Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archive 1
archive 6
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOC limit}}
{{TOC limit}}
== August 2010 ==
== August 2010 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hong Kong/archive3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyclone Emma/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Indefatigable (1909)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dustbin Baby (film)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Killer7/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Whistler Sliding Centre/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liverpool F.C./archive4}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liverpool F.C./archive4}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 410 Squadron RCAF/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 410 Squadron RCAF/archive1}}

Latest revision as of 13:16, 31 August 2010

August 2010

[edit]
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 13:16, 31 August 2010 [1].

Hong Kong

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–what?) 14:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all the WP:FACR. We also fixed all the issues discovered in the last failed nomination and the article completed a copy-edit process to fix any potential wording flaws. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–what?) 14:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based largely on sourcing concerns

  • "the agreement was never ratified due to a dispute between high ranking officials in both governments" - source?
  • "Life expectancy in Hong Kong is 79.8 years for males and 86.1 years for females as of 2009, among the highest in the world" - has a citation needed tag
  • "Notable remaining historical assets" - what makes these particular "assets" notable?
  • "particularly areas where standard bus lines cannot reach or do not reach as frequently, quickly, or directly." - source?
  • "Hong Kong is famous for its junks traversing the harbour, and small kai-to ferries that serve remote coastal settlements." - source?
  • "The Census and Statistics Department has reported that the number of people identifying themselves as "white" fell from 46,584 in the 2001 census to 36,384 in the 2006 by-census, a decline of 22 percent" - citation needed tag
  • Don't use bare URLs in references
  • Please be consistent in citation formatting, and in the formatting for Further reading. For example, refs 40 and 41 (NY Times) both lead to the same article, but are formatted completely differently
  • Ref 39 (FormAsia) returns 404 not found

This list is by no means exhaustive, but I feel it clearly shows this article is not ready for FA status. More concerns can be provided if/when these are addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 31 August 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 13:16, 31 August 2010 [2].

Cyclone Emma

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Emma was one of several storms during the 2005-06 Australian region cyclone season to have its name retired. Although it was the weakest of these storms, torrential rain produced by Emma resulted in some of the most significant flooding in Western Australia's history. The Murchison River, normally 500 metres in width swelled to 20 kilometres at the height of the floods. I believe I've covered as much of the event as possible and as such I'm nominating it for Featured Article status. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - no dablinks or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did a run-through for orthodox Br/Aus Eng, etc, did some CE, fixed or provided some links and name typos. The sentence about the 60 firefighters and 18 volunteers raised eyebrows as rural/bush firefighters are usually firefighters. The 60 were SES not firefighters, aand the 18 were a mixture of volunteer squads (that were trained, not just random helping hands) and some more volunteers as well YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • 11 is a footnote, not a reference.
  • As a point of interest, can you say who "Gary Padgett" is? There appear to be no credentials on his website.

Otherwise, all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 18 August 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 13:16, 31 August 2010 [3].

HMS Indefatigable (1909)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it recently passed a MilHist ACR and has subsequently been tweaked by myself and several others. A participant in the failed hunt for the German battlecruiser Goeben in the Mediterranean at the start of World War I, Indefatigable became the first of three British battlecruisers to be destroyed by magazine explosions during the Battle of Jutland in 1916, the largest naval battle of the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha, per WP:MOS, "Minus signs: Do not use a hyphen (-) as a minus sign (−), except in code (see below); the correct character for general use is U+2212 MINUS SIGN (entered as −​)." You changed one of the minus signs; can I change it back? - Dank (push to talk) 11:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  1. Imagines need ALT Text adding
    Not taking a position, just pointing out that that page was demoted from guideline status in March. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. External links need to use correct template
  3. As far as am aware the infobox fails 1.c of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria
    • Most things except the armor are cited in the design and description section. I'll add cites for everything that is not.
      • Will relook at this later.
  4. Article should use British English over American English per WP:ENGVAR i.e. First World War not World War I
    • The article does use British English, but I've changed the usage. Do you have some sort of cite saying that First World War is British English? I've always treated them as equivalent and note that Burt, an English author, uses WWI in his title.
  5. Pretty sure imagines should not be under section titles, and at any rate the first image causes the text to display somewhat weird – at least here on the work’s monitor.
    • Not a whole lot of other places to put them. Especially the Jutland map.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not entirely happy about this (considering the grief ive had in the past about imagines :p) but looking at the article a second time round does seem there located in the best possible places.
  • I have only been able to read though half the article thus far but cannot find any other issues; text, grammar and sources seem fine. However would oppose on the above grounds at the moment (although they are quick fixes). I will try and read through the rest over the weekend or next week when time allows. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't answer most of these Sturmvogel, since they involve British English, reference formatting, and images. On the infobox ... almost none of the ship FAs put the references in the infobox; are you saying the material isn't cited in the text? - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term “half-sister” is used in relation to an HMAS ship and the HMS New Zealand however the term does not seem to be explained; the article it links to talks about sister ships – a term am familiar with - but doesnt mention a "half-sister"; so what is one?
Thanks for catching that. We (at SHIPS) disagree among ourselves on how to handle this. My position is that if you link a term, then the term should be explained by the linked article. - Dank (push to talk) 15:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added an explanation of half-sister to the sister ship article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having finished reading through the article it is clearly well sourced and written, there doesn’t appear to be anything that jumps out other than the few little things I mentioned above. More of a general question than a comment in regards to the article, I am aware that there are competing theories over the reason why some of the ships went down at Jutland but am unsure if these cover the Indy; can you confirm?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The real controversy is over the cause of the HMS Invincible's loss since she was only clearly seen to have been hit in the turret. See that article's talk page for some heated discussion of the reasons for her loss. The causes of the losses of HMS Queen Mary and Indefatigable are far less controversial since both ships were seen to take hits on their hulls that presumably penetrated to their magazines.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 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 13:16, 31 August 2010 [8].

Dustbin Baby (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I have gone above and beyond on this article for a number of reasons. Firstly, I bought the DVD, and watched the film several times. This isn't my normal choice of film. I wrote several pages of notes after watching the making-of feature. I managed to successfully request the release of some high-quality images to illustrate the article, one of which is now a featured picture. I wrote a good number of articles about topics related to this article, including some of decent quality. I've nurtured this article from creation on a sleepy afternoon after watching the film because I was bored to where it is now, and I now feel it is ready for featured article status. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments

Although I made some formatting changes to this article in the past, I'll still comment here on some more issues that should be addressed before this reaches featured quality.

I'll take a closer look later. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a few more fixes.
Let me know if any clarification is needed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support, nice job. I would recommend getting the time frame references for the DVD citations as requested below. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: all of the images' licenses check out. You're very lucky to get publicity photos released under a Creative Commons license for use here. I have a concern though. The Kindle Entertainment logo feels like window dressing to me. It's appropriate in the navbox at the end of the article because those articles pertain to the company. I guess I'm not seeing the encyclopedia value of including it in the body of the article where it feels like advertising to me. Imzadi 1979 → 07:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could add other related logos (BBC and ITV DVD are both PD) to balance it a little, or I could remove the Kindle one. Your call. J Milburn (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd pull it. It's already in the article by way of the template, so using it in the article is a bit superfluous. The other reason is that the logo isn't discussed in the body of the article. In that case, it's not needed to illustrate an element of the text's commentary. It's not needed for branding or reassurance to readers that this article is about the company in question, since this is about a movie not the company. I can't think of any reason to leave it except decoration. Of course it would be nice to have more imagery to break up the text. It's a shame that you don't have a movie poster of some kind to include, even under fair-use, with the appropriate commentary on it. You'll have to ask someone more knowledgeable on WP:NFCC if the DVD cover could be used in connection with the "Home media release" section. Imzadi 1979 → 11:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The logo is freely licensed? You do realise that don't you? The NFCC do not apply, so leaving it in as "decoration" is fine. And the DVD cover, which was previously used in the article, is not at all needed, as it's basically the same as the third publicity shot anyway. Neither the DVD cover nor the logo would be legit under the NFCC, but all of the images currently in the article are free, and so we can use them as we wish. J Milburn (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I say though, if you like images to "break up the text", the ITV DVD logo (which is free) could illustrate the home media release section, and the BBC logo could be slipped in somewhere. J Milburn (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I know that the logo is freely licensed, that's not what I was talking about in connection with my comments on fair-use, which were aimed at movie poster/DVD cover images. I don't know about others, but I don't add images to articles just for "decoration". Adding the other two logos would start to make the article look like the side of a race car. Being free to include a thing in the article doesn't mean it can or should be included. In this case, the logo is unnecessary window dressing. It doesn't add any value to the article, so it should go from the text. If you can find other appropriate images to include that would add value to the article, then do so to help break up the text. That's why I had the idea that the DVD cover might be nice to include. It could be used under fair-use if done correctly and placed in the "Home media release" section. Since it's so duplicative of freely licensed images in the article (which I did not know) it wouldn't meet NFCC as a free alternative does exist. If no other images can be included, that's fine. You might want to space them out a bit more if you can. Imzadi 1979 → 12:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok, I've removed the Kindle logo. I don't see the point of spreading out the images, as I have added them in the sections where they are most appropriate- you said yourself that images should add value, rather than be used decoratively. I strongly disagree that the use of the DVD cover would have been legit, regardless of the fact it is so similar to one of the images already used, but that is not really relevant. J Milburn (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to temporarily retract my guidance that the image licenses all check out. Yes, the three images currently in use are all taggedunder Creative Commons licenses, which was the basis of my previous guidance. It appears that the file uploader also processed the OTRS ticket. Please don't think I'm implying any impropriety, but until someone else can verify the OTRS ticket for me and respond at the Commons noticeboard, I feel the need to play this one safe. Imzadi 1979 → 22:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Ticket independently verified. Imzadi 1979 → 23:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The film was shown on the BBC but the 'Home media release' section states that it was issued by ITV DVD? Is this definitely right? I've seen BBC productions released by other companies such as 2 Entertain but never ITV. Cavie78 (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Why is the Dustbin Baby article on BBC's CBBC website listed at the top of the references? This does not appear to be cited in the article.
    • It's a general reference for the likes of run time, (the start of the) plot and, most of all, the cast. The kind of things that would often go without a reference. I couldn't think of a clean way to cite it inline for the cast list. J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are numerous citations to the "Behind the bin" section of the DVD. Presumably track numbers and timings are available for the comments cited. These are the equivalents of page numbers in books, and should be given for each of the references to the DVD. Also, can you clarify what the role is of "Julia Ouston" in regard to this DVD?
  • Consistency is required in the provision of retrieval dates (11 is missing) and on the formatting of these dates (26 is different)

Otherwise sources seem OK. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I don't normally read "entertainment" articles, such as those on movies, but I thought I would give this a go. Below are my comments.

  • "Dustbin Baby is a 2008 BBC television film directed by Juliet May first broadcast on 21 December 2008..." – 2008 seems redundant in the opening sentence.
  • The last sentence of the lead seems a little cumbersome. Could it be broken up?
  • Some of the plot text seems disjointed: "However, the Johnsons' relationship is an abusive one, leading to Janet's suicide. Marion talks to April's friends, and realises that April has lied. April travels alone to Janet's grave. Marion continues her search, ending up in a shopping centre, where she meets Elliot, who has joined her." I realize that movie will jump from character to character, making it hard to connect in text. The text might just need some touch-up, with words like "meanwhile", "while April does X,", etc.
  • I've tried to rephrase the section you mentioned. There's some toing-and-froing in the second paragraph too, but I think that's a little more clear. The plot's currently towards the top end of recommended space- it's a fairly disjoineted film, considering it's aimed at kids. J Milburn (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two references are listed by not cited in-line. For what are they referencing? (I plead ignorant when it comes to non-academic referencing.)
  • Behind the Bin is cited several times (cites 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 34). I could link those cites to the main listing as I have seen done in some articles, but I have no idea how to. The BBC link serves as a general reference for some of the uncited details- cast, mostly.
  • In the first case, it sounds like you want to use CITEREF. Give that a read and see if that works for you. In the latter case, if the ref is used for the cast, it might be good to introduce the list with something like, "The cast includes:[ref]". – VisionHolder « talk » 13:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citeref looks cool, but I don't think fits the formatting I've used in the article. I've tried your second suggestion a few times, I really don't like it- it looks much neater like this. Considering cast lists are often unreferenced anyways, I didn't think it would be a problem. I could do it if you really think it's necessary. J Milburn (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once someone reviews and approves your references, I recommend using WebCite to archive every web page you cite to avoid link rot, which may compromise this articles FA status later on (assuming it passes). If you have questions about how to do this, just drop a note on my talk page.

Overall, it was a very good article about the movie. However, the Plot section was a little tough to read. It may be me, though. If you fix the other points I've brought up, I will add "leaning support", and if other reviewers fail to find fault with the Plot section, then I will switch to "support". Good job! – VisionHolder « talk » 03:23, 27 August 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 13:16, 31 August 2010 [9].

Killer7

[edit]
Nominator(s): Axem Titanium (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination was closed early mostly due to procedural reasons. I believe this article meets the FA criteria by being well referenced and comprehensive. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Ref 24: Unseen64 appears to be an archive. Do we have any information on the original sources of its material?
  • Ref 37: If Edge is a mgazine, it should be italicised
  • Ref 38: Lacks retrieval date. What is "Famitsu"?
  • Ref 41: Nintendo Power should be italicised
  • Ref 42: What makes "insert credit" a reliable source?
  • Ref 45: New York Times should be italicised
  • Ref 50: Joystiq appears to be a blog
  • Ref 56 is in Japanese, needs noting

Otherwise sources look OK. Note also: there are several uncited statements in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in the first FAC, "The Joystiq ref is actually a primary source, since it reproduces Thompson's letter in full. insert credit is of unknown reliability (which is to say, it hasn't been discussed), but the contributing author, Tim Rogers, is a well-known New Games Journalist, who provides a unique perspective not found in other reviews. Unseen 64 also provides primary sources in the sense that they compile pre-release/beta screenshots into one central location. I'm not citing the article, but the screenshots found in the article. But, if you still have an objection to it, I'm not particularly attached to that bit of information." All the other changes have been made. What uncited statements are you referring to? Axem Titanium (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Unseen 64 bit since it lacks context and importance. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will let reviewers with a better knowledge than mine decide if Joystiq and insert credit are acceptable sources. As to uncited sentences, here are a couple:-
  • "The interaction between Japan and the US is a central source of conflict in Killer7".
    This is just a general statement which is made evident by the majority of the plot of the game being about US-Japan relations. I don't think it needs a source. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Casamassina was also impressed by the quality of the anime-style cutscenes featured in the later half of the game."
    The previous ref sources both statements. I moved it to make this more clear. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is "United States" linked?
  • Is "actually" adding to the meaning in the second para?
  • "received extremely polarizing reviews"—consider just "received polarized reviews".
  • "While some reviewers could appreciate the stripped down controls"—"Could" might even be POV; it's at least redundant ... "reviewers appreciated". Hyphen "stripped-down".
  • "Jack Thompson, an outspoken video game activist, also criticized the game for its alleged "full-blown sex sequences", but his claims were ultimately refuted." Rm "also". What claims were refuted? That it contains sex sequences, or social/political claims about them?
  • "Despite these setbacks, killer7's cult appeal eventually led to remakes of Suda51's older works, as well as the successful launch of No More Heroes." Or simpler: "Despite these setbacks, killer7's cult appeal led to remakes of Suda51's older works and the successful launch of No More Heroes."

