylin & Hinton in particular. I don't have all of the books so don't know if other book sourced material is accurate or not. The information is embellished or changed in context from that cited on the book's page number . See my comment on article talk page. Agadant (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what the problem is. As the article has progressed the infomation and sources have been moved around so the right infommation is referenced by the wrong source. I think I've fixed the problem.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 12:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "As of 2010, It remains Morrison's most successful single of his solo career." Why is "It" capitalized? Oh, and while I'm here, I think a less wordy version would be "As of 2010, it remains the most successful single of Morrison's solo career."
  • Recording: "The backing vocal trio of Emily Houston, Judy Clay and Jackie Verdell also returned in order sing on 'If I Ever Needed Someone'." Missing "to". Also, I don't think "in order" is needed here; you can just go with "returned to sing on...".
  • Composition: Around reference 25, there is a space between an apostrophe and a quotation mark. Is this intentional?
  • I'm a little uncomfortable with the first part of the "catchy gospel-style composition" bit. The word "catchy" sounds like someone's opinion. Would it be possible to offer some attribution for this?
  • "Writer Brian Hinton described the lyrics of the song are 'perversely bitter'." "are" → "as".
  • Packaging: No hyphen after ly- (such as "incorrectly-ordered") unless there is a compounding element.
  • Chart performance: De-capitalize The in "The Netherlands". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I've fixed all the issues raised.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 08:12, 22 June 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 23:24, 22 June 2010 [14].

Pepper v Hart

Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is of sufficient quality, and enough time has passed between the last nomination and this one. Those of you who want a summary of what the article is before you review it, leads exist for a reason. Ironholds (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues: The sources look OK, but there are issues of clarity associated with citation style:-

  • It would be helpful, and informative, if BAILII was spelt out on first mention
  • Is there any reason why the third, rather than the first, of the BAILII citations is given in full?
  • Citations to cases: the form "[1678] 3 Swan 644" as used a number of times is not clear to the general reader, and needs to be explained.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed; for the second point, I forgot to fix it :(. Ironholds (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the case citations, my point is that the ordinary reader won't know how to interpret the format, or how to verify the citation. Where are the records of these cases to be found (you presumably had access to them, or to their findings)? Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I see the confusion here. They aren't being used as sources (they'd be primary), the case citations are simply there so that people can, if they choose, look up the original judgment(s) of each case mentioned. They aren't necessary for verifiability, merely something nice to add in case we have some interested legally-minded readers. Most of them can be found through BAILII and similar; the older cases in the English Reports. Ironholds (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the trouble is, these are listed with the references, and your point above will not be apparent to the general, non-legal reader (such as me, for example). Why not list the case citations separately, under a "Case citations" heading, and add an explanatory note as to the format, which as given is pretty well meaningless to the non-legal reader? Brianboulton (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point; I'll do that this evening and give you a poke when I'm done. Ironholds (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, fixed. Ironholds (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Separate listing fixed, good. But what about an explanatory note on the format? Brianboulton (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was assuming a bluelinked section header would do; do you mean like the one I had before, or is something more needed? Ironholds (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOS disapproves bluelinks in section headings. What I had in mind was a simple note under the heading, thus:
  • "Citation format: year of decision; abbreviated title of the court; the decision number"
That should deal with it. Brianboulton (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, dealt with. Ironholds (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Brianboulton (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media File:UK_Royal_Coat_of_Arms.svg is a user made image, why is there not a pd-old version from an official government source? Fasach Nua (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I was going to go out on a limb I'd say its because coats of arms here have specific and very unusual copyright status. A derivative of a pd-old work is acceptable; finding a pd-old work is not. Ironholds (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 15:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Savidan 00:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you've got to blockquote the section of the statute at issue in the fact section. Verbatim would be my preference. We read this case even in the US, and I do not recall the relevant section being excessively long.
    • I think you need to quote the juiciest parts of the legislative history that made the House of Lords change its mind.
    • I think you need to mention, link, and likely explain the economic concepts of marginal cost and average total cost so that reader's can understand the two competing interpretations of the statute.
    • The article states that the House of Lord initially agreed with the lower court before rehearing. The article should explain the source of this claim. Is it just the text of the final opinion? Other statements by the judges? A draft opinion?
    • Name the five judges on the initial panel.
    • With reference to both panels, explain which judges: (1) found the statute unambiguous; (2) found the statute ambiguous before reading Hansard; (3) found the statute ambiguous only after reading Hansard
      • Well, the first panel never gave a judgment. The second, I'll look into.
        • This information and the above is in Eskridge and Frickey's Legislation. They didn't make it up, and when they get their information from personal correspondence, they note it in a footnote. That tells me that it's available in a law review or similar. I'd give you the page #, but I don't think its appropriate to cite a tertiary source. Savidan 23:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've now added the way people were swayed by Hansard. Ironholds (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • With reference to Pickstone, I think you need to explain what you mean by "determine the purpose of legislation (but not to interpret the statute)." Determining purpose, to many, would seem to be a critical and often dispositive component of interpretation.
    • There are only two words of academic praise of the decision quoted. Are you representing that there are no other legal scholars who have been supportive of the decision? Granted that legislative history is a controversial issue, but not an entirely one-sided one.
    • Do any of the critics you have cited argue that Parliament actually intended otherwise with the relevant statute? In other words, do they simply object to the use of legislative history or do they also argue that the court has used it incorrectly? This should be clarified.
      • It's fairly clear; if you can show me any ambiguous phrasing I'd be happy to correct it. 01:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The Pepper decision briefly discusses the legislative history situation in the US, Australia, and New Zealand. I think the comparative context should be mentioned, albeit briefly. Good article for the US: 35 Stan. J. Int'l L. 231 (which you appear to have cited, but not on this issue). Consider also the impact of the decision in Canada (47 Can. Tax. J. 471 & 741)
    • I think you might consider explaining what "Hansard" is, not just linking
    • The empirical result of Pepper on the lower courts must be explained. A good starting point is: Brudney, "Below the Surface," 85 Wash. U.L. Rev. 1 (2007)
    • The commentary of the Lords themselves should be included. See Millett (20 Stat. L. Rev. 107).
    • You mention Hoffman's article but the citation is to Vogenauer. I suggest you read the article itself and cite it on its own weight (114 S. A. L. J. 656).
    • A good article overall, and I hope to be able to support its promotion if these are rectified.
I'll send you the articles I have linked. However, it has become clear to me that you do not have access to a law research database (e.g. Lexis, Westlaw). Therefore, I am unwilling your assertion that academic support for this decision simply does not exist. I also think that someone should do a systematic search of decisions that cite to Pepper v Hart. I would do this myself but I am busy for the foreseeable future and this is not my area of expertise. Therefore, I don't think I'll be comfortable supporting this article until you get yourself to a law library or find a kindly lawyer or law student to assist you. Savidan 23:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tell me, do they write a book on being highly patronising, or did you learn it yourself? A kindly lawyer or law student? I am a law student. The most scant search into my contributions would have discovered the six featured articles, thirty-one good articles and one hundred and sixty one Did You Know credits I have for writing, primarily about the law. I do have access to both Lexis and Westlaw, just not to some of those articles; in case the subject of the article wasn't a hint, I'm British. Our Westlaw and LexisNexis access doesn't line up exactly with yours. Where on earth do you think I got the journal articles cited from, the inside of my head? As explained to you, it isn't "my" assertion - it's Stefan Vogenauer's assertion. In case you've never heard of him, he's Professor of Comparative Law at the University of Oxford. Ironholds (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not mean to offend you. What I said has nothing to do with your personal qualifications, only your ability to access articles. However, I do think you need to search more than just UK-only law reviews before claiming that something doesn't exist. In fact, I do not believe that Vogenauer himself makes as extreme a claim as you do. He says: "The first academic responses to Pepper were much more muted. Only a few writers regarded it as a 'long overdue' decision from 'which there is no turning back'. n39 Most case notes rather emphasized the problematic aspects and essentially rehearsed the familiar reasons for the exclusionary rule. Some of them focused more strongly on the pragmatic reasons, n40 others highlighted the argument against intentionalism n41 or the argument from the rule of law. n42 It was, however, the argument from the separation of powers which almost all the commentators advanced as the most serious concern." First, he is only talking about the early academic responses. Second, he says most, not all. He may be right that >50% of the responses were negative, but thats a far cry from saying there were no positive responses. Third, he said that five years ago. Savidan 01:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You didn't mean to be offensive? Read what you wrote. To translate it into your area of expertise, how would you feel if you spent ages working on an article about catholicism only to be told that you can't have any sources, because the reviewer has a source you don't, and that maybe you should sit at the little boys table until a real catholic comes along to fix it. And I'd love to look further than UK law journals; as stated, however, I'm using the British westlaw and lexisnexis versions; they're fairly limited. Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see how you can simultaneously admit that you have access only to a very limited set of sources and then take offense when someone points that out. In my mind, that pool of sources is not comprehensive enough to satisfy the featured article standards. This concern is amplified when the article includes substantial criticism, but hardly any support. That would only be acceptable if there truly was no academic support for the decision, and it would appear that you simply are not in a position to verify that at the moment. Savidan 02:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, I can take offence to someone saying that I don't have access to sources I do have access to, and patronisingly assuming I have no legal qualifications or education. I will make the changes you've suggested (with the help of the articles you've helpfully provided me with) this morning and tomorrow morning, since I'm moving back to London this afternoon. Thank you. Ironholds (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should add that after conducting the GA review for this article I did a thorough search for additional academic sources and could only find one article of real substance (which I sent to Ironholds). I can access a lot of stuff: I'm a lawyer and hopefully a kindly one. I was concerned in the GA review that the academic commentary was resoundingly negative; but so it is. I wasn't able to find anything positive. Academics like to criticise judges and very rarely have nice things to say about their professional superiors.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, you should talk to my old contract law lecturer. Eeevery lecture was a trip down the garden path to "and I'll tell you something about JUDGES...". Ironholds (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary of concern about lack of academic support for decision - Both Ironholds and Mkativerata have represented that they have searched for academic support for the decision, and found none. I accept 100% that they have actually done so and that both of them are qualified to appropriately identify such commentary. However, it is still an extraordinary claim to state that all academic commentary about a decision is resoundingly negative. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The fact remains that without very much effort I was able to identify 5 articles that I considered crucial to writing this article comprehensively, and neither Ironholds nor Mkativerata were able to find any of the them. Either of them should feel free to correct me if they were able to access these articles but simply did not consider them of "real substance." Therefore, I am unable to accept that either of them have access to enough sources to infer evidence of absence from absence of evidence. If they were finding some support for the decision in UK and Australian law reviews, I would possibly be willing to accept those authors as representative of the [US, Canadian, etc.] literature base. However, I am not willing to give a stamp of approval to an article that claims there is no academic support for the decision based on a search of only a portion of the literature. I know from personal experience that there are numerous defenders of the practice of citing legislative history in the academic community. It is possible that all of them have failed to comment upon probably the most significant single judicial decision authorizing the practice, but that is a claim I cannot yet accept. Perhaps others can. Savidan 14:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no, neither of us said that. I have included multiple quotes and bits and bobs from people who indeed supported that decision; I have never claimed the academic community unanimously asserted that the decision was a bad one. " I know from personal experience that there are numerous defenders of the practice of citing legislative history in the academic community. It is possible that all of them have failed to comment upon probably the most significant single judicial decision authorizing the practice, but that is a claim I cannot yet accept." - you are evidently unable to provide these people. Obviously, like us, you're not qualified to comment. Ironholds (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This experience is becoming increasingly bizarre for me. I'm generally opposed to quoting people's words back to them, but I now no longer understand your position. Above, I asked: "Are you representing that there are no other legal scholars who have been supportive of the decision?" You replied: "Basically, yes" and added "all the commentary I found was negative" (your emphasis). If you have in fact identified authors who supported the decision, add that to the "approval" section, which currently includes no academic commentary except for the two words quoted from Vogenauer (himself an opponent of the decision). As a start, perhaps I could suggest that you go to the original article quoted by Voeganuer, read it, see who it cites, and see who cites it. Savidan 16:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, "no other legal scholars", interpreted by me as "no scholars other than those already given". I can't find the scholar he's quoting, and evidently you can't either. Surely the fact that three lawyers/law students (me, you and Mkativerata) can't find any other sources should be a sign? Particularly when academic commentators have noted that the overwhelming reaction has been negative. The requirement is not to include every source on the face of the earth, it is to include a fair representation of commentary. Most commentators don't like it, and commentators say most commentators don't like it. The article includes largely negative reactions, because the reactions were largely negative. You will note that I have included positive academic and judicial reactions where such reactions cannot be found (this is including the sources you provided). You can't find anything else positive. I can't find anything else positive. Mkativerata can't find anything else positive. We are all lawyers or law students with access to the journals of three different major common law jurisdictions as well as international commentary. Have you considered we can't find much positive commentary because, like Vogenauer said, most of it wasn't positive? Ironholds (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't include me in this. I haven't had time (and don't have time, for the forseeable future) to perform a full search. Based on the above, I think it's clear that neither you or Mkativerata have access to large swathes of US and Canadian law journals. I want someone to search those journals before I so conclude. I'm not going to get into repeating myself, but as I explained above, I do not share your interpretation of Vogenauer as saying anything more than "most" (i.e. >50%) and do not believe it is current enough. Savidan 17:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have, noting your concern, asked User:Bearian to undertake a search. He's a US law lecturer; is that acceptable? Ironholds (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment - wherever possible, sources should be cited to the most direct source possible, not a secondary or tertiary source. For example, several commentators are referred to but the citation is to someone citing them. Even quotes from judicial decisions are sometimes cited to commentators. Even the statute (which still has an unnecessary [...]) is cited to "Glover" instead of using a more traditional method for citing statutes. Savidan 16:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were to actually read Glover's entry in the bibliography, you would see that he was the head of Her Majesty's Stationary Office, which provides the print versions of all sources. I fail to see what the problem is. On the direct sources front, "wherever possible" is something I agree with, but since none of us have been able to provide the direct sources (despite, as said above, having collective access to vast numbers of journals)... Ironholds (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read it and think you can do better. There are publicly available statute databases that are far more useful, and that doesn't get into the question of proper citation. I don't know whether I have access to these sources; I don't have time to check them all, but in my mind this citation does not conform to best practices or the FA standards. If someone is important enough to single out in the article, they should be cited on their own weight. If you really don't have access to so many of the sources (keeping in mind that many journals are available outside of Westlaw and Lexis), I find it troubling that so many sources deemed so important haven't actually be read first hand. Savidan 17:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How many is "so many"?
  • To simplify this whole debate; you claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Can you, then, provide extraordinary evidence to prove the assertion that when three lawyers or law students with access to three wide-ranging, highly different sets of journals in distinct and important common law jurisdictions cannot provide large amounts of positive academic criticism about a decision, the conclusion to be drawn is that people aren't looking hard enough? the most likely explanation is usually the correct one. In this case, what is more likely; that the mass of journals trawled through don't have positive commentary because there hasn't been enough trawling, or because that commentary simply doesn't exist to a significant degree? Ironholds (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me state my hypothesis clearly: I think that US and Canadian law reviews will provide some support for the decision. Savidan 17:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've included both. Again, you are a US law student. If there are so many US law commentators with positive things to say, why have you been unable to find them? Could it be that they don't exist? Ironholds (talk) 17:41, 15 June 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 23:24, 22 June 2010 [15].