Looking further down from the lead, things like: "By holding a button, the player character moves forward and another button causes the character to reverse direction." Can it be grammatically parallel?

I think the prose needs work. I am away Sunday to Friday. Tony (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes you mentioned and I gave the whole article a fresh copyedit. What do you think? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting by request (I'm about to be offline for a week). It looks ok. But at random, I picked out:
  • "killer7 received divisive reviews and sparked debates about the role of video games as art and depictions of sex and violence in video games." Readers will trip over this. Either remove the last three words or fix some other way.
  • It's partly a personal style, partly wider than that, but you might consider more commas before the high-level structural "ands", especially where the sentence is long and there aren't too many other "ands" hanging around: "He found that despite poor pacing and stilted gameplay, the "quirky scripting and edgy plot" were strong draws, and called killer7 one of "most artfully designed footnotes in gaming history".
  • I won't use quote-marks because there's already a quote within: Kristan Reed of Eurogamer described killer7 as "a concept game, an arthouse game, a simple game, an often beautiful game, but most certainly never an everyman's game", keenly aware of the game's limited appeal.—What is the status of the last clause? I don't get it.
  • "criticized those same aspects"—just "the same", I think. Do you? Then remove "also". Comma before "while". And consider not using "while" too much as a clause connector: it's a bit laboured (and carries possible unintended meanings).
  • Lots of s and zh sounds: "the PlayStation 2 version, causing the latter's scores to suffer." The latter's is ungainly.
So, I think an unfamiliar editor should look through it carefully. WP needs to cover these pop cultural fields with razor-sharp prose—there's so much slop out there on the Internet on vid games, it's the way to gain authority. I'm not saying this is slop; but it needs a bit of cleaning up. I didn't oppose because I knew I'd be away during the crucial improvement period. Tony (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made the changes you pointed out and I've called on a few people to take a look at it and maybe tighten up the prose. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the prose seems cleaned up to me, though Tony is the expert. A few points-
  • The lead says that it received polarizing reviews due to the complex plot, but in reception you don't have any critiques of the plot, besides 1up calling it "edgy". Seems more like it was split due to the control scheme and art style than control scheme and plot.
  • You link the publisher sometimes in the reception, but not always. I'd link IGN, 1up etc every time.
  • Plot- I thought at the end he was going to kill Iwazaru/Kun Lan, but then suddenly he doesn't and it's a century later and Kun Lan/Harman are immortal? And before that, Garcian turns out to really be Emir, and killed the 7 manifestations of Harman's personality 50 years ago but now is one of the 7 manifestations? A few more sentences here to clear it up would be nice. --PresN 15:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments. I must've forgotten to add something about plot in the reception section, so I added it. I linked all the publishers and I tried to clarify WTF is going on at the end of the game (it's very confusing, as reviewers note, lol). Axem Titanium (talk) 17:20, 25 August 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 13:16, 31 August 2010 [10].

The Whistler Sliding Centre

[edit]
Nominator(s): Chris (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this article meets the necessary requirements to qualify for WP:FA. It has undergone two different peer reviews, one before it was nominated for WP:GA and one after it received WP:GA. This venue was the subject of controversey during the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver in the wake of Nodar Kumaritashvili's death prior to the opening ceremony and I have done my best to present him and the Olympics in as best and as neutral of a light as possible. Chris (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm this I stand corrected YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Otherwise, sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Oppose. Tony (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Linking: why is "Canada" linked, when more specific locations are linked next to them and have prominent links themselves to the more generalised article? The opening is a link-farm that dilutes the high-value links. Why is "French" linked, as though the French language were a mystery, or readers would want to divert there suddenly at the top of this article? More: "Prague" is link enough without its country-name linked. And the rest in that para.
  • "Site construction of the facility began on 1 June 2005 following environmental approval from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Construction site safety and security was put in place at that time." Repetition; and why site construction? "were put in place". Then "construction" for the third time. And up to five times by the end of the short para.
  • Insufficient commas: for example, after "2007".
  • Plain English: "The first run was on ...".
  • Remove "located".
  • "Austria", "Great Britain" linked again, in a sea of links.
    • The only time the countries as is are linked here. All of the other ones shown are Nations at the 2010 Winter Olympics piped in for their respective country. Chris (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in order to
  • What is "homologation"? Do we have to divert to the link-target to find out?
  • Quotation technique: Lueders commented that the track "... [is] definitely the fastest ... in the world and that's what makes it so difficult" while Kelly of Canada concurred with "... any loss of concentration ... [can get you] ... in trouble because it is technical as well.".—"said" is the normal speech tag. Why not: that the track is "definitely ...", which avoids the square brackets and the ellipsis points. Why the ellipsis points around [can get you]?

This needs work. Tony (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still ellipsis points at the starts of quotations need removing; country-links ... I removed a few more. Other improvements could be made. It is hard to do this by oneself, through sheer over-familiarity with the wording. Tony (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ellipsis points removed completely. What other issues do you have that I need work on? Chris (talk) 14:43, 26 August 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 21:30, 28 August 2010 [11].

Liverpool F.C.

[edit]
Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after recent work on the article I feel it is close to Featured standard. The article in question has had premature candidacy's before, but I feel this is the best shape the article has ever been in. Anyway I look forward to your thoughts on the article and comments. Cheers NapHit (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I am sorry, the prose is nowhere near the standard required for a featured article. Apart from poor grammar, lack of clarity and some odd choices of phrase, there are also typos. The following is a small sample of the problems I found in an incomplete reading of the first few paragraphs

  • "The club were founded in 1892 after Everton left Anfield after a dispute over rent." "after...after"?
  • "...admitted to The Football League..." no capital in "the"
  • In the second lead paragraph we have "Liverpool is..." and "They (meaning Liverpool) are..." This inconsistency occurs through the article. For example, the first and second paragraphs of the History section begin, respectively, "Liverpool F.C. was founded" and "Liverpool F.C. were founded"
  • A "rivalry" and a "local derby" are different things and should not be confused.
  • In the last lead paragraph we are first told that Liverpool FC is valued at £532m. We are then told that there was "a lengthy search for investment", whatever that means (does it mean investors, or a purchaser?) and that the club was bought for £218.9 million, evidently much less than it was worth. To the general reader this is mystifying.
  • "multi-faceted dispute" seems overblown; I wonder whose phrase this is?
  • "Everton F.C. founded and played at Anfield from 1884 to 1892." This sentence does not parse properly. The meaning is unclear
  • "Fundamental difference emerged in how the club should be run when the club assessed the purchase of the whole of the Anfield site." Obscure, ungrammatical.
  • "1989 also saw Liverpool involved in the most dramatic conclusion to a season of all time..." Wildly POV

And so on. I don't think this article was helped much by the recent peer review (see here. There is a long, long history of attempts at GA and FA, with frequent peer reviews, which have not helped to bring about the necessary improvements to the article. It needs the close attention of an editor with prose-writing skills and a feel for football club articles - there are several such articles which have become FAs and there is no reason why this should not join them in time. The article has good features, but is at present let down by the prose. Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My fault really I should have taken more care in reading the history section I kind of bypassed that section, Tom has copyedited a few paragraphs and I've gone over a few others, it looks in better nick now but see what you think. NapHit (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the problems can be resolved within the timescale of an FAC, so I strongly recommend withdrawal until you are confident that the strict FA criterion relating to prose standards is met. Brianboulton (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh I agree, this nom was premature, I'd like it to be withdrawn so I can get it properly copyedited. NapHit (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Unfortunately, I'm going to have to oppose too. I started copyediting this article in the hope of helping it to get through, but I think there is just too much work to do. The prose is quite frankly awful in places; this article needs a really good copyedit, and some additional references in places. I might keep chipping away at the prose over the course of today, in which case I may strike but ideally I think this needs to be taken away and have a bit of time spent polishing it, which I'm happy to help with. Tom (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Five paragraphs out of seven in a section detailing the club's 120-year history are dedicated to the past thirty years; undue weight to recent events and all that. 114.143.170.140 (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Others have opposed already, so I see no need to pile on. However, when I see something like "Liverpool is is the joint most successful club in the history of English football..." in the lead, it doesn't leave me with a good feeling. These are the types of errors that a good peer review should catch, and I don't know why that didn't happen here. This is the kind of topic that we should have featured, so I hope that the necessary copy-editing is done to make a future FAC smoother. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:21, 28 August 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 15:54, 20 August 2010 [12].

No. 410 Squadron RCAF

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tartarus talk 00:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all criteria and is an example of how the Air Force Unit Articles should look. Tartarus talk 00:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. [13] AustralianRupert (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • the second paragraph in the 1946-1964 subsection of the Decorations section is uncited;
    • the entire 1946-1964 subsection of the Aircraft section is uncited;
    • in the Bibliography section, can you please check the details of the Williams source. Is "Queens University" the title? My search indicates that the ISBN listed is for a work called: "Reinventing Canadian Defence Procurement: A View From the Inside". AustralianRupert (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three:
  • Oppose - after examining the article more thoroughly, I have some further concerns, detailed below. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead should be no more than four paragraphs per WP:LEAD
  • One-sentence paragraphs and one-paragraph subsections should generally be avoided
  • What is the official name of the squadron? You've got at least 3 options in the lead alone, and you do not use a consistent name in the text (the most frequent are "410 Squadron" and "No. 410 Squadron")
  • "what young people must endure" - can this be rephrased to avoid the appearance of editorialization?
  • Avoid linking the same term more than once, especially in close proximity
  • "De Havilland" -> "de Havilland". Also, why is there no "the" before this plane name when there is for the preceding name?
  • RAF Hunsdon or Hundson?
done-t Hunsdon MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest merging the "Bases" subsection with other Second World War sections to improve readability
  • "By the end of the war, 75 3⁄4 victories had been claimed...The squadron's victories included 75 3⁄4 destroyed, 2 probably destroyed, and 9 damaged" - either your math is faulty or you're using two different definitions of "victories"
  • Be sure to convert all measurements
  • "But the success was overshadowed by the allied invasion of Europe" - not a complete sentence
  • "and the Cougars destroyed twelve German bombers in all" - not a complete sentence. Also, why is "twelve" spelled out here when "14" is expressed numerically in the previous paragraph?
  • ""A" Flight dispersal" - what is this?
  • Be consistent in considering "crew" as a singular or plural noun
  • Why do you discuss August 1944 in the D-Day section, then return to July 1944 in "Immediately after D-Day"? Chronology is confused in many areas
  • "W/C Hiltz" - you don't explain this abbreviation until "Wartime commanders". There are several other abbreviations explained only after they appear
  • Who commanded the squadron from 1-18 August 1942?
  • I would recommend that either yourself or an experienced copy-editor go through the article and edit for clarity and grammar
  • Do.217 or Do 217?
  • "It runs one fighter pilot course every year, training approximately 20 pilots" - source?
  • "FOTEF enabled the integration of newly modernized CF-18 ECP-583 R2 aircraft into the Fighter Force" - source?
  • "its efforts were seen as integral" - were seen as integral by...?
  • Should mention both Thomas and Davey in shortened citations
  • Ref 37: page number(s)?
  • Becker and Brent, Dempsey, Green, Jenkins, Milberry, Page, Watkins, and Williams appear in Bibliography but not Notes
  • What makes History of War a reliable source?
  • AvroLand is a mirror of RCAF.com
  • Refs 12-14 go to "Missing or Outdated Page"
  • Ref 17 returns a error message. Also, the formatting should be consistent with Ref 16 and similar
  • Ref 40 should be formatted similarly to London Gazette refs
  • Why is the formatting for the Jenkins Bibliography entry so different from the others?
  • Title missing for Williams
  • Don't include the same sites in References and External links


Sources comments: Some of these may be covered by earlier reviewers' comments:-

  • Most of the books listed in the bibliography are not cited works. I can see no citations to Becker & Brent, Dempsey, Green, Jenkins, Milberry, Page, Watkins, or Williams. These books should be listed separately as Further reading, not as sources.
  • Ref 1: The source carries the message: "This is a private website and the author has no official connection with the RAF or the Ministry of Defence." It appears to be the work of an amateur historian and enthusiast; how can we be sure of its reliability?
  • Refs 3, 7, 12, 13, 14, all Royal Canadian Air Force, go to a "missing or outdated page" message. The RCAF has obviosly reorganised its website material; you need to find the current urls for these pages.
  • Ref 5 (RAF Commands): Dead link
  • Ref 17 (National Archive): link does not go directly to the required page. Instructions needed
  • Ref 18 (Canadian Forces Air Command): Page not found, message: "Our Web site has undergone extensive restructuring".
  • Ref 37 "Spick" need a page reference
  • Ref 39: Link seems to be to the Discovery Channel rather than to the cited material.
  • Ref 40: Vancouver Sun requires italics

Brianboulton (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment although the article has some good material the division of material between different subjects makes it hard to understand. I would suggest that the change in bases and the operations etc would be better all being in the operations centre and if needed the base changes could be summarised in a table. The order of the sections doesnt help readability with the aircraft section in the middle of what is really the history. The description of the aircraft could be in the relevant sections of the history/operations again with just a summary at the end about aircraft used. MilborneOne (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the Avroland ref is cited 10 times, about 10% of all the citations. What makes it reliable? There is a typo in the first sentence and at least three typos/obvious grammar errors in the first paragraph. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Re Avroland, when reviewing the sources I gave Avroland the benefit of the doubt, partly because of the prestige of the name Avro in aircraft manufacturing circles. Looking at the site more closely, I am not so sure. It appears to be more of a tribute to A.V. Roe Canada than a repository of objective information, and is indeed described by its author as "a work of passion". The site has received awards, but I am unsure of the value of these. Perhaps other editors should consider this. Brianboulton (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    From the bottom of the Avroland page: "The material above is mirrored from RCAF.com with the permission of Bob Hurst - who retains copyright to the material listed". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 20 August 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 22:48, 19 August 2010 [14].

British European Airways Flight 548

[edit]
Nominator(s): Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...Second nomination, first review was archived due to lack of reviewers. Minimal edits since last nomination, full nomination rationale given at last FAC. This article describes a particularly tragic aircraft accident that had far-reaching consequences for the airline industry. It could be 'heavy going' for some readers but I have attempted to explain all technical terms. Many thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Information contained in the footnotes requires citation, the same as it would if included in the text. At present, none of the footnoted information carries a citation. Otherwise, sources look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, can you advise me how to do that please? I tried adding a standard cite after the footnote template but it did not include it in the footnote section, do I just add the author and page numbers in the footnote template? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to put the cite within the footnote, just before "group= nb". Ping me if you have further difficulty doing this. Brianboulton (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, simple when you know how. I have added citations to all the footnotes except one which itself is directing the reader to a chapter in the linked official report. I have removed one footnote regarding the flight deck graffiti wording and placed it on the talk page until a source can be found for it. It was attributed to the official accident report but I can not find it in there, it was added by another editor as it was originally a cite in the 'ibid' format. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • In "Captain Key's outburst", you mention that the graffiti was analyzed by a handwriting expert during the investigation... did the graffiti "artist" end up being involved in the accident? Who was it? -SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Naples incident", I would only wikilink "Foxtrot Hotel" to the phonetic alphabet, not the whole phrase "Foxtrot hotel incident". -SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Stall warnings section", the last sentence of the first paragraph confuses me. "Key held the aircraft's nose up contrary to normal stall recovery procedure and levelled the wings, but his action had the effect of stalling the aircraft by slowing it down even further." First you say that his action was contrary to the normal procedure, and then you say "but", as if something unexpected happened. Would this work for you? "Key held the aircraft's nose up, contrary to normal stall recovery procedure, and levelled the wings, which had the effect of stalling the aircraft by slowing it down even further." -SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe include some sort of reference for the violence of the impact... I know that a 23 m/s descent rate is very high, but maybe comparing it to a normal landing descent rate or something would give readers a sense of scale. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article states that public inquires are uncommon for aircraft accidents... maybe mention one or two other cases where public inquiries were held? -SidewinderX (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention that the captain's "distressing arterial event" was intrepeted by the public as a heart attack... was it a heart attack, or was it misinterpreted by the public? -SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "unserviceability" mean? Does it mean the part was not regularly maintained, or that it was located where it could not be maintained? Would the crew have known that the valve was in bad shape?-SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kind of a large comment -- you mention in the FAC nom that the accident had far reaching implications. After reading the article, the only major result of the accident seems to be that voice recorders were mandated for most British passenger aircraft. Were there any other implications? -SidewinderX (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • support a fine read, though I have one concern in the Accident synopsis section the first paragraph of the crew are listed in the P1,P2,P3 format when describing their position on the crew. Immediately this is followed with their personals detail of age, experience but the order is altered to P1,P3,P2 which is apparently according to level of experience. Given that one of the issues already noted was that P3 had more experience than many P2 which was the cause of a dispute I would have thought that since the dispute was worth mentioning in the article and that the crew were an example of the dispute, it would be better to keep the crew order in the paragraph unaltered. I dont see any reason not to support on this issue just high lighting something that was disconcerting when reading to the point where I went back over the paragraph looking for what wasnt making sense. Gnangarra 12:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note
I am away on holiday for the next few days (till 12/8), will pop in if I can get Wi-Fi access, apologies for any delay in replying. Many thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - An engaging and interesting article, with a good balance of technical information and narrative as befits a general encyclopedia article. I have reviewed the whole text and could only make a few very minor edits to it. I think it is ready for FA. - Ahunt (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Crum375

[edit]
  • Oppose - I feel the article has definite FA potential, but as it stands it is short on neutrality and fails WP:WIAFA-1(d). The main problem is that it appears to assign disproportionate weight to minority or tiny-minority opinions, which contradict the majority view, as expressed by the AIB report. I believe the nominator is very cooperative, and commend him for his hard work and sincere efforts to improve the situation, but there are still many open issues. I will keep helping out, and give this high priority, but I want to be sure it's clear that in my opinion the article is not FA-ready as it stands. I hope this can be rectified soon. Crum375 (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to review this FAC, and I have read the article and the main source, the AIB report. Overall, I think the article is well written, highly detailed and well researched. I will try to focus here mostly on technical issues, WP:WIAFA-1(b),(c),(d), leaving formatting, style and other criteria to others. I may add more points as I dig deeper into it, but here is a starting batch:

  • Under "Operational background":
    • "Due to their very nature, however, the stall warning and recovery systems tended to over-react." This is contradictory to the AIB report, which states that there is no known case of "over-reacting", or improper activation, especially not the stick pusher.
  • The cited page 10 of the report covers this, broken down it says there were 10 reported incidents between 1965-73, one ground incident, one on takeoff, four genuine and one probable genuine (I made if five genuine for 'half' of 10) which leaves three not explained in the report. Report does say that there were no false in-flight activations which the article does state. I have removed Due to their very nature, however, as I didn't like it, added a cite for where the stall warning and recovery systems tended to over-react comes from. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's still saying "The stall warning and recovery systems tended to over-react." According to the AIB, for stick pusher, there was not a single case (in flight) of improper pusher activation, contradicting the quoted sentence. As for the shaker, as I read the AIB report, there were suspected premature activations, but AFAICT not one had been verified as such by the AIB. In other words, AFAICT, there isn't a single instance where there was an in-flight shaker activation verified to have occurred at a speed and configuration where it shouldn't have, although some pilots did complain about it. As bottom line, as I read the AIB report, I don't see any reason to objectively malign either the stick shaker or the pusher, although pilots of that era, unused to those devices "taking over" for them, were naturally suspicious of them. I understand that other sources may make the statement about the mis-activations, but that would have to be balanced against the AIB which seems to contradict it, and the AIB's position, which represents the mainstream, carries a lot more weight, per my general points below). Crum375 (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The choice of action there seems to be to remove the Bartelski source, I cannot account for the contradiction. If both sources are there then the reader can decide which one is more accurate. Bartelski is a reliable source by our definition, to not use it would not 'exhaust all sources', something I've been 'grilled' about at FAC before. Very difficult to say in the article 'I think this source is not quite right'. Let me have a look at some of your other points, no early night for me!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) My understanding of NNPOV is that the editor should have a neutral point of view which is something I work very hard at and I believe am using in this article. If the sources don't have neutral point of views then that's unavoidable but if one of the views is obviously adrift (UNDUE?) then that should be clipped. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NPOV tells us that the views presented in the article must represent the reliably published ones, in rough proportion to their prevalence among those sources. It also tells us to present those views in a neutral fashion, so as not to appear to favor any one side. In this case, you have the AIB report which represents mainstream and the overwhelming majority view, and a single individual writing an article or a book; the mainstream view should take precedence by far. If the minority view is significant, it can be mentioned, but it should not appear to be on equal footing with the majority. This has nothing to do with our own views as editors, it's just a question of how to relate to the readers what the prevailing and significant views are, in a neutral fashion. Crum375 (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "BEA Trident pilots distrusted the protection systems; questioned informally, over half of them said that they would disable the systems on activation." This is not what the AIB says. It seems one captain performed a private interview of some colleagues, and got one result, while the investigators got another (conflicting) result. The AIB report speculates as to the reason of the discrepant results. The wiki article seems to ignore all that, and take the captain's results only.
  • Under "Accident synopsis":
    • The article says "At 1,000 feet (300 m) the flight entered cloud and encountered stronger turbulence." Where is the source for that? Is it speculation? If the latter, we need to specify whose. Also, on a similar vein, "At 16:10:55 (145 seconds) and 1,000 feet (300 m), the Trident broke cloud..." If it's speculative, we need to specify the speculator.
  • Both from Stewart, cites added. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, it would contradict the AIB, since it's not in the AIB report, which is supposed to be the final word on these issues. Per WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If Stewart claims this was somehow measured, it would be an exceptional claim, since the flight crew all died in the crash, and would require exceptional sources. If he is just speculating, I think in the section where the accident sequence is being described factually speculations do not belong, or should at the very least be clearly highlighted as such. Crum375 (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he is adding something that is not in the AIB report then he's not strictly contradicting it to my mind. On the same page he says the flight entered 'intermittent cloud' at 690 feet. A very accurate altitude and I don't know where he is getting that from, I think the weather report comes from a Flight International which is cited elsewhere. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that doesn't make any sense, and would invoke WP:REDFLAG. The only way to know the altitude at which the aircraft entered (or exited) the clouds is from the flight crew, which are all dead. If there was some other magical way to do it, which would defy even today's technology, let alone that of 30 years ago, the AIB would have mentioned it. It seems to me this source is just speculating, in which case it needs to be stated and justified, since the much more professional source, the AIB, have not so speculated. Crum375 (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, I looked at his words again 'flying through intermittent cloud passing 690 feet the left turn was initiated'. I think he is reading the height from the graph given in the accident report and relating it to a heading change. If I did that it would be original research or synthesis. The 'clouds at 690 ft' part is not in the article, all we are using here is that the aircraft climbed through the cloud base at 1,000 ft and descended back through it which I don't think is contentious (the weather conditions are cited from Flight I think). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The weather doesn't tell you when a specific aircraft enters or exits a cloud at a specific time. Only the crew can, since they have the altimeters and their eyes. A general ceiling of 1000 ft can easily have scud under it, or some local holes in it, so it could be +/- 500 feet or more. I see no reason to mention speculative information, not mentioned by the main reliable source. Do you have a quote from Flying (or any other professional source) saying the aircraft entered or exited clouds at X feet? Crum375 (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The weather at the time (with a main cloudbase of 1,000 ft and lower cloud at 600 ft) is given on page 2 of the accident report, Stewart then I assume is using this to fill his 'portrayal of events'. The choice here is to remove all reference to the cloudbase which I think would be wrong. A significant point that is not currently highlighted in the article (but is on page 2 of the report) is that the crew were on instruments for some of the flight, that does need to be added. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prevailing weather is only indirectly related to when an aircraft actually enters or exits a cloud layer. Only the flight crew can tell you, and they are dead in this case. Anything else is wild speculation, and if critically needed, should be noted as such. Since this section describes a factual play-by-play of the undisputed events, inserting a wild speculation into it seems unprofessional. If the main reliable source had made that speculation (beyond just that they were "in cloud during crucial times and had no visual reference") I could see using it, but in this case, they didn't. I doubt very much you'd find any professional source (e.g. government aviation agency or professional flight journal) making such speculation without a very good justification and explanation. Regarding being "on instruments", airline flights are always on instruments, and if you mean "operating solely in reference to their instruments" (IMC), that would require knowing the exact cloud layer at that specific time again, which we don't. Crum375 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that I twisted my summarised words of the report in my tired state, what it actually says is It follows that at the crucial times the aircraft was in cloud and the crew had no visual reference which is speculation on their part but it's official. I think to fix this a summary of this sentence needs to be inserted immediately after the cited weather conditions and remove Stewart's inference that the aircraft ascended through cloud at 1,000 ft and then descended back through it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, as I noted above, the AIB say that "it follows" that the aircraft was without visual reference during "crucial times". That is a reasonable and professional speculation, and vague enough to be highly likely. As I noted below, in my general comments, you should try to follow the AIB wherever possible. I would only use other sources to add "color" or make some connections, so long as the AIB are not contradicted. Of course neutrality is also an issue, so it's important not to use the AIB selectively, and for that using their top level summaries as a basis is best. Crum375 (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have added the cloud base height from the AIB report and added a cited footnote on the lack of visual references (I am trying to avoid adding text to an already 'busy' section). Removed Stewart's reference to entering cloud but left a general 'broke cloud' for the descent (still attributed to Stewart but no specific height given).Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's better now, but there are still two points I can see: a) the 600 ft clouds are not mentioned; and b) there is still mention of "encountered stronger turbulence" which implies we know for sure it was stronger inside the clouds than just under, for example. I don't see any support for the latter in the AIB report, or any way of otherwise knowing that. I would say something like "at some point in its climb the aircraft entered clouds..." to emphasize we don't know at what altitude it occurred (e.g. it could have entered the 600 ft clouds). Crum375 (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Key pulled the nose up once more to reduce airspeed slightly to the required 175 knots" (emphasis added) - this was not "required" in the sense that in that flight regime, with the droops retracted, a much higher speed was "required". Perhaps if the captain was unaware of the droop retraction he would have thought the 175 kt was required, but that would be speculative, while at this stage in the article the text should be more factual.
  • Under "Investigation and public inquiry":
    • "However, the underlying cause of the accident was stated to have been Key's heart condition." This appears to be wrong on at least two levels: First, the word "however" conveys that what follows is the "real" reason, i.e. it violates WP:NPOV and WP:WTW. Second, the "underlying cause" list contains seven items, while only the first one is mentioned by WP.