British European Airways Flight 548

Nominator(s): Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am presenting this article as a Featured Article Candidate as I feel that with much work recently carried out it meets the criteria subject to review. It will be my third collaboration for a Featured Article with Red Sunset, although he is inactive on Wikipedia at the moment he has given his blessing to submit the article and I have to thank him again for his work. BEA Flight 548 (often better known as the Staines air disaster) was the worst air accident in Britain prior to Pan Am Flight 103 (The Lockerbie bombing), as a 10 year old I remember the eerie effect that it had on the nation. At school, six years later, a teacher recounted his visit to the accident site and what he witnessed (he was an RAF officer at that time).

As a private pilot myself, I have a natural interest in accident investigation and the subsequent reports, the report from this accident was highly unusual in that it was carried out by a public enquiry and not solely by the AIB (now the Air Accident Investigation Branch) which caused controversy at the time. Recommendations from the report affect how aircrews operate today, the accident is used as an example in Crew Resource Management training. Work on the article has focussed on checking the facts and replacing the unhelpful 'ibid' and 'op cit' reference format. Many of the reference books repeat content of the accident reports, a mixture of both has been used. For balance (against findings of crew error) are published theories from Bartelski and I have added a statement from Julie Key, daughter of the captain. The exact cause of the accident will remain a mystery as no cockpit voice recorder was fitted, recommendations from this accident investigation resulted in them being fitted to airliners in the UK.

Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: The sources themselves look OK, but there are numerous formatting issues as listed below.

  • Ref. 10: The journal is FLIGHT Magazine (with caps); not necessary to include the web address as that is in the link. Check other citations to same source for similar format problems
  • Ref. 11: "AIB" should be spelt out on first mention, so that it is clearly identified.
  • Ref. 13: Again, the web address is unnecessary. Same point applies to several more references (21, 22, 24 etc); give the name of the publishing organisation, not the web address.
  • Ref. 15: Can you clarify what information in this source supports the statement cited to it?
  • Ref. 39: "BBC News" should not be in the title. Publisher is BBC. Web address unnecessary. See also 68 and 69.
  • Ref. 54: Where was this cover note published? Can it be accessed?
  • Ref. 63: Again, it is necessary to separate the publisher's name from the title.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, I believe that all the referencing format corrections have now been applied. Ref 15 merely shows that the CHIRP system exists and is indeed run by the Civil Aviation Authority, I probably left the link there to assist either myself or another editor to create an article on the programme. I can remove that cite if it is harming the article as two other cites support the text in that paragraph. Ref 54 (cover note) is the fifth page of the PDF accident report and was not given a page number by the authorities. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More referencing issues I'm afraid. I've already mentioned this on the talk page but a lot of references don't use the <ref name=> system. For referencing book sources, {{sfn}} could be employed as it allows navigation from ref to source and back. The system is used on the Hawkhurst Branch Line article amongst others. {{cite book}} should be used throughout in the bibliography system. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, the refname system is in use, I did find a few stray ones and hopefully have corrected them all. From WP:CITESHORT: Short citations can be written manually, or by using the {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}} templates, though note that templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style. There is no requirement that I am aware of to template format the bibliography section. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:26, 3 June 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 18:45, 19 June 2010 [16].

National Anthem of Russia

Nominator(s): User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:FFA, has been on main page

The last time I was at FAC with this article around March, some of you had issues with the prose. Alright, fair enough. The article received a copyedit recently from User:Fartherred and has received an indirect one by User:Niagara (he posted the corrections at Wikipedia:Peer review/National Anthem of Russia/archive2 and I pasted them at the article) and another one from User:AnOddName. User:SMasters and User:Archer888 (as Archer884) also performed early copyedits. Other users that checked for grammar was User:JamesBWatson and User:NativeForeigner. Some of the content itself was overhauled by User:Russavia. For example, he replaced the lead image with an actual video (one of the issues Tony1 had in the previous FAC) and replaced the regulations with a djvu file and uploaded more video and audio content that was published by the Kremlin. Some other changes were done by User:Seryo93. Overall, I am pretty happy with the progress since the last FAC and I hope you all are too. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images use this image or other that doesn't have a postmark, File:Russian_anthem_poster_Moscow_cropped.jpg needs stated who owns the copyright of the work it is derived from, this image could also under go a keystone correction Fasach Nua (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second image is cropped from File:Russian_anthem_poster_Moscow.jpg, which I obtained the copyright permissions via Flickr. I can upload a new image now to replace the post mark. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was the owner of the billboard I was interested in Fasach Nua (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...good point. Removing until the issue is sorted out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: These look OK. In the bibliography the Sandved book requires a publisher. Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abradale Press is the publisher. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What does this phrase mean: In a November session of the Federation Council, Putin stated that a new national flag, coat of arms and national anthem is important to Russia should be a top priority for the country? Is it grammatical? I also think a source would be welcome for this: In a 2009 poll, about half of the respondents felt proud when hearing the anthem, but many either did not like the anthem or could not recall the lyrics. The Wiki ghost (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence was suggested to me in the peer review, but I changed it to "In a November session of the Federation Council, Putin stated that establishing the national symbols (flag, anthem and coat of arms) should be a top priority for the country." That second statement is covered by citation 65 at http://www.cdi.org/Russia/johnson/2009-154-2.cfm. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I know how frustrating this will be, given all of the work that has gone into polishing the prose. But the lead alone is overloaded with clunky writing: "The anthem was unpopular, due to its lack of lyrics. In addition, it did not inspire some Russian athletes during international competitions. A few contests were then sponsored by the government to include lyrics in the anthem, however none were adopted." The first comma should be removed, and the first two sentences should be combined. The final sentence is in passive voice (active voice = "The government sponsored a few contests"), and the conjunctive adverb "however" needs a semicolon before it and a comma after.

There are many other such examples throughout the article; rather than spot-check individual paragraphs, however, I recommend removing it from FAC and doing another round of copyediting. I may be able to help, but I have a prior commitment to which I must first attend. Scartol • Tok 22:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had several before I came here the first time and the second time, I still find it hard to believe that there are still more examples of this problem. I already sent it to the copyeditor's guild, who else can I even prod? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The writing needs to be in a "short and sharp" state. Scartol is trying to say that it's slow and boring to read, for example, The anthem was unpopular due to its lack ... **falls asleep**. Another example, A few contests were then sponsored by the government to ... **tell me already**. Bring the action to the front of the sentence. Davtra (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first comment, that is the reason why there was an anthem change in 2000, so leaving that out will make summary not true. I did change the second statement. Anyways, do you think the two of you, in due time, will be able to make the text "more exciting?" User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I never meant to imply anything about boring vs. exciting prose. Simply efficient vs. inefficient means of communicating information with the reader, along with adhering to the rules of polished writing. As I said, there are so many spots (and I'm so busy at present) that giving lists of examples is counterproductive. Scartol • Tok 10:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Can you quickly read the lead section? It was rewritten. Does it get the message across? Thanks Davtra (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The prose has been improved just enough to pass criterion 1a. I don't consider it "brilliant", and there are still some problems (frequently-repeating words, etc), but it has reached a suitably professional standard and I'm happy to Support. Scartol • Tok 12:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am still looking forward to have people gloss over the text, but I am glad it meets your standards now. Thank you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been looking at the lead section. I don't know much about Russia and the Soviet Union. I think a brief history is appropriate. Scartol already made this suggestion in the article's talk page. This sentence in the first paragraph, Its musical composition and lyrics were adopted from the anthem of the Soviet Union, will make the reader question, "Why did Russia adopt the Soviet anthem?" The answer should be given after that sentence. These questions spring into my mind (answers should be in this order): What was the anthem used in Russia before the formation of the Soviet Union? What was the Soviet Union? When and why was the Soviet Union formed? Was Russia part of the Soviet Union? If so, that means Russia changed its anthem to the Soviet anthem, right? Who wrote the Soviet anthem? What anthem was used during the Soviet era? This need not be in great detail. I think the next paragraph about its collapse will link well. Davtra (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had it where both Alexandrov and Mikhalkov were the creators of the Soviet anthem. "Its musical composition and lyrics were adopted from the anthem of the Soviet Union, composed by Alexander Alexandrov and lyricist Sergey Mikhalkov. Alexandrov and Mikhalkov amended the anthem to evoke and eulogize the history and traditions of Russia." However, I will need to change that because Alexandrov died in 1944 and Mikhalkov was the only survivor when it came to the original 1944 Soviet anthem. (He died in 2009). I will give the lead a little bit of a fixing up now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:34, 19 June 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 12:29, 17 June 2010 [17].

Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid

Nominator(s): CoercorashTalkContr. 05:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...

  1. Even after this article is related to Palestine-Israel conflict,it's very much neutral.
  2. It contains 318 references(you've read correct,it's 318!);as per:05:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC).This is probably the biggest number of references on wikipedia.
  3. Almost all of the sources are reliable news sources.
  4. IMO,One of the most interesting thing is that the article developed in just about 2 weeks!!

CoercorashTalkContr. 05:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: four links to dab pages and at least ten dead external links (see the links in the toolbox to the right). Lead is not engagingly written, full of long lists of countries. The article contains several sections with lists that may be better as prose, and contains sections marked for undue weight and as requiring expansion. References are inconsistently formatted and often just URLs.

    That's just what I spotted on a quick look; there are undoubtedly more problems. I suggest you withdraw this nomination, fix the problems noted, and then ask for a peer review before bringing this article to FAC again. I also note that the nominator is not a primary contributor to the article (compare FAC instructions); have the primary contributors been consulted before this nomination? Ucucha 06:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Reference formatting is inconsistent, a pov orange tag is still on the article, this resembles a list more than article, and I question if enough distance is between now and the event to establish a stable, historic perspective yet. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The lengthy outlook of this article still reflects the destructive edit warring it underwent. For instance, the section that supposedly covers the reactions of "Israeli and Jewish organizations" actually covers the reaction of B'Tselem and two small Jewish organizations I've never heard of. Most Israeli and Jewish organizations expressed opposing views to those expressed in the article body, but these are not covered. I hope one day tiny fairies will bother to come and rewrite this article in accordance with encyclopedic standards. Until then, it's just another noncomprehensive and biased article that fails to cover yet another minor aspect of current Middle-Eastern politics. Even Hama massacre is better. ליאור • Lior (talk) 08:48, 17 June 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 03:05, 16 June 2010 [18].

Mark Steel's in Town

Nominator(s): ISD (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article is of high quality. The article is already a GA and has gone through two peer reviews. Also, there are not that many radio shows which have been promoted to FA so I think that to get this promoted will expand Wikipedia's range of high-quality work. ISD (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - The use of File:Mark_Steel's_in_Town.jpg is not needed to understand a radio programme, the very nature of the medium is that it can stand alone without the need for images, wp:nfcc not met, therefore WP:FA Criteria 3 not met Fasach Nua (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

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 03:05, 16 June 2010 [19].

Daniel Sedin

Nominator(s): Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sedin is a Swedish ice hockey player for the Vancouver Canucks who recently came off the best season of his career. I've successfully passed his twin brother Henrik Sedin's article through FAC the past week and have moved on to Daniel's article. As their careers have been played parallel to one another, the two articles are pretty similar. I've gone through Daniel's article to ensure it is up to the same standard as Henrik's FA article. This should hopefully bypass a lot of the revisions that were necessary to pass Henrik Sedin through FAC. Thanks. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The 2007-08 season is only given one sentence. Given that he had a similar level of success in the other seasons before and after, what is the justification for this apparent lack of weight. The second and third season also seem a bit skinny. In one way, this may not be particularly surprising given that he was rather unproductive, but as he was re-signed immediately after, was there much speculation that he could have been dumped, traded or had his pay cut? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple sentences to 2007-08, but I'm not sure I can find anything else for the time being to expand that season without it being somewhat trivial in comparison to what's mentioned in the rest of the article. The same goes for the second and third seasons, but I'll keep looking. In regards to speculation around his re-signing after the third season, I think the consensus was that they were in fact performing a little below expectations (not having improved on their rookie seasons points-wise), but as they were still developing, I don't think anyone but rabid fans wanted them gone. At any rate, I'll also keep on the lookout for any commentary in regards to that. Thanks for the comments! Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • If "USA Today" is a printed magazine the name should be italicised (see ref. 16 et al)
  • Ref 18: "The Sunday Gazette" is a fairly common newspaper name. Is it possible to locate this one geographically?
  • Ref 19: it's The New York Times, not New York Times
  • Ref 33: I think it's The Edmonton Journal
  • Ref 34 et al: I also think it's The Vancouver Sun

Otherwise sources seem OK. Brianboulton (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing those out. I believe I've fixed all the above concerns. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, I've expanded the lead quite a bit; let me know how it looks. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 23:35, 1 June 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 03:05, 16 June 2010 [20].