  • Under "Alternative theories in defence of Captain Key":
    • This section seems to promote fringe-ish views, which is fine IMO, as long as they are clearly presented as such. For example, WP presents an unsourced quote: "In simple words: what the FDR records is not necessarily the same as what the captain sees on his panel." First, all quotes should have in-line citation per WP:V, and second, anything which goes against mainstream needs a clear in-text attribution, so it doesn't seem WP itself is saying it.
Bartelski quotes (and some others) are now directly attributed by name in the text. Other in-line quotes have their source (name of person quoting) in a cite a few words away. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that this is a "fringe theory" since it is the opinion of one person, vs. the mainstream as represented by the AIB. I don't believe the AIB considers there to be any difference between the FDR readout and the pilot's altimeter or airspeed instruments. Since the AIB did their work openly and published their results, one would expect any scientifically or technically sound dissenting view to be widely recorded. In this case, all I see is the mainstream report, and one person (with unknown qualifications) disputing it, with no secondary source reviewing the dissenting view and putting it in perspective. I am not saying we should suppress his view, since it appears to be reliably published, but OTOH, per NPOV, we should reduce the space given to it, and make it very clear that this opinion contradicts the AIB/mainstream's view. It might also make sense to explain who the author is, and his background, so the reader has some idea of how to frame his view. Crum375 (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, related to this, the article says, "Elements of this alternative reading were examined favourably by the Lane Inquiry,[nb 9] but failed to find their way into any of its conclusions or recommendations." without a source. The note tells us to read the Speeds section, which I re-read, and I can't find where the AIB "examines favorably" this issue. In fact, the entire issue of a possible discrepancy between the FDR and the pilots' panel instruments is not mentioned at all (AFAICT). So unless there is something I missed, this would violate NOR, NPOV, and WIAFA-1(d).
  • I think I deleted all that plus the footnote (which I turned into a cite for the relevant page where this aspect was investigated). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel that entire "Alternative" section is way too prominent as compared to the mainstream/AIB. NPOV specifically tells us that majority and minority, esp. tiny minority, don't get equal billing. In this case, reading the section it sounds that this theory is widely accepted (or at least not a tiny minority one) and the AIB "reviewed it" in some way, without explaining what that means (perhaps they decided to ignore it? suppress it?). So this section is an NPOV problem at the moment. Crum375 (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is one largish paragraph with a level four header that is attempting to summarise 20 pages of published material (he has many other theories, only one is mentioned here), I wouldn't say it was a disproportionate size in relation to the rest of the article, I have though recently added to the end of it that the inquiry attached little importance to the speed discrepancy theory, hopefully that has balanced it. In a nutshell that paragraph should now be saying that Bartelski had a theory but the AIB discounted it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still feel this section violates NPOV by giving a tiny-minority/fringe view with an exceptional claim way too much space and emphasis. As far as I know, in the history of black boxes, there has never been a case where the airspeed readouts in the FDR were found to differ appreciably or significantly from those in the aircraft's panel. Also, in this case and black boxes aside, the panel airspeed readouts would have had to be 60kt higher than reality, which is technically unheard of (to my knowledge). For WP to present this hypothesis with this weight it would have to have a significant following among experts or other reliable sources. At this point, we have the AIB, representing the mainstream, which clearly discounts this possibility, and one pilot/author who, without evidence or precedence (to my knowledge), raises it as hypothesis. I think presenting it in this fashion is a clear NPOV/UNDUE violation. Crum375 (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the case of the daughter's quote, again it's presenting a tiny-minority view by a non-expert. It's fine to include it in some form, e.g. a link to the source and a short summary, but to include all this quoted text, esp. at the end, lends her words more weight compared to the experts of the majority than reasonable, which would violate WP:NPOV and WIAFA-1(d). I am not against reliably-sourced minority views per se, even if promoted by relatively small groups, but such views should be clearly presented in the proper context, so the reader is not led to believe they represent a larger group and/or more underlying expertise.
  • What would be the proper context for her quote? Perhaps it needs a sub-header (but that would be highlighting her views). I have a mind to completely remove it and add it as an external link (nothing in it could be used as a reference to expand the article) as it appears to be causing a problem, would that work? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I missed this post before. I don't think EL is the right approach; just a sentence or two in our own words would be OK, IMO. See my 11:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC) message below for my suggestion. Crum375 (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was my judgement to add her quote recently, nothing she says in it disagrees with anything in the report as far as I can see although she quite naturally doesn't like her father being maligned. I have removed the last sentence after looking at it again as it was expressing an opinion. It should be clear from the 'Julie Key - BBC' tag at the end that this is only one person's view. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your desire to add a personal element to the story, but there are many other persons involved, dead and alive, and we can't favor just one. In this case, she is saying, "The reason for the crash was the droops being retracted too early leading to a stall. There had been several problems with this lever before – it had even been known to move on its own", which contradicts the AIB report and all known evidence about the "inadvertent activation". Allowing that statement to stand uncontested, at the end of the article, could appear to convey WP's tacit support for it, which would violate WP:NPOV, since it flies in the face of the known evidence and majority view. Crum375 (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is alluding to the 'Naples incident' where the droop lever apparently moved by itself (cited to the AIB report) and 'The Schofield Theory' which is given as evidence on p.17 in the official report. That leaves modification of the droop lever which I think can be attributed to Bartelski (I believe that the aircraft were indeed modified), I am loathe to use much more of Bartelski as he does apparently come across as a 'fringe theorist'. Unfortunately her words are the only words from families or others that I could find in a reliable source, otherwise they would be included as well. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read the full AIB report, and I know what she's alluding to, but AFAIR those were unproven allegations which the AIB discounted and concluded were plain wrong. If you disagree, please provide quote and page number where the AIB say something else. But assuming my reading is correct, her allegation of the inadvertent motion of the droops switch is unfounded, and presenting it in this fashion, esp. as the final conclusion of the article, violates NPOV. Crum375 (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote shortened further. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think now it seems like she's being censored, since she does say those other things. The best would be, IMO, to use our own words to indicate that Key's daughter has come out publicly denouncing what she perceives as the vilification of her father, arguing that the heart attack was only speculation and that there were mechanical problems with the plane which could have caused the accident. The shorter the better, but broad enough to cover her general points. One way of doing it is to rely on a secondary source (e.g. media report) summarizing what she said and putting it in perspective for us. Crum375 (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it feels like censorship, I took her original full quote as being from a non-expert and not necessarily factually correct, I added it for balance and to get at least one perspective on the accident from a close relative of the crew. I assumed that other readers of this article would take it the same way. This is the only published reference that I have found to the opinion of Julie Key (there maybe more somewhere of course), There are more witness and rescue crew recollections of the accident on the BBC website. There is one comment from a relative of a passenger. After carefully reading them all I could not see that adding any of them (or details from them) would add to the facts and witness reports already given in the article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding "color" to an article takes backseat to NPOV. So unless we have a fair representation of all interested parties and views, it would violate NPOV to pick out just one, because it happens to be available, or more interesting. I do think mentioning the daughter makes sense (she is in some sense the "voice of the captain"), but only in the limited way I suggested above, so as not to give her position undue weight, and also not to distort her view by censoring it. Crum375 (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Bottom line: these are sample issues I can see for now, but there are more. I'll try to add them soon. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I will look at those points. I am aware that there is possible contradiction. It comes from using effectively three sources for balance, the Bartelski one in particular, as you note, and I would agree is an unproven 'fringe theory' but have been careful not to indicate that in the article, as a fellow pilot he seems to be defending the crew quite strongly, of the other 11 accidents that he covers in his book the tone is much the same. Thanks again. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NPOV requires us to present views weighted by their prevalence among the reliable sources. In the case of aviation accidents, the final report produced by the investigating agency is typically highly professional, and normally accepted by the vast majority of the media and aviation journals. There are typically also dissenting voices, representing sides or interests in the post-accident legal or professional dispute, such as pilots, controllers or victim families, trying to spin things in their favor. If there are multiple countries involved, it can get even nastier with international politics at stake. In this article's case, it's just one country, but there are still many involved parties, each with its own ax to grind. What I would do here is focus on the main AIB report, and within it its own summary conclusions, and take it from there. An example of where I see more POV in the article is where the U.S. attorney is being disparaged for making points which all seem to correspond to the AIB report, AFAICT. So I suspect that view emanates from some partisan source, perhaps a party to the litigation or one which otherwise supports one of the parties, or perhaps just a nationalist journalist. I'll get to that section (along with others) in my next batch. Crum375 (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other issues
[edit]
  • Copilot's age and experience: According to the AIB the copilot for the flight, Key's direct backup, was a 22 year old new-hire, with 24 hours of experience as copilot. When Key had his "cardiac event" — as minimum a distraction and as maximum an incapacitation — an experienced and mature copilot would have likely more quickly recognized the near-stall condition and felt more confident to take over and override his captain. This was considered by the AIB to be an "underlying cause" for the accident (#3 and #4), yet it gets very short shrift in the article. This also ties into the labor relations issue which is described at some length: the bottom line of that labor conflict is that an inexperienced rookie new-hire ended up being tasked with backing up the captain, who was apparently distracted or incapacitated at a critical moment in the flight. This point needs to be emphasized more IMO, since at the moment a casual reader may not make that connection or its overall significance.
  • General readability: it seems to me that there is way too much detail in some areas, to the point of making the article hard to read for a non-professional, who just wants to know what happened. For example, the background sections should be trimmed: a simple summary of previous flights of relevance would suffice, IMO. In general, I would focus on the AIB summary section, use that as a skeleton, and build from there. "Exhaustion of available material" for FA requirements does not mean we must exhaust the poor (non-technical) reader trying to wade through the article.
  • Detail level: Well, I have always had this in mind, I judge it generally by article length. At around 46 kb long it is not particularly big, in fact it is smaller than the two aero engine articles that achieved FA status (they were both around 60 kb), I actually find that a little strange considering the breadth of this subject, it was making me believe that something was missing. How do you condense 60+ pages of official report, 20 pages from Bartelski, similar from Stewart, all the Flight articles and other sources into one wiki article (which comes out at 14 pages in PDF format) and get it right? A difficult task but one that editors have tried to achieve here. Parts of it are unavoidably detailed (for those who want to know everything) and other parts are more general. I am very aware that readers may not understand aviation technical terms, during the recent improvement process of this article I have attempted to clarify all technical terms by using wikilinks and sometimes a very short explanation of the term immediately following it (for readers who don't want to click the wikilink) or even add explanatory footnotes. If any poorly explained terms remain then they should be specifically highlighted and rectified. I was hoping for a review from a non-aviation minded reader to pick up on any points like this, and I always welcome it. The suggestion to use the AIB report as a skeleton to build from implies that the article should be scrapped and started again. We could, at the extreme, replace the whole article with a hatnote that says 'see AIB report' but the background information (considered so important by sources outside the AIB and public inquiry as to record it at great length) would be missing. One paragraph that could possibly be removed is the ground accident to Papa India caused by the crashing Ambassador aircraft. It is not entirely relevant but forms part of the accident Trident's history and is mentioned in references. An implication (not now in the article) was that the accident may have been caused by faulty repairs after the collision. Many aviation editors want to add detailed service history of the aircraft involved in accidents (when was it built, when did it commence airline service, what was its contructor's number? etc.) I think the history of this individual aircraft has been expanded recently and what I see there is probably the limit of what should be included, it satisfies those who want to know more about the aircraft itself, we could hope that they visit Hawker Siddeley Trident for more but then again it would not tell them the specific details of Papa India. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On readability, I can only apologise if it is unreadable, much work was done by a very adept copy editor last winter to try and improve its grammar and punctuation. There is one very important point that I would like to make about the title of this article as it concerns its scope and detail level. It appears to be convention to title air accidents by their flight number, taking the title of 'BE 548' a reader may expect just to read about the flight and not anything else to do with it. If it was titled Staines air disaster or Staines disaster they would expect to read everything about it. I can say with some confidence that virtually no one in Britain, when asked today, would tell us that 'BEA Flight 548' means nothing to them but 'Staines disaster' would mean a lot more, even recounting basic details of it. What the worldwide feeling on what this accident is called, I don't know. Pan Am Flight 103 is known similarly in the UK as the Lockerbie bombing. The current title is wrong in my opinion. WP:COMMONNAME says as much. An example of this exception to the convention is the Munich air disaster, it had a flight number (BEA coincidentally) but is not being used in the title. Whether the article title should be looked at FAC review, I don't know, perhaps it should. I do feel that the problem should be re-visited as it is wrong to me at the very least.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lane Inquiry": As I noted above, the American lawyer Kreindler is presented in a very negative light, despite the fact that the points he raises all seem validated by the AIB. This therefore needs a serious NPOV once-over.
  • Indeed he was portrayed in a negative light because of his apparent manner. His involvement takes up about 3/4 of a page in Bartelski's book. In this case Bartelski is not speculating but provides a direct quote from a newspaper report, one phrase the press apparently did not like was his calling the captain a 'sad figure ... with emotional problems' (the readable Flight report cited there repeats this as a 'sad man'). He was on a contingency fee (if he won the case he got a percentage of the compensation for the victims' families) and was noted as using tactics common in an American court that would be "deemed not acceptable in other parts of the world" and "likely to leave a bad taste in one's mouth" . I am personally slightly confused about his 'won the case' part as this was a Public Inquiry not a normal Court case, I assume that compensation would have been paid on the basis of the Inquiry's findings, it is stated I think that the compensation would have been from insurance and not by the airline or aircraft manufacturer directly as sometimes happens after a court ruling, I'm not a legal expert. Lawyers can be nasty guys, it's the nature of getting their job done. I expect it was all too much for a British court where things were done in a civil and controlled manner (they probably still are but it's not somewhere I've been to experience it thankfully). I looked at the paragraph concerning him closely (a 'once-over') to make sure it was accurate to the sources and I am satisfied that what is there follows the sources quite closely. What may be missing is an expansion on why he was apparently unpopular (some of the things I mentioned above) but that would only reinforce the apparent negativity felt towards him and this detail is available in Bartelski's book. Adding this detail might also conflict with your comment on excessive detail earlier which I have not got to replying yet as I wanted to look at this NPOV comment first. Sorry that I'm using 'apparent' frequently, I know nothing about him (or what exactly he did in that inquiry) and can only go on what I have available to read, I believe that he died quite recently but there is no wiki article on him (yet). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is, we have a book by one author of unknown qualifications and background, who appears to be trashing an individual, who is apparently doing his job, and the latter's allegations appear to be supported by the AIB's findings. I understand all you say, and it all makes sense, but NPOV (and BLP if that attorney is still alive) requires us to be very careful, esp. if we are using a single source, with a possible ax to grind. If we don't have a good feel of what the "prevailing views" (international in this case) are about an individual (i.e. due to current lack of sources), having a single source which trashes him is no justification to follow suit. If the information is critical to the article, i.e. the article wouldn't make sense without it, then we can use in-text attribution, but in this case I don't see the crucial need to supply this information. For an outsider reading this, since we don't supply a rebuttal, it seems like WP itself is maligning the attorney, and I don't see any reason to do so. It certainly doesn't add any useful information to understand how or why this accident happened. Crum375 (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's two sources including Flight although they don't convey quite the same level of unpopularity noted by Bartelski (whose qualifications I did summarise and add to the article a couple of days ago). Lee Kreindler died in 2003, there is more on him here from the New York Times. Surely we don't attribute all statements/opinions (not quotes) directly to an author by name every time in the text, that's what cites are for to show where it comes from and for readers to verify it for themselves if they want to? Do we judge every cited author on their qualifications or select one source from who we think is the most qualified? You appear to want his apparent unpopularity toned down when 'reliable sources' are indicating otherwise (Bartelski doesn't appear to be a 'questionable source' under the definition given at WP:RS although his views may appear one-sided to us). I should make it very clear that I have no opinion on Kreindler as a person, just trying to collate facts and opinions on the whole incident from varied sources and let the reader decide, in fact the inquiry section doesn't interest me much at all but I have to tend to it as part of the article. The 'need to supply this information' is that it is part of the public inquiry section (which itself was apparently unpopular due to the board's findings), the public inquiry needs to be covered in some form because it is closely related to this case (unless we create a separate article for it which I don't think is needed at this stage). Perhaps in the future the exact 'nitty-gritty' of what happened at the inquiry could be expanded in a split article but at 48 kb there is no need to split it yet on length grounds. I'm aware that this nomination review page is getting rather long and I hope that I didn't digress too much there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NPOV is a fundamental Wikimedia principle, so we start with the premise that everything we present must reflect the balance of views prevalent among reliable sources. But often we end up with just a couple of views, which we suspect are not universal or fully representative, e.g. because they appear partisan, or nationalistic. So we need to decide how to present the information. If it's crucial to present it, then we may resort to in-text attribution, but if the information is only tangential and/or isn't crucial, and we feel we don't really know the full spectrum of views, and that presenting just what we know may skew NPOV in one direction, we can just skip the material, or shorten it (with in-text attribution). In my opinion, this article is about the accident: how did it happen, why, where, who was involved, how was it investigated, what were the ramifications, etc. Adding a bit about an American lawyer representing some families and being disparaged by some observers is extraneous to all that, IMO. It makes the reader feel the editors had some ax to grind (anti-lawyer? anti-American? anti-pilot?), while gaining no more real information about the accident proper. Crum375 (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) Sorry if I 'talked out of my hat there'. Perhaps I have in mind the Wikipedia:Good article criteria guideline where it says under 'Factually accurate and verifiable' that published opinion can be included. It doesn't say whether this included opinion should be good, bad or indifferent, just that it needs to be cited. Under that guideline Julie Key's quote could/should? be kept in full as it is a verifiable published opinion. A Featured Article should be no different, just sticking to that guideline even closer I would have thought. The problem comes with other guidelines that may conflict such as WP:UNDUE although it says there that ...fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". Noting that it also says that minority views should not be given the same weight as the main views which I think is the case with this article by looking at the physical size of the text of the 'Alternate theory' section, not the impact on the reader that it's few words might have.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, NPOV is the fundamental policy, emanating from the foundation, and it must be the starting point, not just "balanced against others". This means that just because we happen to have a source, doesn't mean we must present it, or present it fully, or with much emphasis, and certainly not in a way which implies WP itself supports those views. In the case of Key's daughter, her quote being at the end of the article makes it seems that's our "grand finale", our parting shot, and makes it seem like WP editors feel her views are at least as important as the AIB's. Similarly for the "alternative theories", and the "American lawyer". Just because we have the source doesn't mean we can trump NPOV/UNDUE. Crum375 (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see that placing an identical piece of text in varying positions in an article may have a different emphasis, so what you are saying is that if her quote (hypothetically) was placed in the middle of the article that would be acceptable? If it appears at the end of the article, unintentionally by logical section flow, then it is not acceptable? The memorial is actually the last section but I understand what you mean. This would make it very difficult for editors to add otherwise acceptable cited text if they have to put it out of position. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mention the position at the end as one aspect, but logically it does belong where it is. I would have no problem with the alternative views if they were condensed to a sentence or two, in our own words. Something like, "Some authors have criticized the AIB's report and proposed alternative causes for the accident, including a hypothetical discrepancy between the FDR and the pilot's panel instruments.[1] Julie Key, Captain Key's daughter, has made public statements about the accident, denouncing what she perceives as the vilification of her father, arguing that the heart attack was only speculation and that there were mechanical problems with the plane which could have caused the accident.[2]" Again, I don't want to censor these reliable sources, but we need to cut their statements to bare minimums, per NPOV/UNDUE. If readers are interested in more, they can always click on the refs and dig in, but we need to present an overall picture balanced by the preponderance of the views (i.e. AIB focused), without a tabloidish emphasis on the marginal views. Crum375 (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Have now removed the 'alternative theories' section. There should now be no minority views in the article. It was evident that if even one sentence from it was left it would still be considered NNPOV and undue. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's going too far in the other direction. If all you had was an article in a local newspaper (say) with some reporter's personal hypothesis of the crash, I'd agree with removing it entirely. But in this case, a book published about the subject, or the captain's daughter speaking out, both merit a minor mention, in my view. NPOV doesn't mean we should censor (or distort) the minority views, only that we give them minor mention. So I would consider the verbiage I suggested above, or equivalent, to cover both author and daughter. This could be an extra sentence or two where you currently mention dissent or debate. The best way to properly present and balance such dissent is to rely on high quality secondary sources to do the appropriate weighting for us. This could be, for example, a respected aviation safety journal reviewing the case long after the dust has settled. Crum375 (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead section: The final part of the lead is not neutral, IMO. It puts too much emphasis on the captain's incapacitation, and too little (none) on the rookie copilot who was tasked with backing him up, and the labor strife which led to that unfortunate tasking.
  • I think I edited that last night and forgot to reply, can you have another look please. As a note the emphasis on the captain, which hopefully has gone, may have been from the very real perception in England that this accident was caused solely by a 'heart attack', that is mentioned in the article. I can't remember exactly what I thought about it at the time (as a 10 year old 'plane spotter') but I think that it was probably the same. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The addition of the copilot's role is good. But there are still issues in the lead. First, there are sweeping statements there that lack inline sources, for example, "The process and findings of the inquiry were considered highly controversial among British pilots and the public – extremely poor industrial relations at British European Airways (BEA) were suggested as the real underlying cause of the accident, and it was felt that the flight crew, headed by an experienced senior captain, was wrongly assigned the role of scapegoat." This is unsourced, and would require good secondary sources to tell us what the "British public" thought. Also, the phrase "X was considered highly controversial" is kind of meaningless: it doesn't tell us whether the public supported X or not, and if it was divided about it, it doesn't tell us who and how many were on each side of the fence. In any case, it would need careful secondary sourcing. Another problem I see is in the summary of the accident's probable cause(s): "the crash resulted from a deep stall caused by the pilots' error in configuring the aircraft and failure to maintain the correct airspeed." As far as I can see reading the AIB report (p. 54), the crash was primarily caused by the pilot in command's failure to maintain airspeed, his premature retraction of the aircraft's high-lift devices which brought the aircraft into a stall regime, the crew's failure to diagnose and correct the problem, and the crew's disabling of the stall recovery system. If you wanted to condense this even further, you could say it was caused by "the pilot in command's failure to maintain the correct airspeed, his misconfiguring the aircraft which brought it into the stall regime, and the crew's failure to diagnose and correct the problem." The difference from the current version is that it more closely follows the source, and it alludes to the monitoring roles expected from the crew. I see other issues there, but this will do for now. Crum375 (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had a good look at the lead again and altered it slightly so far. Para 1 is a factual summary of the flight details and the crash timing that are well cited in the article. I see nothing amiss with it apart from the recent addition of turbojet by another editor. This term is not used elsewhere in the article, it may be over precise for a lead summary but it is factually correct, if not unusual, wording (most people including myself would just call it a 'jet airliner' or just 'airliner' as most of them are jets now). In fact it is more precise than the description of a Trident lower down where it is termed simply an airliner, I wouldn't have added it but it's just one word, I am tempted to remove it. In Para 2 I have attributed the errors to the captain now (instead of the whole crew as it implied) (follows AIB) and reversed the summarised first two main causes listed to align closer to the order of the AIB findings. Para 3 I will come to in a minute. Para 4, I have attempted to indicate that there were more recommendations (The Capt Collins 'possible distraction' subject and need for CVRs are covered in the text and have both been summarised). Para 3, this can be improved. I have re-read my sources on this section and at the risk of expanding the public inquiry section (to more closely agree with the lead which is not that far off a reasonable summary of the apparent controversy surrounding the case) it can be fixed without too much difficulty. Another paragraph summarising the 'alternate theories' section was removed recently by another editor. The section exists so it should be mentioned, perhaps though that editor felt that it was an undue weight problem so I did not revert the removal (the edit summary was very short and I didn't ask him about it). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead needs more work, IMO. There is still no mention of the failure of the crew in its monitoring role, which is the AIB's way of indicating they would have expected the more experienced P3 to notice the misconfiguration and impending stall, and to yell out "speed", or "droops". As I noted above, there are still no sources cited for the sweeping statements about the public reaction, and they are vague in any case. I would also include inline citations for some of the other statements, such as the AIB and ASN reports for the basic facts. Crum375 (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now added the third listed main cause (from a possible total of five), now worried that this sentence is too long, it may just need a punctuation adjustment. I have noted above that I will look at Para 3 (later today hopefully) which we both note could be improved. As far as I am aware there is no requirement for cites in the lead (it is a growing trend that I agree with and both my previous successful FAC nominations do not use them) as long as the facts are clearly cited elsewhere in the article, the review of Para 3 will include this check, information in the other paragraphs is clearly cited in the main text to my knowledge. Perhaps there is a shortcut to this 'no cites in the lead' guideline, I need to bookmark it as I can never find it. I see that lead sections cause an enormous amount of trouble at FAC (and at other times in an article's life), there can be widely differing views of what exactly should be contained in it, even after successful FAC they get continually 'adjusted', I'll do my best anyway. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leads are not exempt from WP:V (which is policy), which applies to all material anywhere in article space: "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." WP:LEAD, which is a style guideline, says: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." In this particular case, I am highlighting specific issues in the lead which I believe should be cited inline, since they are complex and/or controversial. My own practice is to add inline cites, including in the lead, because doing that is far easier than arguing with people who ask for them. Also, it makes life easier on the readers who only want to read the lead and jump right into the sources. Crum375 (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Yes, I have just found that guideline as well, the direct shortcut is WP:LEADCITE. It would be a matter then of determining what is likely to be contentious and moving some existing 'refname' cites up to it. I expect that would just be para 3 which I still have to adjust. Afraid that I have to go out tonight so will not be able to progress this immediately. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the way we define "contentious" on WP is to include any material that is being specifically challenged by an editor, in addition to external disputes outside of WP. Adding an inline citation to the main and most reliable sources (AIB and ASN) is easy, and can be placed at the end of the relevant paragraphs, so clutter is not an issue. Also, the lead paragraph I referred to about public opinion is not only unsourced, but it's unclear to me, as I noted above. Crum375 (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the contested wording from the lead, there was no apparent way that I could reword it to convey the same meaning without appearing non-neutral. From that wording has been left The process and findings of the inquiry were considered highly controversial among British pilots and the public. which I believe is factual, not contentious and well cited. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the memorial erection is not lead-worthy, since many (if not most) accidents result in memorials, and the lead should include the most note-worthy aspects only. Regarding the current phrase, "The process and findings of the inquiry were considered highly controversial among British pilots and the public", I think it is still problematic grammatically, and still not sourced. It would be best to find a high quality secondary source, preferable with hindsight (e.g. published at some anniversary of the crash) which does this distillation for us (which we can then summarize). Crum375 (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pressure relief valve: The article says: "The reduction in engine power might also have activated the warning light indicating low air pressure in the stall recovery system; however, a three-way air pressure valve was later found to have been one-sixth of a turn out of position, and the pin which locked it into position was missing.[37]"
    • The word "however" violates WTW and is also illogical
    • The word "might" is too weak, since there is little doubt the light was on, so perhaps "likely" is better
    • The word "pin" implies a cotter pin (or equivalent), while the AIB refers to a "wire", implying a safety wire.
  • "A three-way pneumatic valve which formed an important part of the stall recovery system was reported to have been poorly maintained; it was one-sixth of a turn out of position (in effect, exactly midway between two set positions) and was lacking the locking pin which fixed it into a set position.[37]"
    • "Poorly maintained": there was a missing safety wire and the valve was 1/6 open: do we have a source calling that "poorly maintained"?
    • I can't find the "exactly midway" wording in the AIB reference.
    • The source cited (AIB) does not mention the "between two set positions" which is also mentioned in the article
    • We should probably mention that, warning light notwithstanding, the valve was functionally OK according to the AIB's report, since the stick pusher did operate properly.
  • "there were no other probable reasons why the take-off would have been delayed." Is that well sourced? I could think of many reasons, some non-mechanical. E.g. they couldn't locate some navigation chart, or had some question about the fuel quantity on board, etc. I am not discounting the possibility of the delay being related to the warning light activation, but there is no evidence for it, and the AIB makes no reference to it in its report.
  • Related to the valve, the article says "offering Key solid grounds for mistrusting its warnings". I don't see a low pressure warning light, activated only on power reduction, offering "solid grounds" to ignore the "entire system" (the warning part of which, i.e. stick shaker, is electric, not pneumatic), nor do I see the AIB support that point (though I might have missed it. The AIB point (IIRC) is that the "pressure low" light was adjacent to the "droops out of position" light on the annunciator console, and Key could have mistakenly assumed there was a droops problem.
  • I have cut that, it could have been moved to 'alternate theories' as it was cited from Bartelski but there is an apparent 'weight' problem already with that section. I don't know if it would help but can you get this book from a library? I am really not seeming to explain very well its content. We both seem to have labelled him as 'fringe theorist' and that may not quite be right. Some of it is his conjecture (and he admits this) but other parts of it are clearly reporting facts, mainly relating to the conduct of the inquiry, that are hard to find elsewhere. There is another direct quote in there from Flight relating to what the pilot community thought of the inquiry that I have not typed out here (it may be possible to find that directly through the Flightglobal.com archive, not 'sticking up for him' or taking sides but he does seem to be taking the trouble to attribute his own sources and that is being discounted.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I accept what you quote from the source, but I think the AIB's final report is very professional and comprehensive and represents by far the majority's view (as is typical). I am not against adding bits of "color" from other reliable sources, or top-level views (e.g. public perception), but when it comes to technical things that don't make sense, we instantly get to WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE territory. In any case, I have struck out the point. Crum375 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]



  • "Stall warning":
    • I think this event sequence is critical, since this is where the accident occurred, but it is very busy and hard to read. At a minimum, I would drop the GMT times, and stay with "seconds past brake release" for the individual events (i.e. "At 64 seconds X happened, at 76 seconds Y happened.")
  • It is given in the AIB report (Appendix p.79) in both formats and appears to have been added to the article in September 2008. For style consistency at FAC if there is one time formatted like this then the others have to be as well (depending on who the reviewer is!). It was a three minute flight so the timescale is short, I have no strong view either way on it, if we go for one format someone will say why aren't you using the other, if we use a mixture of formats the consistency 'police' will spot it. I look at it as a 'Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea' situation. It is not a particularly easy edit to remove one or the other either (although it may look that way) because in places it ties in with the prose. As it is I don't think it is harming the article but would welcome other editors views on it.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no "police" issue here. You have a dense/fast sequence of events, all within seconds, where the core of this article is focused. There are many places in the AIB report where they use the term "second X" to refer to a particular event. There is no problem at all wiki-wise for us to mention only the key events (e.g. brake release and crash) as full GMT times, and all the rest as "second X" and "second Y". (Another option is "At X seconds, ...") The second units are thankfully the same for everyone, so there is no need for anything else. As for the altitudes and airspeeds, unfortunately there we'll probably have to bow to WP conventions. We need to use the normal international aviation units (knots and feet) as primary ones, with the metric equivalent in parens. The point here is to try to make this critical section as readable as possible for non experts, and non aviation buffs, so anything we can simplify is a big bonus. Crum375 (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]