Nimitz class aircraft carrier

Nominator(s): Fourth ventricle (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this article for a long time now (I used the account Jhbuk by the way), and I thought now would be a good opportunity to try an FAC. It is currently a GA and I have worked on it since that review, so I now feel that it is just about there. I'm willing to put in any work required for improvements. Fourth ventricle (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed 3, but http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_24_239/ai_n29459545/ seems to work. Fourth ventricle (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Must have been temporary; all external links fine now. Ucucha 12:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nimitz.gif requires a caption Fasach Nua (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and referencing

  • A number of references lack publisher information, specically: 2, 19, 24, 29, 40 to 43 (all same source), 47, 50, 53
I've done most, but I wasn't really sure what to put for 29. Fourth ventricle (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 6 still lacks a publisher. Brianboulton (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standard form of paging used is "p. xxx" Refs 7 and 11 use different page number forms, and should be standardised,
  • I was repeatedly timed out on Ref. 22
  • Print sources should be italicised, e.g. in Refs 25, 26 (where the publisher is Frontline not "Frontline Magazine"), 73
I don't beliew that "Bloomberg P.P." (56) and "GMA News" (57) are print sources, therefore should not be italicised. Brianboulton (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Access problems with Ref 54
  • ISBN missing from Ref. 74
  • Ref. 76 gives an incorrect article title
  • Ref. 78: standard format is title before publisher
  • Ref. 82: the publisher is given as "Defense Industry Daily", but the article appears to come from Newport News, unless I am misunderstanding something.
I think it is actually "Defense Daily" and I misread it - Newport News seems to be the location. Otherwise, I think I've sorted everything listed out. Fourth ventricle (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources and references look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that a number of references have been changed or withdrawn. What are the current numbers of what were 74, 76, 78 and 82 when I did the initial sources review? Brianboulton (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
74 is now 65; 76 is 67; 78 is now 69; 82 is now 72 Fourth ventricle (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think they've changed again...(my fault for not checking back sooner). I've done a quick recheck, and I think allis now well, formatwise. Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments -- impressed with what I gather is a first attempt at FAC. A few prose issues:
    • The Nimitz-class aircraft carriers were ordered to supplement the aircraft carriers of the Kitty Hawk class and Enterprise class, in order to maintain the size and ability of the US Navy after previous carriers were decommissioned. -- "in order to" shouldn't really be necessary, "size and ability" sounds a bit weak, and you use "previous" in the next sentence. How about The Nimitz-class aircraft carriers were ordered to supplement the aircraft carriers of the Kitty Hawk class and Enterprise class, maintaining the strength and capability of the US Navy after the older carriers were decommissioned.?
    • Perhaps I missed something but In total, the cost of construction for each ship was around $4.5 billion sounds a bit odd -- if it's a total, doesn't that mean the cost of all the ships, not each individual ship? Perhaps you mean The total cost of construction for each ship was around $4.5 billion.
    • The Construction section is phrased as though the ships were still being built but, if Bush is indeed the last, it would probably make sense to change to past tense.
    • Might be an idea to swap sides for the propeller and Sea Sparrow images to alternate left and right, which you generally seem to be doing in the rest of the article.
    • Think we hyphenate "nine degree" (x2).
    • Believe we generally say "World War II", not "World War 2".
    • The ships were designed to have a fifty-year service life. They will continue operating at full capacity until that time when they will be decommissioned. -- think you should say "Each will continue operating", presuming they won't be decommissioned all at once but as each reaches its 50th year.
    • You don't need to include supercarrier in See Also when it's linked in the prose.
    • Aside from those relatively minor items, the structure, detail, referencing and supporting materials look good - well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reading through tha article; I think I've done everything recommended. Fourth ventricle (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, tks for that. A couple of other things came up following the recent edits though -- I'm not sure of the standard you're applying on the class names under Design:
  • First off, "Nimitz-class" has lost its italics -- should still be "Nimitz-class" surely?
  • Second, you say "Kitty Hawk class" and "Enterprise class" -- "class" should be part of the piped link in either both or neither.
  • Further, the standard seems to be to hyphenate the name with "class", e.g. "Kitty Hawk-class", "Enterpise-class".
As it's being used as a noun here, it is standard not to hyphenate (WP:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Ship_classes)
Yep, that makes sense. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, you link Enterprise to USS Enterprise first up, then to USS Enterprise (CVN-65) -- the first is a dab page, it's the second one you should be using (the first time it appears only).
One other thing entirely, don't think "blue-water" needs hyphenating in this case (it's hyphenated in "blue-water navy" because it's a compound adjective describing "navy"). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I've always seen it as hyphenated (Blue-water navy). Fourth ventricle (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a major deal in comparision to the other items so I'm not going to hold up support at this stage, but it looks odd here because you're using "blue water" on its own the same way you're using "Enterprise class" on its own (as a noun not an adjective) so why should one have a hyphen and one not? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I see what you mean. Fourth ventricle (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was being a bit careless. Fourth ventricle (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable referencing

  • New issue: Currently numbered [7] this citation points to the NVR. I don't see any information on that page that is backing up information where you've used it. The page lists only hull numbers and names. Brad (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently done Brad (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have concern over the reliability of several sources used for this article.

Based on past ship articles the following are not reliable sources:

Brad (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some strikes made. Brad (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did have some concerns over some websites you mentioned, but can you expand on these four in particular please:

There is nothing at the site where it can be determined how exactly they've assembled and published their articles. There are no listed sources or footnotes. It seems to be accurate from what I know about the ships but the object at FAC is to supply high quality sources. I have difficulty considering this one of high quality. Brad (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.globalsecurity.org/ (I thought this seemed OK; eg: this forbes review)
  • The Encyclopedia of Ships (DANFS is an RS?)
    • I was referring to:Gibbons, Tony (2001). The Encyclopedia of Ships. London, United Kingdom: Amber Books. p. 444. ISBN 978-1-905704-43-9. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Brad (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that you seem to be arguing that this is unrelable simply because it's an encyclopedia, but DANFS is an encyclopedia, fequently used as an RS? Fourth ventricle (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave this one alone and see what others have to say. Brad (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FAS and Global Security are actually intertwined with each other. Earlier this year at a FAR I discovered that an FAS article used as a reference had in fact plagiarized an article(link now dead) written by the US Navy by not giving proper credit to the navy. The sources that FAS lists at the bottom of their articles are very shoddy. For example, the source that you use here has listed information from the Newport News shipbuilding website and then, cited another FAS article. This is like citing a wikipedia article with another wikipedia article. I can list more about FAS if you like but many of the FAS articles have sourced information to sites that we don't allow in ship articles ourselves like veterans websites and navsource.
At Global Security the problem just followed the move of a person from FAS to Global Security. See this link. One of the GS articles that you cite here has absolutely nothing noted for sources. This is again about a FAC having high quality sources. Brad (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've changed all of them apart from those four. Some I just took out, as another ref had the same information (I often tend to over-cite). Fourth ventricle (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source reliability appears to be addressed. Brad (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Can we get a separate Bibliography?
  • Titles need to conform with WP:CAPS#Composition titles
  • Publisher location is needed for several books. The UK doesn't not suffice as a location; need a specific city. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It was going so well until CAW.
  • "In order for a carrier to deploy, it must embark one of ten Carrier Air Wwings." Typo fix.
  • "...are integrated with the operating of the carriers they are deployed to..." operating -> operation.
  • "...aircraft and ordnance handling, and emergency procedures." Remove final comma.
  • "...4–6 E-2C Hawkeyes used for early warning..." -> "4–6 E-2C Hawkeyes for airborne early warning and control"?
  • "Another important reason for the use of a nine degree angle specifically was to improve the air flow around the carrier, by reducing the angle slightly, relative to previous carriers." is a clumsy sentence, rephrase.
  • "To launch fixed-wing aircraft, four steam catapults are used, and four arrestor wires are used for recovery (although Reagan and Bush only have three arrestor wires each, as the fourth was used infrequently on other ships and was therefore deemed unnecessary)." Also clumsy, rewrite. Parentheses are not recommended in article text. Also, "Four steam catapults are used to launch fixed-wing aircraft..." would scan much better.
  • "This CATOBAR arrangement allows for faster launching and recovery, and a much wider range of aircraft that can be used on board compared with aircraft carriers in service with other world navies, most of which use a simpler STOVL arrangement, without catapults or arrestor wires." Clumsy, also 'other world armies' is vague. Rewrite.
  • "The hangars on the ships are located below the flight deck and are connected by four elevators." Clumsy, rewrite. Please rip out and replace this entire paragraph.
  • "They are divided into three fire bays by thick steel doors that are designed to restrict the spread of fire. This addition has been present on US aircraft carriers since World War II, after the fires caused by Japanese kamikaze attacks.[6]" Was this copy-pasted from-to another section? Please avoid duplication.
  • "When an aircraft carrier deploys, it almost always takes a Strike Group, made up of several other warships and supply vessels which allow the deployment to be carried out." Almost always? Vague, rephrase. Repetition of deploys...deployment. Rephrase.
  • In "...not only provide additional capabilities..." and "...but also protect.." is superfluous and clunky. Instead, the Strike Group does A, B, C. " A typical Strike Group may include..."
  • "In addition to the aircraft carried onboard, the ships carry defensive equipment for direct use against missiles and hostile aircraft." + "The armament of the Nimitz class is made up only of short range, defensive weapons, used as a last line of defense against enemy missiles and aircraft." = repetition.
  • I give up. Sorry, my role here is not to request a copyedit on every single sentence.
  • I'm afraid it's noticeable that this didn't pass A-class. I love this class so please, fix everything from CAW down. Doug (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed that this would have gone better if it had gone through A-class first (although it's not dead yet). Copyediting is hard and time-consuming work, and I prefer not to do it if it looks like the article is going to wind up being rewritten for other reasons. If the reviewers agree that all that's separating this from an FA is some copyediting, I'll be happy to pitch in (if I'm needed, there are plenty of folks here who could do it). - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've made a reasonable start [22], and I think I've sorted the references out as well, although I wouldn't turn down any extra help. Fourth ventricle (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • File:Nimitz.gif - Is this a work of the US Government or the US Navy? Please clarify and provide a link to the source of the file.
Not done. Brad (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All other photos as of this minute are properly licensed and cited. However, photos are not following MOS. Starting from the infobox pic (right) they should be placed left-right-left etc where possible. Pics should not sandwich text between two pics or the infobox. Left aligned pics should not be directly underneath a ===Subsection===. Pics should not force themselves into another section, from the section above or below. You may just have to remove some. Brad (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOS compliance not done. There remain left aligned pics under subsections and pics crowding into other sections. Brad (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments Every time I look over the article I find more issues.

  • Citations should appear in numerical order ie: [1][2][3] and not [3][2][1] or something similar.
  • Conversions need to be consistent. Right now you have a mix of metric converting into English or English into metric. Pick one style throughout the article. Since it's a US ship probably English to metric is right. Nautical measurements like knots need conversions to both English and metric.
There are still issues here. Brad (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • References section is overlinked. There is no need to repeatedly wikilink a term like Northrup Grumman Shipbuilding or Naval Vessel Register. Only wikilink a term on its first appearance in numerical order.
Still not done. Additionally as pointed out above the references are missing publication dates, publishers, and locations. Brad (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Sturmvogel you need a bibliography section. Sources with page numbers that are repeatedly cited need to go into a bibliography and only the author and page number should be used for the citation. Brad (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposing promotion of the article. It has been at FAC long enough where the outstanding problems should have been corrected. Brad (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably point out that I won't be able to do anything substantial on this article this week due to other commitments. Fourth ventricle (talk) 19:50, 13 June 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 18:47, 13 June 2010 [23].

Swastika

Nominator(s): Rohedin TALK 17:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has quite a history, even being a featured article on the main page. This is the third time the article was nominated as a canadidate and was demoted in 2007, but it's three years later and the article obviously has been much more improved since then so lets give the former symbol of luck a third visit. Rohedin TALK 17:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose, request withdrawal, patently unready. Drive-by nom from an uninvolved editor. Apart from the problems listed above there are unformatted sources, dead links, uncited works in the bibliography etc. Needs much work, then peer review, then perhaps here again. Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:50, 12 June 2010 [24].

Ontario Highway 401

Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after four months of rewriting it from scratch, followed by two months of extensive scrutiny and peer review by myself and many others (especially the two reviewers and Haljackey), I feel it is ready to be presented as one of the finest works of the encyclopedia. Sourcing has been withheld from a few moot details that can really ONLY be sourced to google satellite shots or driving on the highway, but I think you will find they are few-and-far between and minor at worst. Thank you, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link seems fine for me. Tried accessing it several times during the day and it worked every single time. I appreciate the constructive comments! Haljackey (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, working now. Ucucha 16:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—I didn't get to submit my full review while this was at ACR, so I'll endeavor to do so now.