    • "Key held the aircraft's nose up contrary to normal stall recovery procedure and levelled the wings, his action had the effect of stalling the aircraft by slowing it down even further" - this incorrectly implies that both the nose up and the wings leveling induced the stall, while it's just the former. The wings leveling would actually reduce the stall tendency (though insufficiently to prevent it in this case).
  • It's still there: Key levelled the wings but held the aircraft's nose up ... I expect the actions were simultaneous or could not exactly be determined but for clarity it is better in this order. My own teaching of stall recovery (from a national syllabus) is to pitch down then level the wings so I didn't question it when it was given in that order in the source. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's still a bit misleading: "Key levelled the wings but held the aircraft's nose up contrary to normal stall recovery procedure, his action had the effect of stalling the aircraft by slowing it down even further." This implies that Key's faulty "action" included both the leveling as well as the nose raising, when in reality only the latter was wrong ("pro-stall"), while the former was correct ("anti-stall"). I have removed the strikethough so we don't miss this point. Crum375 (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Yes, although it's not quite what the source says now (current cite 39). Stewart doesn't use angle of attack on that page (he can't wikilink like we can) but ... in the interest of clarity I think it should rest at your last version because it does explain simply what exactly was happening at the time without altering the facts. Just to note that angle of attack is wikilinked earlier (but is probably far enough away to be linked again as you did), the wikilinked Michael Heseltine has also just been added by someone else who may not appreciate that it is linked in the previous section. I am not an WP:OVERLINK guideline expert but we have to take a little more care at this level as it will get spotted. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an OVERLINK expert either, but my own preference is to include it for technical words we feel average readers may not understand, normally no more than once per section, and once per article wherever possible or reasonable. In this case, we'd have to decide whether readers who jump forward to this section may spot the earlier link or not. I would leave it this way for now, and let others decide. Crum375 (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at OVERLINK just now it seems to be saying 'just don't use too many blue links together in a string else the reader will miss the important ones' not to limit how many times it is used in an article so we can crack on. I think the Manual of Style has been revised/tidied up recently and I struggle to keep up with it.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the MOS issues to others. My main focus here is the big picture (is the reader getting the overall correct impression, based on a neutral presentation of the reliable sources?) and the technical details. At the moment, in my view, both have a way to go, though I think (hope) we are converging. Crum375 (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    • "At 16:10:55 (145 seconds) and 1,000 feet (300 m), the Trident was descending at 4,500 feet per minute (23 m/s) at a flight angle of 60°.[41]" - The AIB report seems to contradict this.AIB report (Fig. 1) According to my reading of the pitch angle plot (which matches the table values in Fig. 3), it never went over 35° (at second 136), and at second 145 it was actually very near zero. Does your source explain this discrepancy?
  • I have clarified it, someone in the past added 'flight angle' (not an aviation term), Stewart says 'angle' and I believe he is referring to the side profile of the aircraft's path to the ground, I can see that he has taken that from the Flight Data Recorder graph. Just before that he notes a pitch angle of 31° which is correct.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you know where the (now) "60° flight path to the ground" comes from? I don't see it in the AIB report. Does your source explain how he derives it? Can you quote exactly what he says about it? Crum375 (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verbatim from Stewart, p. 10 (should be cited?):At 1,000 ft the aircraft broke cloud descending at a 60° angle at 4,500 ft/min. He does not explain how he derives it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's not stated in the AIB text, and AFAICT it seems to contradict the AIB maps and plots, so I would consider it conflicting with it, unless there is some way to verify how it was derived. When I calculate the flight's final descent angle (which I assume is what is meant by this angle), around second 145, I get closer to 20°, and as I noted above its angle of incidence appears to be about 0° at that time. I could be wrong, of course, in which case perhaps you can help me find my mistake. Crum375 (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the original plots in the appendix like yourself, there is an extrapolated line (the 1004.5 millibar one) for altitude, at the 1,000 ft given by Stewart the line is describing a 60° approximate angle when taking a line to the vertical scale on the left. The discrepancy, if there is one, is that at second 145 the extrapolated line actually crosses the 700 ft mark, the article says 1000 ft and second 145. To correct this (which would be original research if I did it) may be bordering on the excessive detail that you mentioned elsewhere. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AIB figure tells us the broken lines are extrapolated, and presumably that's the best data available. As far as the altitude plots, there are both Qfe and Qnh plotted, but only Qfe (height above field elevation) is extrapolated. The horizontal scale is time and the vertical (for this curve) is altitude, so taking the geometrical angle of the curve directly is apples-and-oranges meaningless (unless you are guaranteed constant speed, and even then you'd need a correction factor for the angle). If this is what your source did, it could explain his result perhaps, but would reflect poorly on either him or me (if I am wrong), and in any case would count as WP:REDFLAG. What I did is to take his value for the vertical speed at second 145 (my own comes out a bit higher, but it's increasing rapidly at that point so I am giving him the benefit of the doubt), and the approximate ground speed at that point, which can be obtained from the position plot. If both are in the same units, then they form a triangle which provides the descent angle. This is something any reader with high school geometry should be able to understand and do, so it is "verifiable", but I still wouldn't use it in the article. I am only mentioning it to explain why I believe his descent angle is way off, by a factor of three, which is why I consider it an exceptional claim, conflicting with the more reliable and mainstream source, and requiring "exceptional" sources to resolve per REDFLAG, if we want to include it. Crum375 (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*So the easy answer is just to remove the '60°' I would think. I can now see that if the time axis is shortened then the apparent descent rate will steepen, it is a depiction of the flight path but not to scale. I will do that.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct. If this is how he got the number, he was dividing apples by oranges. It's better now without the (apparently) incorrect angle, but as you say the altitude is still wrong. I am getting about 750 feet at second 145 using the AIB's extrapolated plot. The AIB is mum after second 134 (1,200 ft "estimated" according to them at that point), while I am getting about 1,200 ft on the plot at second 134. If I were writing this article, I'd just stick to the pros (i.e. AIB's Fig. 3 and main text). You can keep the 1000 if you insist (as a very poor approximation), or remove it. I don't think we can put in our own WP:OR values from the plot, but we may remove a source we feel is shaky. Crum375 (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Another example of apparent POV: "The propensity to deep stalling resulted in the crash of Trident 1C, G-ARPY, on 3 June 1966 near Felthorpe in Norfolk during a test flight, with the loss of all four pilots on board. In this accident, the crew had deliberately switched off the stick shaker and stick pusher to perform their tests." This is sourced to ASN, which does not say anything about a "propensity to deep stalling". The AIB report specifically says the Trident 1C aircraft was safe, and the cited accident involved intentionally disabling the very systems which were supposed to protect the aircraft from stalling, so a crash would seem logical, esp. if stall recovery was delayed, as was apparently the case. It is important to keep this article neutral, and ensure that derogatory statements be carefully sourced and properly balanced with the entire range of views.
  • Reworded, also highlighted the fact that the protection system was turned off by the crew. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I replaced the word "resulted" with "highlighted", as suggestion, which I hope is OK. For NPOV, I would also like to see mention of the fact that (per ASN) the crew delayed corrective inputs at the incipient stall point, which led to the crash. The same delayed corrective action was obviously relevant in the G-ARPI accident too. Crum375 (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. I might add more later. Crum375 (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will have to call it a day again (still aware that I need to look at some earlier comments and the new ones). I believe that my recent edits at your suggestion have improved the article further. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do see improvement. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
  • This is not a tech issue, but if this were my FA, I'd make an effort to draft some local Wikipedian with a camera to take pictures of the two memorials mentioned in the article. At least one would be nice to include.
  • Thanks, I have often considered that as I am not very far from the crash site, in fact I passed it last week and was stuck in a traffic jam under the flightpath of jets departing on the exact same route that this aircraft was using and the weather was the same, slightly eerie I have to say. Well it is a fact that the memorials exist, there is actually another one for the Belgian victims in Brussels but the web source that I found for it could not be used (SPS I think). There is a general thrust to keep memorial aspects down in the aviation project, using WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Sometimes all the passengers have been listed by name which is over the top, I think it has been decided only to include passengers who have their own wiki articles (notability). The memorial section in this article is deliberately short, a recent BBC news article stated that the nurse who was first on the scene still leads prayers at annual remembrance services but I decided not to include that detail bearing in mind the feeling against memorial sections, I may be reading that feeling the wrong way. I think it is a good idea to include a photo of the main memorial and will pop up there some time, if only to view the location for myself (I've never been). The only other minor problem is that only one photo could go in the section and it would probably hang into the next section, a minor display/style problem. Any other usable photos could go in the Commons category of course. There remains the problem of trying to find a suitable (probably non-free fair use) image of the crash scene for the infobox which has been discussed at length elsewhere (my talk page and the article talk page I think). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no problem memorial-wise with adding a couple of memorial images. Many developed accident articles have them. Format-wise, it would be easy to add them (assuming there are two or more) in gallery-style to the bottom of the memorial section. Crum375 (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with that, just need some good images and it is a shame that I didn't have the time to take some photos while I was in the area last week. I was under the impression that galleries were discouraged, many members of the aviation project spend a lot of time removing them though I think you are saying to use a gallery style which is different. This method is being used to effect at Rolls-Royce Merlin#Applications (although I preferred the images when they were on the right!). Just need some photos if Jimbo can loan me the petrol money! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generic T-tail deep stalls

[edit]

It seems to me that much of the "operational background" should be revised to focus not so much on the specific Trident type, but on the T-tail design as a whole (of which the Trident was one of the pioneers) which is prevalent even today. For example, this Air Safety Week article gives an overview, and explains how T-tail designs generically have a deep-stall potential, which holds even for gliders. It mentions G-ARPI, so it would not violate WP:SYN to discuss this generic issue as background. It is important to emphasize that T-tails have a propensity for deep stalls, which is countered (on jets) by stick shakers/pushers. If pilots ignore or override those safety systems in such aircraft, they are basically tempting fate. I think this is an important aspect of this accident and should be discussed in the article. Crum375 (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mjroots

[edit]

Naples Incident - I think a ref needs to be added for the sentence The event became known as the "Naples Incident" or the "Foxtrot Hotel Incident" (after the registration of the aircraft concerned) at BEA. - Wrecks and relics only confirms the preservation of the forward fuselage of G-AVFH. Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At which point is the some kind of !vote held on whether or not the article meets the criteria? It must be pretty close by now. Mjroots (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:55, 17 August 2010 [15].

FC Barcelona

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 09:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a lot of work since the last FAC, I'm nominating this again. Hopefully it should be better now. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 09:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: image issues from the peer review have not yet been addressed (note that, although I did not strike the stricken issues, I agree that those are indeed resolved). Some images have been added after the peer review comments and have not been evaluated. Эlcobbola talk 18:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Barcelonacrest.jpg - Why does this say "fair uses" if it's PD? Where can we confirm it was published?
    • does publish have to be in a book? What about sale of shirts?
      • Publication is term defined as "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending". If this was copied and transferred to to public (i.e. not just the team/people in the organization), then it would be considered published, yes. Эlcobbola talk 14:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Per MOS, "References" should precede "Sources" in the article's structure
  • Why have you used the term "Bibliographies" as a subheading? These items are not bibliographies. None of them appear to be cited sources, so can you clarify their role?
  • Ref 4: Typo in retrieval date
  • You should stick to the "p." and "pp." format for page refs (see Refs 7, 9, 11, 49)
  • Ref 18: The source is BCNinternet, not BCinternet
  • Ref 28: ESPN should not be italicised - it is not a print source
  • Ref 36: Publisher is "Telegraph Media Group"
  • Ref 37: Give the language
  • Ref 38: Why is http://www.tribalfootball.com/barcelona-most-popular-club-europe-ahead-real-madrid-226850. a reliable source?
  • Ref 39: Language?
  • Ref 41 lacks publisher information
  • Ref 44: The Observer should be italicised. (The Observer is published by Guardian News and Media, not just "Guardian", but this information can be omitted, as The Observer is well known)
  • Ref 56: The link should be to direct to the required Forbes page
  • Ref 66: Publisher is "FIFA" (per ref 65)
  • Ref 86: Give the language.

I am not able to evaluate the foreign sources. Otherwise sources look OK subject to above points. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were concerns about images and sourcing in previous reviews, this FAC is premature. Queries about reliability:
  • removed
  • removed
  • replaced
  • an AFP report. URL replaced.
  • replaced
  • replaced
  • replaced
  • replaced
  • replaced
An awful lot cited to their own website. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-In the Support section, I think this sentence could use a spelling or grammar fix: Throughout Europe Barcelona is often many people second favourite choice.  Burningview  ✉ 01:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Obvious undue weight. Obviously Barca have been at their strongest in recent years but 2009 has the same as 25 years in other places. I see sentences on individual players arguing, which has occurred in any football team all the time, and even transfer fees and changes to lesser players are discussed in detail. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • is it better now? trimmed down a bit. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 10:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur with YellowMonkey. The current regime is hardly more noteworthy than that of Cruyff in the late 1980s/early 1990s for instance. I recommend halving the current content devoted to 2000-2010; move it to a subarticle and summarize. Skomorokh 17:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still see many run of the mill incidents, normal for football, being emphasised in the 2000s when similar events occur all the time: player getting pelted, player getting standing ovation, player complaining about the coach, a red card, a match-winning goal in the last minute. The last two occurrences are not uncommon, unlike perhaps what Man U did in the CL final in 1999 or Franch in Euro2000 getting two comeback goals in the last minute. The dates or stadia of the specific matches are also not important, I'm not sure if the boardroom upheaval is big for the standards of economically weighty clubs. Nor is describing wonder goals... you just have to score and win the big matches, you don't get a double goal if it's beautiful YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Llooking further, why is the 2006 CL winners formation given instead of the 2009 one when the 2009 team were regarded as superior. And Zapatero is PM not Pres of Spain.... YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with images per the recently promoted Man Utd article. PM fixed. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FAC 07:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – A subject such as a major soccer team is very difficult to bring to FA, and the nominator has done a lot of good work on related lists at FLC. The effort given to this topic is worthy of much praise. That said, articles can't be judged solely on effort, and I don't think this meets the standards at the time, particularly 1a. A sampling of issues I found is below:

  • History: No need for two Gamper links so close together. There's some more overlinking in this section; please check for this throughout.
  • "and more with being a part of the clubs collective identity." "clubs" → "club's".
  • "club president Josep Sunyol and representative of a pro-independence political party". Who is the representative? Sunyol? If so, the order of this part needs to be improved so that is clearer.
  • Why are the stadium names italicized?
  • "On the upside, the 60s saw...". Pretty sure the Manual of Style discourages shortening decades like this. I see that fixing it would create a prose redundancy; how about "the decade" or similar instead?
  • Watch for terms like "Barca legend", as many here may feel that is too POV for their tastes.
  • "he helped the club win the 1973–74 season for the first time since 1960". They couldn't have won a season 14 years beforehand, could they? Try "win the (title, championship, or whatever term works best) for the first time since 1960" with link piping.
  • Nunez main objective was to develop Barca into a world-class club by giving to it stability both on and off the pitch." First part needs to be "Nunez's".
  • "letting players as Maradona, Romario and Ronaldo go rather than meeting their demands." Missing "such" before "as".
  • "the club won its first Cup Winners Cup...". Here, Winners is missing the apostrophe that is in the lead, not to mention our article on the subject.

This is only from the history section; I didn't finish it, much less get to subsequent sections. The entire article needs copy-editing, I'm afraid. This isn't even considering the balance issues that were raised earlier. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:55, 17 August 2010 [16].

Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)

[edit]
Nominator(s): '  Perseus 71 talk 00:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is predominantly about the organizational structure of Luftwaffe during the period of 1933 to 1945. This was the period when an Air Force was not yet recognized as a strategic armed force. One of the lesser known facts is that Luftwaffe during this time was probably the only force to have a tank division of its own. Point is, this article goes into the distinctive organizational structure compared to other contemporary Air Forces of the time. At the same time its not going into the the history of Luftwaffe.

From assessment standpoint, this article has undergone A class review and has been assessed to meed those criteria. A Peer review was conducted and is now archived. The Article also underwent a proper CopyEd by an editor from WP:GoCE. I think that at this point its in a good enough shape that it could be reviewed to see if it can be a FA candidate.

P.S. The Sources of this article were extensively validated as part of the A Class review just concluded.'  Perseus 71 talk 00:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Why is the "(1933–1945)" disambiguation necessary? There is no other "Organization of the Luftwaffe" article. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I presume that it's because it only covers the period 1933-1945 and not the organisation of the Luftwaffe since it was reformed in 1956. Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Originally this article was named just Organization of the Luftwaffe. But since modern Luftwaffe article was linked here, it was renamed with WWII in the end. However the period is under consideration is more than the period of the war, its better to provide specific period being covered. Besides, its also in line with the Luftwaffe History article. '  Perseus 71 talk 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't understand the placement of ref 23a, is it there to support the above table. If so, why is it not place together with the two refs after the table heading Types of Geschwader and their purpose.? —P. S. Burton (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. The change has been incorporated.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This website is not a blog. Its a collection of information collected from a lot of sources. The author of this website, Michael Holm has provided all his references on this page of the website. Hope, that helps to satisfy the criteria of a reliable source. '  Perseus 71 talk 20:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Note that just listing the sources isn't enough, it needs to do that as well as others. As it stands, right now it's a WP:SPS, and the standards for those are pretty high. You need to show that the author is an expert in the field. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:55, 17 August 2010 [17].

William O'Connell Bradley

[edit]
Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky's first Republican governor, second Republican senator, and the man known as the "Father of the Republican Party in Kentucky". After a recent major rewrite, I believe this article meets the FA criteria. It is already a GA, and I had it informally re-assessed after the rewrite. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Are the political aspirations of his brother-in-law and nephew really important enough for the lead?
  • Did he call two special sessions in March 1897?
    • Probably not, but it's not clear, since the information comes from two different sources. Klotter is concerned with the election of a senator while Lucas is concerned with lynching laws. It's more likely that Bradley called one session with both items on the agenda (which he would have been constitutionally-bound to specify) than that he called two separate sessions so close together, but without either source mentioning any other business of the session, it's rather impossible to tell.
  • "trusted that the General Assembly would reimburse him"—did they?
    • This also seems unclear. I only recall two sources mentioning the event. Harrison (the one cited) just states "Governor Bradley ended up borrowing the money from a bank, trusting the General Assembly to reimburse the loan." Klotter also mentions it in Decades of Discord, stating "Governor Bradley borrowed $3,000 from a Frankfort bank, subject to General Assembly approval, and equipped hospital trains to return sick Kentucky soldiers." Neither provides any follow-up.
  • Reference to Wiltz (1963) needs page numbers.
    • Looks to me like all the notes include page numbers. Which footnote(s) are you referring to?
  • The text for the "Further reading" (shouldn't that be "External links"?) is garbled: "scanned books original editions color illustrated".
I've removed this. I didn't add it, and frankly never noticed it before. IMO, it could be considered either Further reading or External links. Makes no difference to me.

Images:

Ucucha 10:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Connormah has addressed this, I believe. He made the trace.

I think this addresses all of the issues. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Generally good, but I have a fair number of issues here.

  • Lede:
Father of the Republican Party in Kentucky. Probably does not need to be sourced if it is backed up in the body, but is there intended relevance to the next sentence? After all, the brother in law ran for gov a decade before Bradley, and the nephew's run presumably had more to do with his dad's than his uncle's.
There is no intended relevance; I have reversed the order of these sentences to make this clear. Not sure the bit about Edwin Morrow's run for governor having more to do with his father than his uncle is accurate, although both Bradley and the elder Morrow were dead by the time the younger Morrow was nominated for governor.
Some mention should be made that Bradley was elected Senator by the legislature in the lede. If you do this, you might be able to split up the ungainly phrase where you explain what the General Assembly is, for example by doing a pipe in the lede paragraph and then just using "General Assembly" without explanation later on.
You're right. What was I thinking when I wrote "the General Assembly, the state legislature"? Ick. Fixed now.
I would strike the mention of factionalism, and focus on the marathon election and the fact that the Republicans were the minority, for purposes of the lede.
Done.
  • Early life
"While Bradley was still young" I am not certain this informs the reader of anything, as youngness is a characteristic universally shared by children around the globe.
Yeah, I really wish I had an age to put here, but I don't.
" he was referred to as "Colonel Bradley"" OK, but do you know for sure that this was the reason they called him Colonel? See article Kentucky Colonel! Not questioning your research, which seems quite good btw (throwing that in after a comment in a recent FAC which irritated me no end).
Yes, the source explicitly states this, although you are quite right to raise the Kentucky Colonel issue as a concern. That is, after all, where Colonel Sanders got his title.
"Despite having no college education, Bradley was allowed to take the bar examination at age eighteen by a special provision of the state legislature.[3] This arrangement was contingent on Bradley's being judged competent by two circuit judges." If we are talking about "reading law" here, this is far from unusual, it still goes on in fact, though the ABA discourages it. You make it sound like a special arrangement that was almost unique to Bradley, I would suspect that few of Kentucky's lawyers in that era went to law school, few of which existed at the time. In the 19th century, probably a majority of lawyers read law. In fact, when I was sworn in in Virginia in 1992, two of the people sworn in with me had "read law". By the way, it will probably be lost in the reshuffle, but "special provision of the state legislature" is probably not the best way of putting things.
Ick. I should have cleaned this up well before now. The special provision was related to his age – twenty-one was the minimum age for someone to take the bar exam according to state law. Memory fails as to whether the exemption was especially for Bradley or for anyone under-aged but judged competent by two circuit court judges. I've clarified this now.
I'm not certain that two "jump aheads" in this section (relatives running for gov, later death of son) are warranted. One, I can see, two is too many and you should pick one, take it out and mention it later. It makes for a confusing timeline.
I've removed the son's death, as it seems less relevant to Bradley's overall life. I can't find any specific reference to how it affected him beyond tremendous grief.
It might be worth mentioning if the Civil War or Reconstruction affected Bradley in any way other than as stated.
If it did, I haven't found it.
  • Early political career
"presidential elector" As Grant did not carry Kentucky, Bradley did not serve as an elector and this should be mentioned.
I've just removed this. It isn't that important.
"Democratic Eighth District" Perhaps "heavily-Democratic Eighth District"?
Sure. That makes sense.
  • Senate. Obviously the Republican candidate wasn't going to win, but was there some specific reason that the Republicans voted for Bradley? I've seen instances of state legislature minorities voting for people as a protest vote, was this such a case?
I suspect so, but the source doesn't state that explicitly. At that point in the state's history, the Republicans could have voted for Humpty Dumpty for all the good it would have done.
  • "nomination to serve as Attorney General of Kentucky in 1879 because of ill health." This language is confusing. I can sift through it and other articles and gather he was offered the Republican nomination to run for AG, but the language is confusing here. Of course if I am wrong, res ipsa loquitur.
More pathetic wording on my part. Hopefully fixed now.
  • Gubernatorial election of 1887
ex-Confederate. A pipe seems in order there, to CSA.
CSA was just linked in the previous sentence about Buckner serving as a Confederate general.
"His platform included proposed improvements in education," As platforms rather inevitably include things that haven't been done yet, suggest "his platform included proposals for ..." BTW, was it his platform, or the party's?
I have adopted your wording tweak. Educational improvements have been ubiquitous in Kentucky campaigns almost from the state's founding (although I suspect his plan was somehow different from Buckner's), and a high protective tariff was a traditional Republican issue in that day, but resource development may have been original to Bradley. In the absence of any clear reference to the subject in the sources, I'm inclined to call it his platform.
The construction of a state penitentiary had caused Kentuckians to leave the state looking for opportunities elsewhere? The mind boggles.
Hmm. Hadn't thought to read it like that. Clarified.
"state senator Albert Seaton Berr" Caps. It's his title, appearing right before his name.
Done.
  • The Democratic Henderson Gleaner was also critical, opining "We should be ashamed of ourselves."[20] The obvious question is "Why?"
They agreed with much of what Bradley, Berr, and others were saying about Democratic mismanagement.
  • "President Benjamin Harrison appointed Bradley Minister to Korea in 1889, but Bradley declined the appointment," Did Harrison nominate him, and send the nomination to the Senate, or did he receive a recess appointment? If the former, you should probably say "nominate", unless the Senate confirmed him before Bradley made known his refusal.
Not sure about the timeline, but "nominate" works better.
  • "He was never found." Perhaps he went to pursue penitentiary opportunities in another state? Jk, but can you source this?
Done.
  • Ditto, 1895
  • "In his opening statement," Perhaps opening campaign speech, unless he was helping out his dad with a criminal defense case.
Done.
  • "the national depression" I would pipe these words to Panic of 1893. By the way, your explanation of the free silver situation is decent considering the limited space you can devote to the question, but if you can say something about how free silver would affect the money supply, it would be a little more understandable for people who are going to stare at that 16 to 1 figure.
I've piped the link you suggest, but I'm afraid what I've said about the silver question is about all I understand of it myself!
  • Legislative session of 1896
"65 votes once, leaving him just two votes shy of election." By my fumbling math, you've just said there were 138 legislators. Wouldn't he have needed 70 votes?
I believe absent legislators (who wouldn't figure into the votes necessary for a majority) may account for the discrepancy, but I can't say for sure.

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Other proposed compromise candidates ..." Perhaps cut down the list to the notable people; given that this does not affect Bradley directly, it's too long.
No problem with that.
If all of the Assembly's attention was directed at the Senate election (by the way, hoping we can see an article on that!), how did they pass the reform house, etc. legislation)?
Shouldn't have said all, but undoubtly the vast majority.
"Bradley appointed Andrew T. Wood..." this sentence needs work. Some thought might be given to cutting back the Senate story a bit here, though it is interesting, as Bradley is a peripheral character, mostly.
I think I've helped the sentence a little bit. Part of me does want to cut back this section, but part of me feels like it is necessary to put Bradley's actions in context.
  • Advocacy for blacks:
"racially motivated lynchings" as opposed to?
Folks can be lynched simply because a mob thinks they are guilty of something. It doesn't have to be racial.
"squad of state troops" The similarity of the term to "state troopers" makes me think you might want to go with "state militia".
Kentucky didn't have state troopers until Earle C. Clements abolished the Kentucky Highway Patrol in favor of the Kentucky State Police in the late 1940s, but fair enough. I've changed it.
" Bradley's office was flooded with requests to intervene on Dinning's behalf" Ambiguous, unclear if the requestors wanted to intervene or wanted Bradley to intervene.
Clarified.
"After being freed, Dinning fled to Indiana " Was he being pursued? The trial was in Louisville, right? How much fleeing was called for? The city is on the Ohio River.
"Fled" may be too strong, but Dinning clearly feared retribution if he remained in Kentucky, and this motivated his removal from the state. I've changed "fled" to "relocated".
"1897 compilation Biographical sketches of prominent negro men and women of Kentucky.". Is this a book? Surely it should be capitalized (so he was the first black governor of Kentucky ... probably voters on both sides agreed.)
Just copied and pasted from WorldCat, which doesn't always get the capitalization right. And yes, I suspect you are right about both sides believing Bradley was the first black governor of Kentucky, and in a much more prominent sense, I would think, than Bill Clinton being "the first black president of the U.S.", as some claimed. :)
  • Other matters
" when the legislature convened in 1898, the Democratic majority in both houses was overwhelming." Perhaps a brief mention of the 1897 legislative elections and what role, if any, Bradley paid in it would be in order. I assume his policies were an issue?
Tapp would be the most likely source of such information, but he is surprisingly silent on the issue, mentioning only that "The regular session of the General Assembly convened January 4, 1898, with the Democrats approaching the old time majorities."
"Bryan" It might be worth a mention that the Democratic party had become decidedly bimetallist by then, and even toss in a mention of the cross of gold.
Again, this subject isn't my strong suit, and I don't know what the "Cross of Gold" refers to.
"attempted to recover the costs and turn a profit " There's an implication here that this was unauthorized; most if not all turnpike roads were chartered by the state.
On the contrary, the state was heavily indebted already and was glad for the turnpike companies to make such an investment.
Spanish-American War. The conditions were notoriously bad for everyone, not just Kentucky; more soldiers died in Tampa than in Cuba. I don't suggest that you mention this, but there may be articles you could pipe to.
A quick glance through Category:Spanish-American War reveals only United States Army beef scandal which may be relevant, but I'm not sure exactly how to introduce it.
  • Goebel Election Law
"President Pro Tempore" pipe here note that pro tem or pro tempore is lower case and italicized.
So it is. Fixed.
"non-committal" I'd lose the hyphen if you keep the word. I understand this word to mean that they have not announced their stance. Is this what you meant?
I mean both that they hadn't announced their stance, and some wouldn't do so when explicitly asked about it. I deleted the hyphen.
"on the defense" Surely, "on the defensive"?
I've heard it both ways, but I have no problem with "defensive".
"As leader of the party," Why was Goebel leader of the party? He wasn't the nominee yet.
With all of the elected officers in the executive branch being Republicans, Goebel was the highest-ranking elected Democrat as president pro tem of the senate.
"BAYONET Rule" generally, we do not go all caps regardless of the original, but for one word, I'm content merely to point out the MOS and leave it to your judgment.
Wasn't aware that the MOS made such an exception for all caps in the original. I've reduced it to standard capitalization, as I rather detest all caps myself.