  1. Infobox
    1. Should the infobox be changed to move the map up higher? Also, I fail to see the point of including a photo in the infobox. The MOS prescribes that a "lead image" be used at the upper right corner of an article if an infobox is not used. By laying the infobox out this way, what I would assume to be a natural lead image to encompass the highway as a whole (the map) is pushed down below, and a lead photo actually appears below two other images on my screen.
    2. The caption on the infobox's picture should be updated. "collector / express" should be "collector-express" to follow MOS:DASH.
  2. Lead
    1. The third paragraph is rather short. It should be either expanded or combined at the end of the first paragraph.
    2. In that third paragraph, the maintaining agency is called "the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario" but the infobox calls it "the Ontario Ministry of Transportation". Please pick one variation of the name, assuming both are correct, and stick with it.
    3. In the second paragraph, two of the distances given in the first sentence are in an adjectival form and should be hyphenated.
    4. That sentence: "Three highways were renumbered "Highway 401" in 1952: the 11.8 km (7.3 mi) Toronto Bypass between Weston Road and Highway 11 (Yonge Street); Highway 2A for 54.7 km (34.0 mi) between West Hill in Scarborough and Newcastle, east of Oshawa; and the 41.2 km (25.6 mi) Highway 2S between Gananoque and Butternut Bay, west of Brockville, now known as the Thousand Islands Parkway." should be broken up. It's quite unwieldly to read.
  3. Route description
    1. Second paragraph of the section's "lead" contains a dash error: "Quebec City–Windsor corridor". That should be a spaced en-dash. It is correct when used in the first paragraph of the lead.
    2. In the first paragraph of the first subsection, "However the 401 itself does not physically extend the last few kilometres into Detroit." I didn't think a Canadian highway could enter an American city, rather the designation would end at the border. Replace "into" with "to" or "toward".
    3. Second paragraph of the first subsection: what does "bearably parallels" mean? Please reword and clarify.
    4. "Some sections of the Highway 401 between Woodstock and Kitchener / Cambridge are four lanes..." I noticed that some Ontario locations use the slash, but this one doesn't. Please pick either Kitchener or Cambridge, or join them with an en-dash.
    5. "As Highway 401 approaches the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), ..." Why abbreviate GTA if you never use that term again?
    6. "As the 401 approaches the large Highway 403 / Highway 410 junction in Mississauga, it widens into a collector / express system (also referred to as a core-collector system)," Again, why use the "/" in collector-express, but a hyphen in core-collector? Slashes shouldn't be used under MOS:DASH.
    7. What's a "hydro corridor"? Please link to an article, explain in the text or reword.
    8. Section 1.3 is now titled "Collector-Express system", but should be "Collector-express system" since "Collector-Express system" is not a proper name. Additionally, I think I'd prefer that this section not break the logical flow of the whole Route description section. That whole section is divided into subsections based on geography: Southwestern Ontario, Greater Toronto Area, Eastern Ontario. I would attempt to integrate the content into the sections better rather than calling it out. If the only reason it is called out as a separate subsection is to use the "Main articles" tag, find a way to integrate those links into the body of the text and remove the subheading.
    9. ""Highway 401 uses a collector-express roadway configuration within the Greater Toronto Area. The system employs a set of two unidirectional multi-lane roadways, with the inner and outer roadways representing the express and collector lanes respectively.[38]" Please reword this sentence. I'm not sure that the word "unidirectional" is needed nor appropriate in the sentence.
    10. "The first set is currently 6.6 km (4.1 mi) long..." 6.6 km should be hyphenated because the distance together is modifying the word "long".
    11. "This 43.7-kilometre (27.2 mi) system passes through the centre of Toronto and ends in Pickering to the east.[41]" why is kilometre now unabbreviated so far into the article when it hasn't been unabbreviated in a measurement in the article previously? Here the hyphenated form is used correctly.
    12. "The 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) gap between the two systems is a traffic bottleneck,[36]" hyphenate the measurement. Audit all usages of measurements through the whole article for similar situations. This is becoming quite an issue in reading the text.
    13. The whole "Eastern Ontario" section feels a bit short in comparison to the other sections of the RD. I understand that the section in the Greater Toronto Area has more stuff going on, but compared to the section on Southwest Ontario, this section seems shortchanged.
  4. History
    1. Coming review, but one comment for now. There are extraneous details that are unnecessary to understanding the topic at hand. Look at the sentence: "Before the highway could be completed, the 1934 provincial elections brought Mitchell Hepburn into office as premier; Thomas McQuesten was appointed the new minister of the Department of Highways." The fact that Hepburn became premier isn't really relevant. It could be recrafted to: "Before the highway could be completed, Thomas McQuesten was appointed the new minister of the Department of Highways after the 1934 provincial elections." The change removes 6 words from the sentence, and removes the unneeded tidbit. The subsequent sentence, "McQuesten in turn appointed Robert Melville Smith as deputy minister," could be combined as well, since the details of how the two men were appointed are not as important as the fact that they held their jobs at the time. If their importance to the history weren't established later in the text, I'd say that their names could be removed completely as extraneous. How about: "Before the highway could be completed, Thomas McQuesten was appointed the new minister of the Department of Highways, with Robert Melville Smith as deputy minister, after the 1934 provincial elections."
    2. As an example of article bloat, the "Predecessors" section refers readers to four other articles. It should be a summary of the history sections of those four articles, so I assume that this subsection can be summarized more concisely, with the greater level of detail left in those articles.
    3. Something I noticed, but on my screen the sentence: "Beginning in 1935, McQuesten applied the concept of a second roadway to several projects along Highway 2:[36]" has a line break in between Highway and 2. There should be non-breaking spaces between Highway and a number in the article text per the MOS direction: "A non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) is recommended to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that could be awkward at the beginning of a new line."
    4. "From here the highway was constructed on a new alignment to Oshawa, avoiding construction on the congested Highway Two." Why is 2 spelled out here?
    5. File:Carlb-hwy401-lastkm-682.jpg is about the opening in 1968, yet it's shown in the Predecessors section? Audit photo placement so that the photos relate to the text that appears next to them.
    6. The second subsection of the History is titled Highway 401. This should be changed, per MOS:HEAD, which states: "Headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer (Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated.)"
    7. "The story was published in several major newspapers around the continent.[80][81][82]" Are 3 citations needed? Second, I wouldn't call The Spartanburg Herald and The Sarasota Herald-Tribune major newspapers. Third, according to the current information included in the 3 citations, all were Associated Press stories published the same day. It's a fair assumption that all 3 are the same story with locally-written headlines, so are they really different citations? A link to the New York Times should be sufficient to demonstrate non-Canadian coverage of the highway at the time.
    8. "By the end of 1960, the Toronto section of the 401 was extended both eastwards and westwards: first, to the east between Newcastle and Port Hope by mid-year, then later to the west between Highway 25 in Milton and Highway 8 south of Kitchener.[85]" Replace "was extended both eastwards and westwards" with "was extended in both directions" It's more concise and doesn't repeat the two directions twice in the sentence.
    9. "It included the reconstruction of most of the interchanges along its length into the Parclo A4," The term "Parclo A4" is needlessly jargonistic, when a simpler "partial cloverleaf configuration" can be used. In fact the former link redirects to the latter article.
    10. "In January 1965, the Premier of Ontario, John Robarts, designated Highway 401 the Macdonald–Cartier Freeway to honour Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George-Étienne Cartier, two of Canada's Fathers of Confederation.[6]" Again, does the name of the official matter?
    11. "This was followed shortly thereafter by the widening of the highway through Ajax and a new interchange at Pickering Beach Road (renamed Salem Road) and Stevenson Road.[93]" Are the interchanges important?
    12. "Around the same time, the section of Highway 401 between Windsor and London became known as Carnage Alley, a reference to the numerous accidents that occurred over that stretch of the highway throughout the 1990s.[36]" This is an awkward sentence. I suggest "Around the same time, between Windsor and London the Carnage Alley name was applied to Highway 401, a reference to the numerous accidents on that stretch throughout the 1990s." to eliminate the "became known" construction.
    13. In the "Highway of Heroes" section, there's opportunity for summarization. The exact progression from newspaper to newspaper in the campaign to name the highway is not needed, As a side note, the newspaper names should be rendered in italics in the article, not left in plaintext.
    14. "The entire width of Highway 401 through central Toronto was closed as a result, the first time the highway was fully closed since the Toronto Bypass opened in 1956." Uncited sentence for an extraordinary claim.
    15. "This included significant reconstruction of the Wellington Road interchange, replacing the outdated 3/4 cloverleaf with a parclo A-4 containing a sub-collector system. The overpass was also replaced, allowing it to support a future ten-lane 401, compared with the old overpass built in 1956 that could only support four lanes." Uncited series of sentences.
  5. Future
    1. "The MTO intends to widen all of the remaining four-lane sections to a minimum of six and place an Ontario Tall Wall along the entire length of the highway.[110][126]" Ontario Tall Wall is used previously in the text without a link or explanation. I suggest moving the link up to the previous mention, and potentially piping the link to a more generic "concrete median barrier" to explain the concept in the article without resorting to uncommon jargon. Other more generic usages like "tall wall median" are fine since they explain that the wall is in the median, but Ontario Tall Wall alone doesn't provide context. Maybe the OTW is a kind of noise-abatement wall on the side of the roadway?
    2. "In 2004, it was announced that a new border crossing would be constructed between Detroit and Windsor" Who made the announcement?
    3. Shouldn't there be some mention of the controversies surrounding the DRIC and the current Ambassador Bridge?
    4. Second paragraph links again to DRIC with the name spelled in full. Why give the abbreviation the first time if you're not going to use it?
    5. "In their 2007 plan for southern Ontario, the MTO announced long-term plans to create HOV-lanes from Mississauga Road west to Milton.[145]" Spell out "high-occupancy vehicle". Since the abbreviation is used later, put it in parentheses afterwards though.
    6. The last paragraph of the Central Ontario section discusses the Durham Region. Pipe the links to the Regional Roads to remove the name as unnecessary. Additionally, Regional Highway 12 and Regional Road 33 aren't linked but the others are. Any reason for the change in nomenclature and lack of links?
    7. The last sentence of of the Eastern Ontario subsection has an unconverted, unabbreviated measurement.
  6. Services
    1. Prose reads fine. There's some extraneous detail, but on the whole it's fine.
    2. The table could be merged into the larger exit list like Interstate 95 in Maryland or any of the UK motorway articles.
    3. Do we need to know which food vendors are at each location, or is a general "food services" text just as informative? The list of food options in the prose should be sufficient, I think.
    4. If the separate table is retained, remove the n/a from the "Scheduled reopening" column and leave those entries blank or insert a dash
  7. Exit list
    1. After a quick skim of the article, there are no kilometer measurements east of Toronto. Is there a reason that the exit list is so incomplete?
    2. MOS:RJL frowns on highway shields appearing in junction/exit lists in the notes column. There are 13 instances of this that should be corrected. There are 17 or so similar situations where the graphic is not in use, meaning the inconsistency should be corrected.
    3. Additionally, shield graphics should appear at the beginning of the line or not at all. There are instances of " <ON graphic> <ON highway> (to <US graphic> <US highway>)" that should have the American shield graphic moved or removed. I assume removed if MTO does not use the graphic on the road sign.
    4. The correct abbreviation for the country located south of Canada is U.S. or US depending on the variant of English, not USA or U.S.A. (See Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations). Even if the Canadian signs use the latter forms, our style guide says to use the former on Wikipedia.
    5. I see an issue in the style in use to indicate directions in the Destinations column. The directions are placed in parentheses, but so are road names. The directions should not be in parenthesis so that situations like "Regional Road 36 (south) (Franklin Boulevard)" are avoided. This would also be consistent with the formatting example shown in MOS:RJL.
    6. Please combine Exits 330A and 330B together into a single line. The given exit number should be just 330, the given destination just Highway 407 and the notes should be "Signed as exits 330A (west) and 330B (east) in the eastbound direction"
    7. "Formerly Highway 29 / Ontario Highway 42" for Exit 696 should have the second link piped to match the first.
    8. I won't make this a must change, but rather a friendly suggestion. This exit list only uses one of the 4 background colors standardized in the MOS, from a discussion in which the nominator participated in, and a change made at his suggestion. I would suggest utilizing the other colors from the MOS and updating the color key at the end of the table appropriately.
    9. An additional suggestion for the end of the table. The last entry is for the terminus at the Ontario–Quebec provincial line. I'd modify the format there so that the terminal distance can be added in the kilometer column, the exit column left blank, the Destination given as A-20 east – Montreal. The Notes could be set as "Quebec border", or that could be the location spanning the Division/Location columns.
  8. References: I won't go into detail, as I believe others will provide an in-depth review, but I spotted 3 issues.
    1. Date format inconsistencies. Just compare how full dates are formatted in references 1, 2 and 3 for a sample.
    2. Several references to the same source should be combined together. A "Bibliography" section would be useful to hold the full references with shortened references that provide specific page or map section numbers used in the footnotes. See U.S. Route 41 in Michigan for a sample of how this can be done.
    3. I think in a few cases, authors and publishers are confused. Please audit to verify.
  9. Images
    1. File:Ontario 401.svg needs complete creation information, as I assume many of the other similar highway shield graphics would as well.
    2. File:407 ETR logo.svg needs a fair-use rationale to be included in this article. Saying that though, inclusion of the graphic is not necessary for this article and it should be removed.
    3. File:Highway 401 at Highbury Avenue, London, Ontario.jpg, File:401signs higher detail crop.jpg I'm unsure about the copyright and licensing status of these images.
    4. File:401 construction phases.svg uses a self-published source as the basis for the map's creation.
    5. File:401wardenold.jpg needs more detail to verify the permission.
    6. File:401-DVP interchange.png, File:Highway 400 at 401.png, File:Carnage Alley.png someone will need to check the fair-use rationales to make sure they qualifies.

The end result is that I must oppose promotion of the article at this time. There are failures to comply with FAC criteria 1a (well-written). 1b (comprehensive, missing distances in the exit list), 2c (consistent citations) and 3 (image policy). In attempting to complete my review of the prose, I stopped reading after the Route description's subsection on the Greater Toronto Area. The article needs a copy edit, with a view toward correcting breeches of the MOS. There are questions concerning WP:NFCC as well, but other, more-qualified reviewers will need to weigh in on that with the exception of the 407 ETR logo. I will come back later to see if this article meets FAC criteria 4. Imzadi 1979 → 22:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up, I've completed my review of the article's prose sections. While it is not exhaustive, there are significant issues with the article that prevent me from supporting promotion. In addition to my previous objections on criteria 1a, 1b, 2c and 3, I'm adding criteria 4 to the list. The article is missing distances in the exit list. It is also lacking any mention over the controversies surrounding the DRIC and Ambassador Bridge, the resolution to which will effect the final eastern segment and the timetable for its construction. There's problems with the images and their permissions that need to be resolved and properly clarified before promotion. There are problems with citation formatting. The final big issue is going to be the hardest to resolve. There's lots of extraneous details that are not necessary to an understanding the topic. Ordinarily I'd be fine with it, but the sheer length of this article makes it an issue. Rather than split this article into sub articles, removing the unneeded details would go a long way to fixing the length of the article. The whole article could benefit from the touch of an uninvolved editor giving it a good copyedit with an eye to removing the extraneous detail, fixing MOS errors and unifying the style of the writing. Imzadi 1979 → 20:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ETR logo has been removed. The photographers of the Highbury Avenue and the high detail signs have given us full permission to use them. I have now made that clearer in the image descriptions. The Warden image will also be investigated to help verify it's permission. As for your other comments, I'll let the main author of the article (and nominator) respond to them. Thanks very much for your through analysis of the article! It will certainly help us make it better! Haljackey (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have permission, you need to file with OTRS. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Rschen7754 17:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do have premission. It has been verified as OTRS for all images except the Highbury avenue image. The author and myself are not sure about how it works, but he is perfectly fine with having his images here. I'm not sure what you know about OTRS, but perhaps you could help get it sorted out once an for all. Here is the link to the image: [27]]. Additional images by him are used in the London, Ontario and Highbury Avenue articles. Haljackey (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Any photos that I did not take, that were not hosted on websites like Flickr that list licenses or copyright releases, have been submitted with OTRS with the appropriate permission to verify that permission was granted. I suggest that in the case of these photos that the e-mails that detail the permission be submitted through the OTRS system for verification. I see that you added an OTRS tag to File:401signs higher detail crop.jpg. I want to assume that it was in good faith, but ideally those tags should be added by an editor with OTRS access, since only those editors can see the tickets, and can verify that the contents of the ticket match the images. Image names are matched to the permission granted and licenses used in the ticket, so they are specific to the listed images. See commons:Commons:OTRS for more information.
Additionally, I've added sections to my review above for the sections of the article I haven't reviewed yet. I will endeavor to complete reviewing the RD section as well as the other 3 sections I haven't reviewed yet. I'll strike comments as I see them completed. The whole article though could use an uninvolved editor's touch on a good copyedit, and potentially with an eye for MOS errors and removing minor details to help shorten the text somewhat. In reading the article, it's not as focused as it could be, which is bloating the text somewhat. The article is quite long at over 6000 words plus a very complete exit list. I'm not suggesting that it be split apart so much as reviewed for opportunities to remove bloat and streamline the text. Imzadi 1979 → 18:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands the exit list is the most appropriate, if anything, to split off. I had three editors (independent of the article) copyedit in the past month, but I find that FAC is the only place where articles are truly reviewed correctly. I've limited time today, and I HATE my computer (yay Knoppix +Firefox 1.4 +tap-to-click), but I will be able to chop down most of the items in the two reviews rapidly once I get going. The km in the exit list I am thinking of removing, they do not match the markers posted along the roadway in Toronto (and I can't get to Windsor to see if the km markers start at 13.0 or at 0.0), so I don't see what they add at this point in time. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't with the exit list. The page size tool says that the article is at 6,196 words. That tool skips captions, infoboxes, templates and tables. There is the concept that there should be nothing in the text of the lead of an article that isn't in the body of the article. For highway articles, the only detail that usually appears just once in article is the length. The terminal distance, in this case, the distance at the Quebec border is the length. If you remove the exit list completely, then the junction list in the infobox should be removed. If a scaled down version of the list is left here, that could invite problems on what junctions to use and what to remove in the summarized list. Interstate 10 in Texas is 878 miles (1,413 km) in length, and that article has a full exit list. The length issue is based on the prose, not the table. You can streamline the text without losing key information and still reduce the length of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 20:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Choosing which stay and which go wouldn't be hard. Only allow King's Highways, or only allow divided highways.
Regardless, I think it'll be pretty easy to slim most of the article down. I do not wish to remove many of the details, as they are indeed vital for a total understanding of the picture (this is mostly with regard to the history section). Regardless, I'm always happy to find ways of cleaning up the presentation of that information. But, for example, the string of events leading to the Highway of Heroes title is one following the other. Every link in this chain is as important as the last, and the fact that it went through this chain before becoming official is what makes it worthy of a mention beyond "this is what it is called and this is where it applies".
You missed my comment about the Highway of Heroes completely. Several of the intermediary details can be omitted without a loss of clarity on the story. I counted 4 newspaper names, as well as the names of two journalists, one firefighter, one petitioner and finally one government official. I think that chain of names can be summarized better without losing the impact. I don't expect the section to be cut down to a "Name assigned in X year to Y segment of roadway." This level of detail though is verging on recentism in the level of detail. Imzadi 1979 → 07:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That said, my replies follow below:
  1. Infobox
    1. My idea behind putting the image in the infobox is solely organization. I don't feel any image is the 'main' image, as it would be impossible to sum up the highway with one photograph.
    2. Fixed
  2. Lead
    1. All fixed
  3. Route description
    1. Fixed
    2. Fixed
    3. Hah! I asked the same thing when I saw it. One of the copy editors put it there, and I figured they must know what they're doing. Changed to "generally"
    4. Fixed
    5. The term is commonly abbreviated in Canada. For international readers, it is good to know this ahead of time for the many sources that use the abbreviation, as well as for the articles this one links to (many of which are stubs that do not expand on the term)
    6. Fixed
    7. Fixed. Hydro is synonymous with electricity here.
    8. Title fixed. It was separated in order to explain the system (the article didn't explain it very much beforehand). We decided to split it off so that the GTA section didn't dominate the other two (as you also pointed out).
    9. Fixed (I'm proud of this rewording, why didn't I think of it before?)
    10. See next
    11. The convert template only allows one or the other. The adjective form does not work with the abbreviated form.
    12. Will Do
    13. I know :( The highway is barren out there (and almost no sources cover the geography in the east), and I honestly struggled to make it as long as it was. Not sure what to do with this one.

More on its way. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose. The list of citation problems is amazingly depressing and proves its far from ready.

  1. Citation 4 - reformat |publisher not |author=
  2. Citation 9 - Same for all maps
  3. Citation 11 - Maps again
  4. Citation 14 - Add cartographer
  5. Citation 16 - Only an abstract (I've been hagged at FAC for this before)
  6. Citation 17 - Only an abstract
  7. Citation 18 - formatting busted
  8. Citation 19 - Cite map will be useful here, add cartographer.
  9. Citation 20 - see map thing near bottom
  10. Citation 21 - reformat |publisher not |author=
  11. Citation 22 - Format date back in line
  12. Citation 27 - formatting busted
  13. Citations 28, 29 and 30 - Now why are we inconsistent here?
  14. Citations 32, 33 and 34 - Condense and make "bibilography" for normal books
  15. Citation 36 - Lack of major information
  16. Citation 37 - Add Metroland Media Group Ltd.as publisher, the Durham Regional News under |work=
  17. Citation 42 - Not reliable.
  18. Citation 45 - formatting busted
  19. Citation 47 - formatting busted
  20. Citation 52 - Publisher?
  21. Citation 54 - Publisher?
  22. Citation 56 - Publisher?
  23. Citation 58 - Page number will be useful
  24. Citation 61 - Complete redo - Canadian Press to publisher, Paper name to |work=
  25. Citation 65 - Publisher?
  26. Citation 68 - Publisher?
  27. Citation 71 - Same as 61
  28. Citations 72, 73, 74, and 75 - reformat |publisher not |author=
  29. Citation 78 - Publisher?
  30. Citation 88 - Can |author=
  31. Citation 89 - Not even in citation templates
  32. Citation 92 - reformat |publisher not |author=
  33. Citation 95 - Can |author= if you don't have one
  34. Citation 106 - Reformat, turn the fire company to the publisher. Dump the author
  35. Citation 117 - Author change
  36. Citation 119 - Author change
  37. Citation 120 - Not helpful
  38. Citation 128 - Canwest Publishing not Canada.com
  39. Citation 129 - Really poorly formatted
  40. Citations 135 and 136 - reformat |publisher not |author=
  41. Citations 138 and 139 - reformat |publisher not |author=
  42. Citation 144, 145, 146, 147 and 148 - reformat |publisher not |author=
  43. Citation 153 - Change publisher as that's not really correct.
  44. Citation 161 - reformat |publisher not |author=
  45. Citations 160, 162, 163, 165, 168, 169, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176 - condense, move map to bibliography. Also split among which maps go to what.
  46. Citation 170 - Newspaper reformatting


This above is utterly ridiculous. I highly suggest this FAC be withrdawn and ALL citations (yes all 176 of them) be checked and formatted for consistency: Date formatting, author/publisher, reliability, "bibliography" section, etc.Mitch32(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.) 22:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a night, I'll go through all of them. Which is preferable when only one name is given with a source: Author or publisher? What about sources where the publisher isn't shown? Ref 120, the title is not available, just the author, publisher and date. Other reliable sources point to it using these details, but I have been unable to find the title. Ref 16 and 17 you'll have to purchase, as I did (as well as several other articles from the Star and New York Times). I see no reason why I can't link to the abstract for those who have subscriptions or wish to pay, and it's no less informative than any offline source. I figured 42 wasn't reliable, but it isn't supporting anything I really care about. Will get to the fixes soon. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Media File:Ontario_401.svg is missing a publication date, as is File:M-C Freeway.png. File:407 ETR logo.svg lacks a fu rationale. File:401_construction_phases.svg lacks a properly linked source. File:401-DVP_interchange.png & File:Highway_400_at_401.png fail wp:nfcc. Fasach Nua (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is the source for 401 construction phases (and the research accompanying the article). There is no single reliable source that lays out the dates. What part of NFCC do the two interchange pics fail? They add to the readers understanding, they are commentated on within the article, they have proper fair use rationales, and technically the 400/401 photo is public domain in Canada, which is acceptable as free on commons. I am removing the FUR for it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal

  • There are too many problems with this article to bother listing. A-Class review was withdrawn in order to bring it to FAC. This wasn't the right move. I also suggest going through GA and A-class reviews and passing both before bringing this back to FAC. Each step is designed to shake out problems before coming to FAC. Brad (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A failed FAC is still twice as constructive as any of those venues. I know the article would pass GA without a second glance and the A-class review sat without comment for 2 months. At least here I am getting constructive criticism that allows improvement of the article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me apologize now as I promised a review while it was ACR, but I got side-tracked and forgot to come back to the ACR. Had the nominator pinged me, most of my comments would have come at the ACR and not here. Had the nominator also solicited interested parties to review at ACR, there would have been other comments. As an aside, until the Image concerns are completely addressed, this article can not pass at GAN. There are also concerns raised about how focused the article is, which is also in the GA criteria, so the article would receive a second glance. Imzadi 1979 → 02:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Whatever the merits of the article, it is the nominator's responsibility to ensure that the FA criteria are met before the nomination - that is made clear in the FAC process. Using the process for article-building, as is clearly the objective here, is inappropriate. The nomination should be withdrawn. Brianboulton (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator stated, it sat in A-class review for about two months without feedback. Given that situation, it's almost impossible for the article-building process to take place if things like that happen. While I do see your point, the constructive criticism will work wonders for this article, which is something it craves. I'm not agreeing with the nominator here, just stating a point that progress will be made here, which is always a good thing. Haljackey (talk) 15:30, 12 June 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 23:06, 11 June 2010 [28].

Richard Dawkins

Nominator(s): Lurkmolsner (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it's fantastic and topical. --Lurkmolsner (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objection your honor! Your haven't made a single edit before nominating this article. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Objection! Extremely racist! It's already perfect. --Lurkmolsner (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the article is excellent, I don't know, but FAC rules state that "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." Was this done? Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Further to my remark, above, a quick check using the toolbox on the right reveals a great many dead links, evidence that the article has not been prepared for FAC against the Featured Article criteria. Request withdrawal. Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 11 June 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 13:25, 8 June 2010 [29].

National Treasures of Japan

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been a very stable good article for a while. I am nominating it for featured article because I believe that it meets all of the Featured article criteria. It serves as an overview article of the (currently) 1,079 national treasures which are covered in more detail in the Lists of National Treasures of Japan. bamse (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - after reviewing the article in more detail, I feel that it is not ready for FA at this time. Below are some of my specific concerns.
  • Check consistency of US vs UK spelling
  • Missed a couple - check "-or" vs "-our"
Can't find any. I was searching for "or " (that's "or" plus space) and all I found was a "splendor" in the references. Since it is written in this way on the website, I don't think it should be changed. bamse (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay - with that search parameter, you would have missed the one in the "Notes" section.
Ah, okay, fixed the one ("armored->armoured"). Please let me know if there are any more American words.
  • I don't like the current organization of the article - it makes for a very bloated ToC and some very short subsections. I would suggest merging some of those shorter sections, maybe taking a more summary-style approach and creating daughter articles where necessary, perhaps also changing some of the headings to be more clear
  • Which part of the ToC are you referring to, the subsections of "Categories of National Treasures" or those of "History", or both? The categories subsections are already written in summary style (of the respective Lists of National Treasures of Japan articles. Which headings do you consider not clear? Would it be better, if I replaced the subsections (===Subsection-heading) with unnumbered headings (;Subsection-heading).
  • Both - the ToC is quite long, and quite a few subsections have only one paragraph. Subheading example: "Types of National Treasures" is confusing because "type" was used earlier to refer to the categories, and including "National Treasures" in the subheading seems redundant. As for the numbered vs unnumbered headings, I'm not sure of the convention there - it would definitely reduce the size of the ToC, but it may not help with the larger organizational issue.
  • I would recommend finding someone to copy-edit the article for you. The prose is frequently awkward and lacking in the crispness and clarity I would expect from a featured article, and at times includes grammatical errors.
  • The article has been thoroughly copy-edited by Truthkeeper88. Could you give examples for the issues you mentioned in order to know what to look for in another copy-edit?
  • Example of awkwardness: "Only if the owner cannot be located, or damages the property, or fails to adequately protect the property, or is unwilling to cooperate for public access to the property, does the government have the right to name a custodian which is usually a local governing body." - very long sentence, awkwardly worded. Lack of crispness: "As a term "National Treasure" has been used in Japan since 1897, though the meaning changed in 1950. The significance of the term pre-1950 differs from the term in post-1950." - redundant phrasing. Lack of clarity: "There are 122 swords and sword mounting National Treasures" - phrasing is unclear "mounting" should be plural, and you earlier said that there were 122 swords, period. Grammatical errors: "National treasures" vs "national treasures" vs "National Treasures" - need to differentiate between these terms. These are just examples - there are numerous problems with the prose that I would need to see resolved before I could consider supporting.
  • Not brilliant, but better
  • The first paragraph of the lead, in particular the first sentence, needs revision. The purpose of the lead is to give a concise summary of the subject that won't overwhelm readers unfamiliar with the topic. "National Treasures are the most precious of Japan's Tangible Cultural Properties - precious in terms of monetary or "sentimental" or historical value? What is a Tangible Cultural Property? (I know it's linked, but a concise explanation would be appropriate)
  • Point taken concerning "precious". Not sure which part of "tangible cultural property" needs further explanation. Do I need to explain "cultural property" as well or only the full term ("a cultural property that can be touched...)?
  • Well, "tangible cultural property" is pretty self-explanatory, but doesn't Tangible Cultural Properties of Japan mean something beyond that? That's the term used in that sentence, so that's the term that needs to be explained.
  • Some stacking and sandwiching of images on my screen. In particular, I would suggest using the multiple image template to group the two distribution maps.
  • I used the "double image" template to join the two distribution maps. Could you explain what issues you have with the other images, since on my screen it just looks fine?
  • When you stack images one on top of another as in the "Categories" section, it makes the edit links bunch up; in the "Preservation" section, the two images sandwich the text between them. Take a look at WP:PIC for some tips.
  • File:Ujigami Haiden.jpg needs a description. Also, can we translate the descriptions for File:Todaiji daibutsuden 20070923.jpg and File:Okakura Tenshin.jpg?
  • Done.
  • Numbers under 10 are usually spelled out
  • Don't duplicate images - you've got enough pictures without including more than one of the same thing
  • OK. Just to make sure, are you referring to the first image, the mosaic?
  • Yes
  • Fixed. In fact it was not the same image but an image that showed the same structure.
  • Avoid writing paragraphs with fewer than 3 sentences
  • Check for consistency between footnotes and bibliography. For example, you've got full citation information for Deal twice, no full citation for Kishida, etc. Make sure that books include page numbers and locations. Also make sure that web links include publisher and access dates. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to have a look at the article. I understand most of the issues you raised and will try to fix them. With some of the items, I am not sure, so I asked above. I'd be happy if you could clarify them. bamse (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Truthkeeper88 is addressing the copy-edit issues. bamse (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Truthkeeper88 has done an amazing job copy-editing the whole article once more. Following your suggestions I combined a couple of sections and changed the headings. Copy-edits are almost done, we'll just have a final look over it. As for the image stacking in the categories section, neither Truthkeeper88 nor me see it. Can you let us know how the subsection height (e.g. "Historical materials") compares to the image height? If they are almost the same, maybe a simple "{{-}}" could fix it. Alternatively, would removing all the images in the "categories" section be an option? bamse (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blank spaces would resolve the problem in most cases, but would waste a lot of empty space. While removing all of the images in that section would of course eliminate the issue, consider instead alternating the images left and right to prevent stacking. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented your suggestion on my sandbox since I don't know what looks best on your screen. The last three versions there are new: alternating left/right as you suggested, alternating left/right as you suggested and some changes to the headings, original version with some changes to the headings. Please take a look and let me know what looks best. bamse (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On my screen, the alternating version with no heading changes looks the best. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented in the article. bamse (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues: Sources themselves look OK. There are some formatting and presentation issues:-

  • Retrieval dates are not necessary for online sources that are print-based. However, it is necessary to be consistent, one way or the other. At present the Enders, Gibbon, Hickman, Jokilehto, McVeigh and several other books are lacking retrieval dates. These should be added – or the others removed.
  • Likewise, publisher locations should be given in all or none cases.
  • The convention for book titles is capitalisation of all key words, hence Architecture and Authority, A History of Architectural Conservation etc.
  • Refs 3, 45, 52, 60, 72 require retrieval dates.
  • Ref 6: It is not necessary to format this in full when the details are in the bibliography. Tre ref could be "Deal (2007), p. 315"
  • Any reason why the Munsterberg book (ref 81) is not listed in the bibliography?

Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I fixed all references as you suggested. bamse (talk) 19:21, 24 May 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 13:25, 8 June 2010 [30].

Lad, A Dog

Nominator(s): -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all of the featured article criteria. Currently a good article, it has undergone a peer review and been copy-edited by two editors who work in the CE areas[31][32]. It is neutral, stable, well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched, covering all major aspects of the work, which satisfies the first criteria. It follows WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines, and uses a consistent and valid citation style, satisfying criteria two. The article has three images, one of which is a non-free image of the novel's cover, and two public domain illustrating the real life dog the novel is based on, some of the other dogs frequently mentioned in the work, and the author who is the novel's "Master". This satisfies criteria 3. It also stays on topic without excessive detail, meeting the final criteria. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Leaning towards Support with comments
    • Proofread done - no issues found, no amendments made - there is one bit where the text says "vice verse", I wondered whether that should be "vice versa"?
    • Comment - Section: Sequels and adaptations, paragraph 2 says "saving the baby from a snack". This sounds odd. So the baby was reaching for a dangerous foodstuff and Lad stops the baby? The sentence sits a bit unhappily and raises unanswered questions; perhaps put something in parentheses to clarify.
    • Article v FAC criteria
    • 1(a) Prose style - PROFESSIONAL, ENGAGING - yep, I have no interest in dogs and I think, were I to read these stories, I'd probably hate them. But this article reads very well.
    • 1(b) Comprehensiveness - COMMENT: - I was left wondering if Lassie has any relationship to this book? Was this book not an inspiration for Lassie in any way? If not, fine. But if any parallels have ever been drawn it would be good to see them mentioned. Otherwise, to my untrained eye, I feel this article covers the subject well enough.
    • 1(c) Research - COMMENT: - I am a little worried about Section - themes... virtually the whole of that block is from one source; please check that we're not violating the referenced works copyright or stripping out too much of its content. As a further note, I would be grateful if other reviewers would leave a message on my talk page letting me know if we have any policies on how much we can take from a single source.
    • 1(d) Neutral? - YES - Doesn't evangelise; includes a negative review of the subject.
    • 1(e) Stable? - YES - No sign of strife throughout article history; article begun in October 2009.
    • 2(a) Lead - V.GOOD
    • 2(b) Structure - V.GOOD - The order the sections are placed in makes perfect sense to me.
    • 2(c) Consistent citations - NOT CHECKED
    • 3 Images - NOT CHECKED - I'm not sufficiently aware of image policies.
    • 4 Length - EXCELLENT - article is well within upper bounds of article length. Doesn't outstay its welcome and seems to cover everything; I wasn't left unsatisfied.
  • bodnotbod (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the typo. The novel has no relation to Lassie Come-Home that I could find. Though the latter was published 19 years after this novel, Knight has never stated any inspiration from Terhune and though I agree, it would seem to be obvious to draw parallels from the literary perspective, I found no reliable sources doing so. Knight himself stated he was inspired to right his novel based on his own collie, and at the time he wrote it, collies were one of the most popular breeds. I did, however, just find one article from a Sport's Illustrated archive comparing Terhune's dogs to Lassie by noting that unlike Lassie, they did not stay perpetually young, but grew old and died. I'll add that note in. :-) (Yay to SI for putting old archives online for free finally!) For the themes section, it primarily draws from one source because that source gave the most in-depth look at the novel's themes. Most sources simply gave reception information, rather than literary analysis. Unfortunately, I have yet to find any other reliable source that really goes into the themes at all. I don't think it is a copyright violation as it is a summary of some ten pages of material in four paragraphs, and it is written in my own words so I don't think it is a plagiarism issue. If it makes the article seem unbalanced, I suppose some of it could be cut, but I think it would lose some really great information. I've added a bit from the Sports Illustrated article there as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it can't be put at Lad: A Dog Because Lad: is the interwiki prefix for lad.wikipedia.org, the Ladino (Judaeo-Spanish), Wikipedia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The title ought to be accurate. Have you inquired about a technical fix? Everyking (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I didn't think there was any way to change it, as I'd presume they'd give preference to an interwiki link. Looking at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions), display title can't be used for this as the displayed name is supposed to still resolve to the article and there is no fix mentioned. But I've added {{Namespace conflict}} to the article per its suggestions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly it's a good article. The template partially addresses the concern, but I still think it would be a good idea to get a definitive answer about the technical aspects of the situation. Everyking (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask around, but I don't think it should affect the FAC one way or another. There are quite a few other articles not at their "proper" name because of technical issues. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I came here from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). AnmaFinotera has indeed done everything in her power to resolve this issue; unfortunately, it isn't technically possible. The title could at best be "plastered over" via a clumsy solution similar to {{Title override}}, but it does not work for all browsers, and does, quite frankly, look miserable. Replacing one of the characters in the title with a similar non-Latin character is another possible stunt, but is undesirable since it will inevitably cause linking-concerns. (the only solution here would be to build a time-machine, and talk the book's author into a different title for the novel...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and referencing matters

  • The author is Unkelbach, not "Unkleback"
  • I believe that the full correct title of the Unkelbach book is Albert Payson Terhune: The Master of Sunnybrook: A Centennial Biography. (refs 1, 5, 10, 11)
  • Suggest redlink only the first "Collie Health Foundation", as per normal linking rules.
  • When you are citing audio, video or film sources, more information is needed beyond title and date. See WP:CITET ("cite video") for an indication of the required info; you don't have to adopt the template format.
  • I notice numerous links to Amazon. If the sole purpose is to verify that a book exists, or to confirm publication data, that's OK. However, the second paragraph of the "Sequels and adaptations" section, which cites four Amazon pages, contains content detail which does not appear in the Amazon details.
  • The "Further reading" section should follow, not precede, references.

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First two fixed. The title was confusing as the side of the book just has Albert Payson Terhune: A Centennial Biography while the inside title pages has Albert Payson Terhune: The Master of Sunnybrook. Fixed the further reading. Only the first instance of Collie Health Foundation is redlinked in the text (authors/publishers in references are always linked in each instance for reader convenience). I am not citing any audio, video or film, so I don't understand that remark? Amazon is used to verify publication data. If needed, I can add cites to the individual books as well, which confirm that he saved her from a snake rather than just saved her. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at 17 (audio cassette), 18 (audio CD) and 33 (film). Brianboulton (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are cites to Amazon to confirm the items release details, not sources to the items themselves, as such the current cite web is the appropriate template :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unkelbach fixed. The redlinks in the references are fine, to me, as they will eventually be blue links and therefore acceptable per WP:REDLINK. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking why you need two redlinks on Collie Health Foundation in the references. One is fine. Two is unnecessary. Brianboulton (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are references. The publisher of a reference is linked in all instances of the references, not just one, because you can't predict which one a reader will go to first, so the link is done for all instances. It is done in many other FAs and I see no reason not to do it here just because this particular one is a "red link" when it meets WP:REDLINK. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was wondering why "baby" is sometimes upper-case, sometimes not.

    One spring, a relative of the Mistress brings her invalid Baby to the Place in the hope that the weather will help her grow stronger. Lad immediately befriends the girl and becomes her constant companion. By summer, the Baby is growing healthier, though she is still unable to walk. One afternoon, the mother sits the baby near the lake, then leaves her to go meet the Master and Mistress, who are returning from town. Lad saves the baby from a copperhead snake, but the distraught mother only sees Lad throw the baby backwards and begins beating him. To protect her friend, Baby manages to shakily walk to her mother and explain what happened.

    SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The character is called "Baby" in the story, but is also referred to as a baby (though from the story she sounds more like a toddler). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're using Baby as a name, that's fine, but it seems to be used inconsistently, e.g. the Baby is growing, but mother sits the baby. SlimVirgin talk contribs 16:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it a bit to replace most descriptive baby usage to child or toddler, or to use the proper noun version. How does that work? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot better, thanks. SlimVirgin talk contribs 16:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose On no basis is File:Lad_a_Dog,_Anniverary_Printing.jpg, not replaceable by free content. Fasach Nua (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this particular person basically opposes any FA with an image, will be disregarding the comment. Image is not replaceable by free content as any accurate cover would still be non-free. Image meets Wikipedia's fair use guidelines and WP:FAC. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately the delegate will take this comment into account. Why the free 1919 edition is not used and the unfree 1965 edition is used will be a big factor on how this article is graded. I note that you have attacked me rather that properly responding to this comment. I will take no further part in this FAC as I feel FAC nominators should assume good faith when dealing with reviewers who voluntarily give up their time to review the nominators' articles for them. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 1919 edition is not free. The cover shown in the 1965 edition is the same cover, and the book is still under copyright. Nor is a 1919 edition obtainable. Sorry, but I don't see how you have given up any time to review articles, all I see is you going to every FAC and making the same oppose if you find a single non-free image. Nor did I attack you, I made a basic statement of fact as shown by your own edit history with FACs. I assumed good faith the first time you did it, that you continue to make the same incorrect argument over and over again, despite numerous editors pointing out that you are wrong, is what makes your comments something no longer something I will take any regard for. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to check Lad: a Dog and Further Adventures of Lad both in the public domain and available with pics. --Brad (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those have the actual original covers, only the inside title pages and the under covers. Nor do I see how those are somehow public domain as Dutton owns the copyright for both. It seems pretty clear from the sources that Dutton did renew the copyright, so how can it be public domain now? And if it is public domain, then that would make the current image also public domain making the entire question moot. However, since it seems like it will just become a stumbling block on this FAC, even if I disagree with the logistics, I have removed the image all together. I see no value in adding the one from the Google Docs, as it is just a plain cover with the title. Of course, I suspect now the FAC will be opposed for lacking a cover image... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a book was published in the United States prior to January 1, 1923, it's in the public domain. Therefore, yes, the 1919 edition is in fact free; you may want to see Wikipedia:Public domain for details. That's one of the reasons the entire book is available via Google. :) Use the title page, or perhaps even the picture of Lad included in the Preface, if someone pushes for an image. I wouldn't typically agree with such an oppose rationale, since many book-related FACs have been passed with a non-free cover included, but seeing as how there is a free edition of this book available... María (habla conmigo) 13:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read that, but it didn't really explain why one copy is PD, but not the other. I would think that if the 1967 copy is still copyrighted, then the work itself is still copyrighted, since it is the same work. The whole thing is rather confusing. I used that particular image because Dutton used the original 1919 cover (the only difference is the addition of the "Anniversary Edition" text, and because a decent quality image of the actual 1919 cover (rather than the book's plain inner cover) has been unfindable. Wish I did have a first edition, but they are going for $1500 and more...even I'm not that book crazy. :-P The picture of Lad from the preface is used in the article further down, but I don't think it would be a good infobox image since it isn't a picture of the book itself. As you said, if someone opposes now for no infobox image, I'll throw in the title page, because I'd hate to see this article fail for such a silly thing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the cover version you scanned had the "Anniversary Edition" added to the 1919 cover then the publisher was able to claim a copyright as it was a modified version. The same would apply when the publisher made an "Anniversary Edition" of the book which would allow copyright on the entire work. They probably had a different introduction and the history behind the book in the 67 copy. I did check the library networks I have access to and there are several copies of the 1919 book available for loan. In the meantime the lack of a cover photo should not be a reason to fail this nom. Brad (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:08, 7 June 2010 [33].

Michael Phelps

Nominator(s): Philipmj24 (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the high standards of a featured article. This article is highly sourced with good sources and the article is very detailed with his swimming career. Michael Phelps made history in 2008 by winning eight gold medals in one Olympics and is considered the best swimmer in history.Philipmj24 (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip: You have not yet transcluded this onto the main FAC page, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, and therefore are not receiving any reviews. I suggest you not do so yet, however, as the article needs some work. Looking at the references, you will see some dead links and bare urls, inconsistency in citation formats, missing information, and some sources which likely are open to challenge (Buzzle.com?). I suggest you withdraw this until those matters can be resolved-- with a shortage of reviewers, you are more likely to obtain reviews if the article appears ready to go on all technical matters. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - I agree completely with the concerns noted above by Kablammo. The article falls short of many of the FA criteria, specifically those related to MoS, prose, and sourcing (I did not check comprehensiveness or images). I would recommend to the nominator that he pursue WP:GA or WP:PR before renominating. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdraw (by an odd name) as well. Sorry if it seems like a pile-on (or a pylon, as it were) but the lack of publishers in some cites, ref date formats all over the place (2008-08-11, July 30, 2009, 2/13/2007, 16 August 2008, ...), and general inconsistency ("Retrieved [date]"? "Retrieved on [date]"? Pick one) are deal-breakers. In at least one place, "NBC" is even in italics, as though it were a work instead of a publisher or broadcaster.

The sections actually seem decently arranged to me; however, instead of starting Michael Phelps#Honors and awards with "Sources", how about starting that section with the last six points (minus the SI Sportsmen one) as a starting paragraph? Something like

Phelps was a USA Olympic Team Member in 2000, 2004, and 2008, and holds the records for most Olympic gold-medals (14), most such medals in individual events (9), and most such medals at a single games (8, in Beijing 2008).[cites] A street in his hometown of Baltimore was re-named The Michael Phelps Way in 2004.[more cites] He has also received the following awards:[even more cites]

with the list after that. That's minor, though, and the article should be cleaned up and cited to stronger sources before re-nominating (and it will need to be withdrawn and re-nominated). --an odd name 19:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media I am not convinced on the origin of File:Phelps_and_busch.jpg, can we get this on WP:OTRS. I dont like the use of flags without explanation in the succession boxes per MOS:FLAG, otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but Object. A lot of work needs to be done. Aside from the inconsistencies in presentation style already mentioned
    • Sometimes there is a hyphen in the names of the events
    • More importantly, comprehensiveness
      • There is no coverage at all of the US Championships. You have to win there to get to represent the country, and due to the great depth in US swimming, it is not easy to come in the top two in the event and get selected.
      • No coverage of 2002 Pan Pacs, he won quite a few there, and nothing of the 2006 (he was world swimmer of the year that year as well)
      • Nothing about him quitting 400IM after Beijing, apparently changing to sprints
      • Nothing about selection controversy in 2004 when he was given a 4x1 free relay spot without having to qualify
      • Crocker did not make a mistake in the 4x1 free, he was sick and swum 50s instead of 48s.
      • No discussion of various rivalries, eg failed attempt to beat Peirsol in backstroke, fighting off Cseh and Lochte in some tough challenges in IM, rancourous stuff and war of words with Cavic
      • There are full-length books on him and only six sentences about him up to age 15.
    • Contractions used
    • Bit about him watching the 2010 Winter Olympics is nn. He gets invited to many events.
    • apart from that, there is a lot of redundant language everywhere
    • While "the Person’s Republic of Michael would have ranked fourth in gold medals [after China, the United States, and Germany] and been ahead of all but 14 countries in the medal count" is a quote, it's stupid and should be struck off, as it treats MP as an individual, but then credits the PRM with 8 golds even though 3 of them were achieved by a team of more than 4 people (reserves in the heats) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:31, 7 June 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 15:55, 4 June 2010 [34].

Operation Winter Storm

Nominator(s): JonCatalán(Talk) 20:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article for FAC over a year ago. With summer starting, I've decided to continue my efforts with three articles I abandoned when I went on "permanent" hiatus from Wikipedia. The old nomination archive can be found here. I've spent a little time copyediting it again, and it seems that whatever direct concerns were raised during the last FAC were fixed. So, I'd like to pick up where I left off! JonCatalán(Talk) 20:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues: (very minor)

  • Ref 39 needs "pp."
  • Ref 91 needs "pp." not "p."
  • Bibliography: Ericson books need publisher location (for consistency)

Otherwise sources all look OK, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all those should be updated. JonCatalán(Talk) 03:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm a bit concerned about the article's sourcing. Erich von Manstein's autobiography is not a good source as it's obviously not neutral and has been criticised for manipulating history. Erhard Raus' autobiography also can't be an entirely neutral account. I believe that Alan Clarke's book is now considered outdated (it pre-dated the release of Soviet records by many years). I'm also surprised that the most recent major work on this battle, David Glantz's book Armageddon in Stalingrad: September-November 1942, hasn't been consulted. Nick-D (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's worth considering what each of those sources were used for. Manstein's memoirs are used mostly when citing information pertaining to communication between he and the Sixth Army regarding the strength of the latter and Paulus's decision to not break out of the Stalingrad encirclement. Erhard Raus does not provide a general account of Operation Winter Storm. This particular memoir (which is actually not a memoir, but a study of the battle written for the U.S. Army sometime after the war) covers only the 6th Panzer Division on 13 December. I'm not sure this particular part of the article goes into sufficient enough detail as to make it partial towards the Germans (only general details were extracted from Raus' source). In regards to Clark's book, I use him to cover German movements, and so I'm not sure how relevant Soviet archives are here. Also worth considering Paul Siebert originally did take a look at the article, and edited it where he felt that information on Soviet dispositions could be more accurate (using a Russian source)—the discussion in regards to this can be seen on the article's talk page.
Finally, concerning Glantz' new source, I only own the first book of the trilogy. I'm not sure I'm willing to buy the second source (especially since my main area of interests is no longer military history of the Second World War) just to have a detailed account of the battle, whereas all the pertinent information is just a repeat of what he wrote in earlier volumes (most notably the book and journal piece cited in this article). I'm just not convinced Glantz brings any new scholarship, only instead writing a book dedicated to the Stalingrad using Russian archival evidence that he already provides in past books.JonCatalán(Talk) 04:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the problems with autobiographies in general, von Manstein's memoirs are not a suitable reference for anything, in my view, particularly given their self-serving nature. I'd suggest that you use a secondary source which evaluates von Manstein's memoirs along with the other relevant sources. Clark's book has been used to cite accounts of the fighting between German and Soviet units as well as German movements. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced that the evaluation of the article's sourcing is being done objectively, but give that there seems to be two opposed due to the same reason then I'll withdraw the nomination again, and might pick it up at some point in the future. JonCatalán(Talk) 06:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article is sadly lacking in sources, even excluding those in German or Russian. The 23rd Panzer Division history has been translated recently and Glantz's latest book should be essential. Erickson isn't reliable at the tactical level as he's simply wrong about Tigers participating in the attack. No Tiger was in Army Group Don's sector until 1 January. And Raus' memoir, Panzer Operations: The Eastern Front Memoir of General Raus, 1941–1945 does cover the campaign in some detail, although he obviously based large sections of it on the post-war histories compiled for the US Army. You don't have to buy any books, but most everything is available through Inter-Library Loan if you're in the US. Check with your nearest public library for details. Be advised that some libraries charge a small fee.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not Raus's memoir which was referenced in this article (the one references is listed in the bibliography, and is a collection of essays). In regards to Erickson's account, I guess that is troubling (I don't have any way of verifying either way, at this point). I don't have a library card and so the inter-loan library system is out of the question. The nomination for this article will be withdrawn, and maybe I'll pick it up later if I ever get my hands on Glantz' book. JonCatalán(Talk) 06:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to give you another book by Raus to consult. I hope that you can get a library card soon; I'd find it impossible to afford all the specialist references I need for FA and A-class articles without ILL.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:14, 4 June 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 15:39, 4 June 2010 [35].

SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand

Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC), White Shadows (talk) Parsecboy (talk)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I really think that it is the quality that is deservant of a bronze star. I freshly expanded this from stubhood through DYK, GA and a Milhist ACR, and think I'm ready. User:White Shadows will also be working on most of this, especially the second half after I leave on my trip. Also note that this is my and White Shadows's first FAC, so if someone with experience could guide us along, it would be fine. Buggie111 (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no dabs, all the images have alt text and have correct copywrite licences. Everything is cited (even in Russian in one case) and the entire article complies with MOS. If there really is anything that I left out, just let us know and I (or the main contributor, Buggie111) will fix it. Thanks.--White Shadows you're breaking up 23:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Welcome to FAC! I've got a few suggestions for improving your article, which you are free to argue with and please help reduce backlog by reviewing other articles too. You've obviously spent some time on this, and a lot of great work has been done. I don't think it's an FA - yet. However, I'm commenting instead of Opposing because I think you can fix the article's issues in time to pass. Good luck, and thanks for all your work so far!

  • Only the first word in a section heading should be capitalized (unless there are proper nouns)
  • Check US vs UK spelling and conventions
    • Are you saying that this article switches back and forth, or has to use a specific one that it doesn't? I can fix it in twelve hours if it's the former, but if it's the latter, I don't see any problems
      • Switches back and forth. I think it's mostly UK (?), but there are definitely some Americanisms
        • I'll go with U.K., for the sake of laziness
  • Try to avoid sandwiching images and infoboxes
  • Not crazy about the prose - lots of short stubby sentences, could use a good copy-editing, lack of clarity in places. I'll try to do some light editing in a couple of days, but a few extra sets of eyes would help
  • Write with a non-specialist reader in mind - cut down on jargon (especially in the lead), clarify terms and concepts where necessary
    • I've submited a request at WP:GOCE, so maybe that will help this and the above issue.
      • Did my linking in the lead help said non-specialist?
        • Better, but could still use clarification. Also, avoid linking the same term multiple times - your linking in the lead has led to that sort of overlinking
  • Some of the technical details differ between the text and the infobox - double-check, and keep terminology consistent
  • ISBN for Koburger and Hore? Location for Koburger, Miller and Vego?
  • Distinguish between the two Hore books in footnotes
  • Need consistent formatting in References
  • I'm guessing that neither of you speak Russian? Complete citations for Russian sources will thus be harder to get, but they're worth it
    • What do you mean by complete? I speek it, but I would like some cliarification
      • Well, it seems that the Russian citations have disappeared...but my point was that you needed at minimum to include publisher information, and author and date where available (moot point now).
  • Halpern or Haplern?
  • 20:00 in what time zone?
    • Local time, I think?
      • Yes it's local time. However I'm going to have to argue against adding that into the text. It just seems a little odd to add it in the sentence and most people would assume that the time would be local time. If I'm wrong please correct me.--White Shadows you're breaking up 10:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but it's not clear what local time would be. Is the ship at Pola? Brindisi? Somewhere at sea? I would argue that saying "20:00 GMT" (or whatever the time zone may be) is not that odd.
  • Check for typos please - who's "Ferdinad"? Where is "Austro-Hungary"
  • "The Italian fleet was completely unprepared for hostilities" - source?

Feel free to ping me if you have questions or comments on my review. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am fluent in Russian, and I won't be able to attend to these immedietly as I'm finishing Reshadieh class battleship. Buggie111 (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that FAC's are more important than orking on a stub or start class article Buggie! Anyway, I'll try to take a look at Google books to find the missing citiaion info that you requested. Hoever when I read over Vego, I could not find where it was published...--White Shadows you're breaking up 10:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worldcat is your friend for finding this stuff; Google Books never has publishing location or the OCLCs. I've fixed up the bibliography. Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I was 90% done! Buggie111 (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues: All sources look good. A few very minor issues:-

  • Ref 4: Should be The New York Times not New York Times
    • Done.
  • REf 16: title could be more informative, e.g. Zrinyi in Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.
    • Done.
  • Unnecesary linking of "London" in the Hore books
    • Done.
  • Publisher location missing from the Miller book
  • "London" repeated in the Vego book details
    • Done

Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues

  • The article includes an absurdity that was recently corrected in the SMS Helgoland article: (German: "His Majesty's ship Archduke Franz Ferdinand"). The language is clearly English.
  • The article appears to be quite short (Helgoland is at least 2½ times as long). Are you sure the article is comprehensive?
    • Personally, I think that Helgoland and other German ships attract more attention than the dual-monarchy. Id you check the references section of helgoland you'll se a dizen books titled History of German battleships/battlecruisers or somthing to that tune. Not so many people write about the AUH navy. Also, the fight in the mediterranean was much of a stalemate, whilst the North Sea was a lot more active. Hope this answers your question. Buggie111 (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images - On what basis is File:Flag_of_Italy_(1861-1946)_crowned.svg deemed to be licensed creative commons? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um...what do you mean? How is it not under CC? (Is a bit confused)--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The policy of Wikipedia is that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who asserts that something, such as media being licensed under CC, to prove it prove it Fasach Nua (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know. I initially did not understand what you ment in your question at first. Sorry. And Parsec has asked the same question over at commons so we'll see what comes out of the discussion there.--White Shadows you're breaking up 10:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please link the discussion at commons? Fasach Nua (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heres the vferdict. If Flanker made it, like someone made the flag of croats and serbs from a different model on the web, than it's fine, if not, then it's pd-old. Discussion. Buggie111 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion can be found here. Flanker has confirmed that s/he created the flag based on the textual requirements of the flag, so it is indeed properly licensed. Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that solves the imageing issues. So what have we not addressed yet? Is the article in British English yet (for instance)?--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • How can the fundamental reference on the Austro-Hungarian Navy not have been consulted? Anthony Eugene Sokol's Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Navy. There are five copies available within 100 miles of me so it's not like it's particularly rare.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your opposition is solely based off of the lack of one book? Tell me if I'm wrong but that does not seem like a valid reason to oppose anything.....--White Shadows you're breaking up 21:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This omission would fail the article based on criteria 1c. In turn that may also fail it on criteria 1b. You shouldn't be upset about it and instead learn to utilize and find all relevant sources on the subject. Brad (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is in good shape, but needs some more work to meet the FA criteria:
    • I agree that not using the major source on this topic is grounds for the article not meeting the FA criteria
    • This may also be reflected in the current length of the article, which does seem a bit short, even allowing for the ship's short and undistinguished career. It might be worth trying to find German or Austrian editors to see if there are any German-language sources which can also be used if the English-language sources are lacking in detail.
    • "where her sister ships would be built six months later" is a bit inaccurate (and is contradicted by the last sentence of the paragraph) and doesn't capture the fact that it took a long time to build these complex ships
    • "A heavy secondary battery included" - are there any guns not mentioned in the article? If not, the qualifier "included" isn't needed
    • There are some gaps in the chronology - is it possible to say anything about what she was doing during the period June 1910-1912? Details on 1913 and 1914 are very sketchy - during what periods did she take part in patrols in the Ionian Sea?
    • The operation in the Ionian Sea seemed to be more than just a "protest" if it involved blockading the coast
    • "By 1913, the four new dreadnoughts of the Tegetthoff class entered into active service with the fleet" contradicts the article on that class of ships, which states that only two of the four ships had been commissioned by 1913
    • Do we know what the effect of sitting at anchor at Pola had on the ship's crew? They must have been pretty miserable.
      • I've seen nothing on these ships; there was the 1918 revolt in Cattaro, though that was limited to a few armored cruisers. Most of the other ships remained loyal to the government and assisted in suppressing the mutiny. Parsecboy (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What happened to the ship between being taken into Italian custody in 1919 and being scrapped seven years later?
      • I would imagine nothing. By that time she was very outdated and was probably not worth the coal to send her out to sea. I understand that more info is needed and we at least need an Italian port city for her so hopefully Parsec can find that in the book he ordered. If not then I'll go off to google books and try to find a snippet that says the city name and any other info available.--White Shadows you're breaking up 20:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the article is generally well written, some of its prose is a bit awkward and needs to be copy edited to reach FA level (for example, "She was launched from the slipway...", "she was towed to the harbor in Muggia...", "Austro-Hungarian ships bombarded that coast and then Montenegro unmolested...", " The Austro-Hungarian naval defense was then designed around this idea") Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that "unmolested" is a bit dramatic (and too anthropomorphic for me, but YMMV), and "designed around this idea" is clear (so I left it alone) but not "robust"; I'll rewrite Parsecboy got it. With the first two, are you objecting to the passive voice? Active voice would require identifying the tugboat that towed her; both seem fine to me, although it wouldn't hurt to combine the first two sentences in that section. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I'd support on FA criteria 1a, 1d, 2a, 2b and 3. However, this is secondary to concerns about 1c, hence 1b and 4 raised above.
  • Please check "...and she was commissioned into the fleet.[1]Radetzky followed six months later on January 15..."
  • I believe that when you say "Haus therefore enacted a strategy based on mines and submarines designed to reduce the numerical superiority of the Allied navies", you mean that Haus' intention was to "...neutralise the numerical superiority...". Exact wording is left to your discretion.
  • Otherwise clear and concise. Perhaps a little too concise. Doug (talk) 02:28, 3 June 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 14:14, 2 June 2010 [36].

Kenneth Anger

Nominator(s): Sir Richardson (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this currently A-class biography of the seven decade cult experimental filmmaker and occultist. I believe I have dealt with all of mostly minor issues to bring it to standard, such as improving the prose, deleting dead links, and standardizing citations. Any concerns or issues I will be willing to address and deal with. Sir Richardson (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Concerning the style, there are two successive phrases which begin exactly the same way: He would later relate that "I was a child prodigy who never got smarter."[8] He would later relate that he attended the Santa Monica Cotillon where child stars were encouraged to mix with ordinary children and through this met Shirley Temple, whom he danced with on one occasion.[9]. The Wiki ghost (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record: A Class should be given after an article was "reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject" per WP:ASSESS, which didn't happen here. Hekerui (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues: I am very dubious about the claim of this article to A-class. The referencing aspects need some fundamental attention:-

  • The Landis book, which accounts for about two-thirds of the citations, appears as "Further reading". It should be specified as a source.
  • Likewise the Hunter book. ("Further reading" is intended for relevant literature that is not a cited source within the article.)
  • Ref 2 needs proper formatting. The publisher should be given as glbtq, Inc (not the web address). As a more general point, online sources that are cited should not also be listed as "External links"
  • Ref 4 (and others apparently cited to a DVD): clarify what is being cited here. I imagine that since you give page references, this refers to a booklet accompanying the DVD; the citation needs to be specific.
  • Refs 15 and 18: why not format as per Ref 8?
  • Ref 22: formatting (author's name repeated)
  • Ref 68: needs a (subscription required) tag
  • Ref 69: needs formatting - publisher. etc. More specifically, why is this source considered reliable?
  • Ref 72: Why is this source considered reliable? (Bobby BeauSoleil)
  • Ref 85: lacks a publisher
  • Ref 86: needs formatting (publisher, retrieval date)
  • Ref 88: needs formatting (publisher, retrieval date) Also, why is this source considered reliable?
  • Ref 93: needs formatting (publisher, retrieval date) Also, why is this source considered reliable?
  • Ref 96: needs formatting (publisher, retrieval date)
  • Ref 97: needs formatting (publisher, retrieval date)
  • Page number ranges should use dashes, not hyphens
  • Ranges should be prefaced "pp." not "p."

Brianboulton (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've dealt with all of the dashes and page prefaces. The Anger interview can be found on the reel website page; I thought I'd edited to make it link directly rather than need to scroll down, I'll see what I can do. The name of the glbtq website is just that. The Technicolor Skull website is linked to on subject's official website. More to do, of course. Sir Richardson (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not plausible at this time - early close - The images are nowhere near ready please review WP:FA Criteria 3 , WP:IMAGES & WP:NFCC, and feel free to renominate in the future Fasach Nua (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose.
  • No references for any of the filmography, including claims that films are lost or unfinished.
  • No references for the most significant claims about themes in the films.
  • Given his long history and alleged influence on others such as Martin Scorsese, David Lynch and John Waters, there is a significant overreliance on the one biography. Where are the other sources that will speak to / confirm this influence? It does not seem appropriate to take the word of a single biographer for such a controversial figure. Virtually the whole article is sourced to Landis and to the DVD notes.
  • Significant claims lack sources, or lack quality sources. Egs.:
  • "...showed them to the British National Film Finance Corporation who agreed to provide £15,000 in order for Anger to complete it - something that caused a level of outrage in the British press" - no reference. I don't want Landis either: i want examples of the outrage in the press.
  • "the only movie soundtrack in history recorded inside a prison" - a very bold claim, but a poor source for it.
  • Minor but niggling prose issues throught. Egs.:
  • "he went to the Ford Foundation, who had just started a program..." not who: that
  • "The mid 1960s saw the arrival of the hippie scene..." It didn't come on a train. Emergence perhaps?
  • "Page subsequently agreed to produce the soundtrack for Lucifer Rising, and allowed to use the editing table..." allowed Anger to?

Don't think this is a goer, sorry. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:45, 1 June 2010 [37].

Roger Federer

Nominator(s): BLUEDOGTN 23:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets the criteria for a FA and it is the best tennis article biography on wikipedia.BLUEDOGTN 23:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something needs to be done about the awful dropdown records tables. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would you suggest need to be done?BLUEDOGTN 00:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now (ignore this if problems are fixed but I haven't had time to have another look). The main problem is the article is stats-heavy from the outset. The lead focuses too much on statistics and also includes unnecessary trivia (listing the other players to have won the career grand slam, for instance, is not appropriate in an introduction). The lead should probably also include something about his global appeal and brand.
His tennis career is what makes him NOTABLE, which is the reason for the stats heavy introduction. I am wondering if we put in his brand would it be construde as marketing and adverstising on wikipedia?BLUEDOGTN 05:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no description of how he got into tennis (I know there's a link to another article but some basic information should be included). There's no need to give the scores of every match that he's involved in (occasionally it might be appropriate) - the important part is the result and effect on his career. The prose is essentially just a list of every tournament he played and how he did - it's hard to read and lacks any context. How did he feel at the time? What was expected of him? What was the response of the press? How did this fit into the peaks and troughs of his overall career?
I agree this article does not talk about how he was started into tennis, which I will find out! I agree on the aspect of the scores in prose, which is now WP:Tennis says is wrong to put them in the body of the article. The reactions are put on the yearly articles because we tried to advoid the SIZE restrictions because this article was becoming way too long.BLUEDOGTN 05:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that every tournament needs a reaction and so on - just the more significant ones. In terms of size, I think the article could grow a bit without it being a huge problem. The tables at the bottom don't really count towards size, and so there is room for a bit more prose. Trebor (talk) 11:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on RF, but as a 'for instance' - the period from the 2008 Wimbledon final (which could have far more written about it) to him crying after losing the Australian Open to Nadal at the start of 2009 - that has far more about it than the article suggests. It seemed like he was being surpassed by Nadal and there was a transfer of power, along with him losing his number one ranking. But he came back (partly due to Nadal's injuries forcing him to miss Wimbledon), winning the French Open for the first time, regaining his ranking, beating Sampras' record and so on. There is far more going on than him merely winning some tournaments and losing others, but from the article you wouldn't know it.
This is chronicled on the 2008 and 2009 yearly articles because it is way too much to talk about and the years were becoming books!BLUEDOGTN 05:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you understand what I'm getting at - and I'm not trying to be harsh. It's just that, at the moment, you don't gain much more from the article than you would get from just reading a list of his results. Trebor (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I get it, which is what you all are suppose to do is to make crutiques! Good JOB...BLUEDOGTN 05:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have noticed that it doesn't use consistent citiations. A few citiations have the first/last special in the template, while others use just the author special in the template. Guy546(Talk) 20:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Why is Bowers listed as a "reference"? There are no citations to his book. And in any case, with such a non-neutral title, what would be its value as a source for a neutral encyclopedia article about Federer?
  • Format consistency required in citations. Titles precede publishers in the first 29 references, then publishers precede titles in the next 18 before changing back, etc.
  • Publisher details should be informative. Acronyms generally are not, except to them in the know. (AELTC, ITF, ATP)
  • Citation 61 lacks publisher information (an url is not a publisher)
  • Citation 79 is unformatted.
  • Names of print sources (The Observer, The New York Times, etc should be italicised. Check throughout. Likewise, names of non-print sources should not be italicised.
  • The Federer oficial website is cited as a source. It should not, therefore, be listed under External links.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Object The article is not comprehensive. It has been chopped out to year-by-year articles, which are needed, but now there is nothing left except a list of stats from GS results, which in any case can be duplicated in table, as the article is more like a bulleted list put end to end. (And 5 lines per year for a person who usually reaches at least teh SF of every big tournament doesn't cut it). For a person who is one of the true greats (a much over-used term) there is now hardly any detail. More importantly the article doesn't convey his evolution as a player and that of his rivals in trying to catch up/nullify him. Nothing is said about Nadal improving on grass and making Wimbledon more difficult, or conversely how Federer was weak on clay and gradually improved. The stats are just laid down and nothing is said about verious epic matches, eg Wimbledon 07-09. And nothing is clarified about his apparent slump in 2008 and early 2009, illness and then return to form, or explaining various changes in his style/repertoire, or dissecting his rise to dominance, etc. And the advertisement+ambassador section is greater than his playing style. Very undue weight as his stylishness and technique is commented on ad nauseum, not the off court stuff. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, close this FAC because I believe I would not have time to fix all of these errors in the time alloted to me for this FAC, I will come back to it at a future date. I will use your all crutiques, and take them under advisement, which will allow me to fix the article over time to be the best article it can be! I welcome more comments if you all want to make them, and appreciate those who have already given them! THANKS...Y'ALL!BLUEDOGTN 20:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:45, 1 June 2010 [38].

Paul Krichell

Nominator(s): Secret, Wizardman 18:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In baseball, players and managers can be placed into the Hall of Fame. Even journalists and broadcasters can get a place there through winning an annual award. Scout, by contrast, do not have a way to make it in the Hall. This article is about one of these scouts, considered one of the greatest scouts of the game. One of the many reasons for the Yankees' perennial success from the 1920s to the 1950s, Krichell's article has went through a detailed GAN review, passed GA, and I believe that it now meets FA criteria, or I hope that it is at least close to doing so. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links or dead external links. The article mentions "Murderers Row", but the article for that term is titled "Murderers' Row". Which is correct? Ucucha 20:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter; fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • Krichell's talent evaluations and signings were a key reason for the Yankees' dynasty from the Murderers' Row teams of the 1920s to the 1950s teams led by Casey Stengel.[2] - the "were a key reason" part should be reworded so that it is more direct. Maybe something like played a central role?
  • Considered to be one of the greatest scouts in baseball history, he signed over 200 players who later played professional baseball.[3] - it sounds like you are talking about the man in the sentence before
  • His recommendation of Stengel for manager of the Yankees helped persuade their front office to hire him in 1949.[5] - similar to above, but this time it sounds as if you are referring to krichell
  • Early life: maybe some more information and a picture? Maybe you could combine the first two sections?
  • During the offseason, Krichell became a saloon owner, popular with players in the Bronx.[12] - a job popular...
  • In Managing career; Sentence variety issues: lots of sentences begin with "He..."

Generally, it looks like the article is in order. I'm going to weakly support pending the resolution of my concerns above, but I have two suggestions: maybe combine some sections so that it's not choppy, and add maybe a few images important to these sections. ceranthor 17:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'll look for another picture of Krichell if I can find one, though no guarantees there. Trying to look for those first, if I find none I'll add in one of Greenberg or another signee. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments –

  • What makes http://thedeadballera.com/Obits/Obits_K/Krichell.Paul.Obit.html a reliable source? Also, do they have the right to reprint this New York Times story?
  • The publishers in references 20, 47 and 54 (Sports Illustrated), 34 (USA Today), and 43 (Baseball Digest) should all be in italics as printed publications.
  • Reference 25 should have the page number with a p. instead of pp., since it's only one page.

Otherwise, everything looks okay. Personally, I can't wait to read this one, as the resident Yankees fan of FAC. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TheDeadballERa seems somewhat reliable, maybe not as a source in of itself but fine for viewing a New York Times piece. Other two issues fixed. I have no idea of their reprinting rights, though the Times' decision to not have public archives probably complicates that question. If it's an issue I'll just replace with [39]. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources comments

  • You should certainly switch from Deadballera to the NYT site. I very much doubt that Deadballera has the right to reproduce an article that the NYT charges for. In any event, the working standards of Deadballera are clear from its reference to the "Hew York Times"! You will need to add the (subscription required) template to the NYT source.
  • Refs 3 and 42 need to give publisher details: Baseball Digest (italicised)
  • Italics also required for the journal names in 46 and 53
  • Book sources should have publication dates (per WP:CITE)

Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Not sure how I missed the years for books, but I got them all now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All my referemce/sourcing issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Wizardman, this is a very interesting article about a baseball pioneer. I have some comments before I support or oppose.

lead. The first sentence talks about Krichel as a baseball player, yet his notability rests in his reputation and achievements as a scout, so that should be the focus of the lead. When I read the first sentence, Ithought, what on earth? I hadn't even known that Krichel had only two seasons as a ball player in "the show" and that is actually incidental to his career as a scout.
prose. There are many ambiguous statements, or confusing ones. For example, this sentence in the 1940s–1950s section particularly perplexing. Stirnweiss refused, but his father's death soon after his college graduation left him as the sole supporter of his mother and younger brother. Could you get an uninvolved editor to go through this and help you tighten it up?

suggestion tighten up the lead so it focuses on the Krichel's notability up front, and make sure your text says what you want clearly. it's difficult when you're so involved with it to realize that others aren't as familiar with the subject as you are—been there done that myself!—but ... Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will be working on this over the next couple days. That's always been my weakness, trying to make sure I write it so non-baseball experts can read the article without a problem. Him being a scout makes it harder since I'm used to writing those that primarily played the game rather than another position. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done what I could; if there's any further issues I'll try and find an outside person to copyedit. The person I usually have do that already did, so I'll look around. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – To start, I should have come back for a full review earlier, and I struck my source comments above. Though it pains me to fall on the oppose side, I don't think that this is ready for FA, and I'm not convinced the problems can all be fixed in the course of an FAC. In reading just the lead and a couple sections of the body, I found multiple factual errors, along with material not covered by sources and comprehensiveness issues pointed out earlier. Some less important things are also listed below, but there's enough serious problems for me to lack confidence in what I didn't review.

  • Important one from the lead: Stengel was hired by the Yankees in 1948, not 1949, when he actually started managing them. Also, I didn't notice anything about Stengel in the body, though I could have missed it. What's in the lead should be in the body as well.
  • Early life: Yankee Stadium link goes to the new stadium. Yankee Stadium (1923) is surely the intended destination.
  • Feels like the bit about him playing for Ed Barrow would be more appropriate in the next section, where his time with the Royals is further discussed. It would fit well at the end of this paragraph, after the statistics.
  • Playing and managing career: Just discovered a link for the Connecticut League. Seems useful for the first sentence of the section.
  • "The St. Louis Browns signed Krichell in 1911. He was used as a backup catcher during his career." It should say somewhere in here that this is a major league team, to help the non-baseball fan. I can imagine one tripping over the "during his career" part, when his pro career had started several years earlier. Perhaps consider changing that to "during his major league career" or similar (I'm sure that's the intention).
  • Reference 7 says nothing about him platooning with Jim Stephens. It may give his games played, but I don't see Stephens mentioned anywhere.
  • No need for two at bats links in three sentences. Also, there is an inconsistency between "at bats" and "at-bats".
  • "His fielding was among the worst in the league for catchers, with a fielding percentage of .943 that season." Multiple issues here. First, this appears to be his 1911 percentage, not 1912 as indicated; that one is .959, according to the Baseball-Reference profile. Second, I don't see any rankings for AL catchers in the statistics, which would be needed to verify that he was "among the worst". Perhaps the site has a page with year-by-year figures to cover this?
  • I would recommend linking "stole" by the Ty Cobb sentence to stolen base to assist the non-baseball fans again. I dislike having so many links in a row, but they are all baseball jargon or otherwise useful, so I can put up with it.
  • I agree with YellowMonkey that the post-major league playing career needs some expansion. Baseball Reference's minor league page on Krichell has statistics for each year he played in the minors, so that would provide for significant improvements, even if the end result may be a bit stat-heavy and dry.
  • No need for another Barrow link here when there is one in the previous section, which could be moved into this section with one of my suggestions above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article pretty much needs a rewrite based on a couple of the comments, and the likelihood of me finding time to do that is not very good, it's probably better for me to withdraw it. It sucks, I haven't had to fail an FAC before, but things happen. If it's not ready it's not ready, I'll fix it up when I get some free time. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:51, 1 June 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 13:25, 8 June 2010 [40].

RKO Pictures

Nominator(s): DCGeist (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The coolest of the classic Hollywood studios? The most tragic? Is there a difference? (N.B.: One intentional dab link—"WOR TV and radio stations".)—DCGeist (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What is the point of an intentional dab?
The link to the disambiguation page is the most efficient way of informing the reader about the two radio stations and TV station. No article encompasses all three or even two.—DCGeist (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead. Think it should be was a...since it is no longer in existence in the same form.
It is a film production and distribution company that possesses the name and all identity rights of the film production and distribution company founded in 1929. In its earlier form, it was one of the Big Five studios of Hollywood's Golden Age.—DCGeist (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • the second sentence is very convoluted. Can you tweak that so it is more easily read?
Please specify the point of confusion.—DCGeist (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • celebrated for its musicals.... then you go into a sentence with Katherine Hepburn, Mitchum, etc. There should be some kind of transition...Although ...celebrated for its musicals, it also offered an impressive array of comedies and dramas. .... Innovative horror, etc.
Segue phrase added.—DCGeist (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • two of the most famous films in motion picture history were produced at the studio.... convoluted. The studio produced two of the most famous ....
Done.—DCGeist (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • when did HH take it over? in later years? isn't there a date, or did Hughes keep that a secret too? Again, sentence is awkward as well. Oh, I understand. you're saying Hughes and eventually General Tire. Well, that took me three reads to figure it out. Sooooooo.....
Edited.—DCGeist (talk) 23:23, 22 May 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/June_2010&oldid=370181760"