Later life

I really do not think you should divide the 1899 election story between two sections.
OK, I think the headings as I've adjusted them will work.
I imagine that Bradley was not the only seconder of TR's renomination?
Maybe not, but others are not mentioned in the sources I have, which is understandable since they all focus on Bradley/Kentucky.
Beckham's second term. Some explanation is needed here: If Kentucky governors were not eligible to be re-elected, than why was Bradley not to be renominated?
Ah, you are a close reader. In 1900, Beckham succeeded to the governorship upon Goebel's death (subject to his eventual court victory). Pursuant to the state constitution, a special election was then held because Goebel died less than two years into his term. Beckham prevailed in the election and served until the expiration of his (originally Goebel's) term in 1903. Beckham declared as a candidate for the 1903 election, and a court upheld his right to seek the office because he had not been elected to a full term previously, but was simply serving out the remainder of Goebel's. I'm not sure why the court didn't consider the special election sufficient to consider Beckham elected as governor and thus ineligible for re-election; the sources I've seen don't go into that much detail. As none of this is directly related to Bradley, I had hoped to gloss over it in the interest of staying on topic. And I'd have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids and your dog! :) How would you propose to treat this in the article?
Numeric Congresses: each Congress has an article about it, should be pipes.
Yep. Laziness on my part. Fixed.
Charles W. Fairbanks as the Republican nominee, Perhaps "for the Republican nomination" would be better
Indeed. Changed.
Do we know why he chose not to run for reelection? Did the 17th Amendment play a part? He'd have had to face the people.
Thatcher attributes it to failing health, but he doesn't specifically say what ailment or ailments he was suffering from.
The article would round off well with some mention of reaction in Kentucky to his death. Any legacy, things named for him, monuments?
I don't really have anything of that nature. You'd think that someone so transformational would have a lot of stuff named for him, but I haven't found anything.

I don't know if I can support without further copyediting but will wait and see.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a really thorough review. Let me know what areas still need attention. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking my suggestions in such good humor; I will probably not have time to review it again until Wednesday but will take a second look then.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, have you looked at the NY Times archives? I saw a number of articles, mostly having to do with his time as governor, and articles before 1923 are free.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:55, 17 August 2010 [18].

Pe̍h-ōe-jī

[edit]
Nominator(s): Taiwantaffy (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article status because I feel it's ready. The orthography known as Pe̍h-ōe-jī has a fascinating history of use, abuse, suppression and revival, and is central to the story of the "Taiwanese language movement". The article is comprehensive, stable, extensively referenced, and contains appropriate images. It has been reviewed successfully against the good article criteria, and subsequently peer-reviewed, which generated some very helpful suggestions to improve the article. These have been carried out, and I believe that, certainly as far as the information contained within the article is concerned, it is about as good as it can be. Subjects related to Taiwan are underrepresented at FA and GA class in Wikipedia, and I'm trying to get more of them up to this level. This is my first FA nomination. Taiwantaffy (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out! I'll find a reliable source for that statement later today. Taiwantaffy (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reference replaced with one from unicode.org. Taiwantaffy (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three:
    • File:Peh-oe-ji.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP (sourcing to "Taiwan Church News" is like sourcing text to "Time Magazine" - that's not sufficient or helpful). Incorrect license ({{PD-self}}) and authorship attribution. This work purports to be from 1892 - Taiwantaffy is more than 118 years old?
    • File:JVNT1.png - Needs a verifiable source. Hitherto deleted en.wiki page is not acceptable.
    • File:Thomas Barclay.jpg - Source links directly to the image. Where can we confirm the copyright status? If the author is unknown, how do we know s/he's been dead 70 years?
    • File:Kau-hoe-po.png - Needs complete source - the original what? PMA is not relevant for published works in the US; should be supplemented by the appropriate tag.
    • File:Taiwanese kana.png - Mere text is not eligible for copyright protection. Should be re-licensed accordingly.
    • File:POJ tone marks.png - Mere text is not eligible for copyright protection. Should be re-licensed accordingly (can't release a copyright that never existed). Эlcobbola talk 16:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image issues raised by Эlcobbola addressed: licenses have been corrected where necessary, and two images (File:JVNT1.png and File:Thomas Barclay.jpg) have been switched for images which can be verified as being in the public domain. Taiwantaffy (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost there, just need to correct the license on File:Peh-oe-ji.jpg. Эlcobbola talk 16:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced that image with one that more clearly demonstrates the system, and which also (hopefully) has the correct license. Taiwantaffy (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:POJ text sample.svg has issues. If it's a quote from Pe̍h-ōe-jī ("Sample text in Pe̍h-ōe-jī"), authorship should be attributed to the creator of Pe̍h-ōe-jī and the source revised accordingly. The license is also incorrect; while individual characters and words are generally not sufficiently original to be eligible for copyright, prose formed therefrom is. If this is the work of Barclay and was published in 1892, the {{PD-old-50-1923}} (not a redlink on the Commons) would suffice. Эlcobbola talk 14:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thanks for catching that. I've updated the info for that image - text was taken from Minnan Wikipedia so I've used the CC licence from that site together with a link for attribution. Taiwantaffy (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, issues resolved. Эlcobbola talk 12:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a challenging article on an unfamiliar subject, which looks (and is) daunting to most would-be reviewers. I'm sure that is why the nomination has so far lacked content reviews. Having gone through roughly the first half, I'm inclined to agree with the peer reviewer that the article is professionally put together. My main concern is that of accessibility to the readership of a general encyclopedia rather than a linguistic journal, and my comments are generally related to that particular issue.

  • Lead
    • Give dates for the Japanese era in Taiwan, the Kuomintang martial law period and the establishment of the PRC
    • Be careful about the use of "today", which is inderminate. In a few years, the situation "today" might be a lot different from that described in the article.
  • Name
    • The first sentence is over-complicated, with too many parenthetical insertions. The sentence would read adequately as: "The name Pe̍h-ōe-jī (simplified Chinese: 白话字; traditional Chinese: 白話字) literally means "vernacular writing2, i.e. written characters representing everyday spoken language". I question whether the later insertions are necessary; the certainly affect the readability of the article and perhaps would be better omitted.
    • "vernacular writing" should be in inverted commas, not italicised. Likewise other English terms such as "Church Romanization".
    • Informalities such as "didn't" should be avoided.
    • "The term "romanization" is also disliked by some, as the word connotes a supplementary phonetic system rather than an orthography." Remember, this is a general encyclopedia. Most readers would have great difficulty understanding sentences like that.
  • Early development
    • "...the tonal structure of Hokkien..." Suggest "the tonal structure of the Hokkien dialect..."
    • "with regard to", not "with regards to"
    • Overlong sentence: beginning "The first major work to represent this new orthography..." It needs splitting, and some word re-ordering, e.g. "can be therefore regarded" → "can therefore be regarded"
    • "tinkered with" is maybe a bit informal; perhaps "adjusted"?
    • I suggest a paragraph break at "In 1842..."
    • To proselytize means to convert someone from one religion to another. It would be more accurate to write that the missionaries began the proselytising process, rather than that they "started proselytizing", which makes the business sound rather routine. I wonder whether the word itself is the best choice; it may not be altogether familiar to many readers.
  • Maturity
    • "...donated a small printing press to the local church,[24] which Thomas Barclay learned how to operate..." Ambiguity, since in this construction "which" refers back to the church.
    • The structure of this section becomes very confusing after the words "...became the first printed newspaper in Taiwan." We first have an unintroduced section written in POJ, followed by what I assume is its translation. These excerpts are unexplained. A table then intrudes, again without introduction and therefore puzzling to the reader. What are we supposed to understand from the table? When the text resumes, I'm afraid I had lost the thread completely.

I will come back with further comments later. Should the article be archived meantime, I will continue my comments on the talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the time you have taken to make these suggestions. I find them almost universally good and have done my best to implement them, although I have refrained from using the term "Hokkien dialect" as suggested above, because of the thorny dialect/language in Chinese linguistics (I went for "Southern Min" instead, as it is used and explained earlier in the article).
With regards regard to your comments about the "Maturity" section, I am interested to hear your thoughts on its reorganisation. Tidying up the references for the table and adding explanatory text is probably uncontroversial. Removing the images has also improved it, I think, but I worry that relevant images are one of the things encouraged in the FAC criteria, and that by losing two here the article may fall foul of that particular expectation. Taiwantaffy (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:23, 14 August 2010 [19].

Crush 40

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Thunderkitty (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been peer reviewed three times, and is currently listed as a good article. But I feel that the article is ready to go to the next level. The Thunderkitty (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you consult the primary contributors to this article before nominating? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Lead is much too short for an article this size; information on reception is missing; some information is unreferenced. Also a dab link to Sonic and nine dead external links. Ucucha 14:32, 14 August 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 13:15, 12 August 2010 [20].

Hubert Humphrey presidential campaign, 1968

[edit]
Nominator(s): William S. Saturn (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all the criteria. The article is a comprehensive look at the 1968 presidential campaign of Hubert Humphrey and has been well researched and written for a complete neutral understanding of both the private and public aspects of the campaign. All images are free use, with the exception of the campaign logos, which are fair use under WP:LOGO. I thank all reviewers in advance for taking the time to read and examine the article.William S. Saturn (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—No dab links, Checklinks states that Ref 56 has a connection issue although appears to work fine, and Checklinks states that there is something wrong with Ref 92 although it also appears to work fine. WackyWace converse | contribs 08:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Firstly the Tet Offensive part is a bit misleading as it stands, just mentioning US losses. US+SV beat the communists very badly and it was the media/political victory of the Vietcong due to a handful running into the embassy garden etc... More importantly the article seems rather short. I actually found 30 pages on the 1967 SV election by two different professors, so I'm expecting there is a lot more that can be found in books on Nixon, Wallace etc, of which there are many. You don't seem to have used scholarly references much. Why not? Particularly as some things related to war issues or cabinet issues are censored and not available except to mordern authors. The analysis of HH's performance in various demographics is also very short. It is shorter than his post-1968 summary. As for LBJ's withdrawal, w hy not just give the date of his announcement (March 31 I think). Leaning oppose quite solidly YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will add scholarly references shortly, and will expand the Results section. I do not want to go into too much detail about the Vietnam War, just how it affected the Humphrey campaign. I also do not want to go into too much detail about Nixon, since an article chronicling his campaign already exists. While the article is set during the 1968 election, I do not want for the article to be too focused on the election, but rather the inner workings of the Humphrey campaign. I have added the date for the Johnson withdrawal and inserted "and Vietnamese" intentionally ambiguous to North and South to the Tet Offensive sentence.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read any VN War literature carefully, as it seems to be a big part of the campaign...because your changes make the Tet Offensive more misleading by just saying more about communist attacks and anti-communist losses out of context, which will make people thing that it was a military defeat for Johnson, which it wasn't. The Tet Offensive also wasn't a day-long affair either, which is a very basic fact. And "insurmountable" is a hyperbole, who says that it is objectively/mathematically impossible for Johnson to win? Secondly, I see hardly anything about his policy and mostly only lists of opinion poll and primary results. I see nothing about economy, or health, and only one sentence about housing and education, which doesn't say anything except that he rubbished Nixon. Even in a costly war, the economy is still always important; it's not as though the US got invaded and everyone is directly in a life/death situation and warfare is the only issue. Next, running mate....he considered a whole pile. What were the weaknesses that made him not choose the others? In every election analysts always analyse the pro/cons of each VP possibility, as the choice is all relative. And for the demographic breakdowns, are you serious that there are no political scientists explaining or conjecturing why different groups voted in different ways? More generally, there is almost nothing about policy in any case, but it needs to be there so that it can be linked to the reality of appealing to various sections of society. Sorry, no, this article is missing stuff everywhere. Strong object YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments, but they appear misguided. It would be ill-advised to go into excessive detail about the Vietnam War, because this is an article about the presidential campaign of Hubert Humphrey, not a campaign of the Vietnam War. I have fixed the two mistakes you mentioned regarding the Tet Offensive. However, in no way does the article suggest a military defeat, but rather a political one, since again, this article is about a political campaign. The comment: "I see hardly anything about his policy and mostly only lists of opinion poll and primary results" causes me to question whether you fully read the article, since policy is ingrained throughout the article, and the only "list" of results is found in the appropriately named "Results" section. You must remember that the economy was not a vital issue during this election, as the economy was generally good in the 1960s. As for the running mates, it was not 100% sure that Humphrey would win the nomination until the Democratic National Convention. The names listed there were last minute suggestions behind closed doors, I doubt there is extensive research on this that is notable enough to include. Finally, the comment "are you serious that there are no political scientists explaining or conjecturing why different groups voted in different ways?" also leads me to question whether you fully read the article since that is listed in the "Results" section. I hope you can reconsider your objections and understand that the focus of the article is the 1968 presidential campaign of Hubert Humphrey, rather than the 1968 presidential election or the Vietnam War.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HH was LBJ's No 2, and thus the succession is obviously important. If you think that because the economy is strong there is no need to say anything at all, then I don't have anything more to say. I'd fall over if the newspapers didn't speculate on possible tickets or analyse them at all. I'm sure the FAC coords know what to do. I'm not interested in a limbo dance on FA standards YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The economy was not a major (if at all) campaign issue in 1968. The main issues were Vietnam, Law & Order and Civil Rights. All of these are sufficiently covered in the article, while maintaining that the focus of the article is the campaign of Hubert Humphrey.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note that the supposed Humphrey logo in the infobox has a web address included in it. It is my understanding that Humphrey would have been well in advance of his times in having a web site in 1968. Second, I find the whole (brief) discussion of the supposed Nixon interference in the peace process unbalanced and as it is placed in the passive voice, somewhat obfuscated. I realize that it is a position of the loony left that Nixon won the election by interfering in the peace process (notably the efforts of the Johnson Administration to push the election Humphrey's way by desperately trying to make a deal before Election Day are not stressed), but how about a little balance here? I'm sure you can find appropriate secondary sources in that area. I agree with YM, the article seems short and does not give appropriate space to important points. Some detail on the disastrous Democratic Convention and Humphrey's reaction to it, after all that wrong-footed the campaign with a vengeance. I've only just glanced over this article, but I'm inclined to agree with YM. I have got a shelfful of bios on Nixon in preparation for my upcoming effort to raise him to FA, there was a lot going on in the 68 campaign that doesn't seem to show up here. Suggest going to the local library and looking at a few. And perhaps some mention of how Murray Chotiner got a spy on the Humphrey press plane would be in order (just steal it from the Chotiner article, it's a FA, it's all sourced).--Wehwalt (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A couple more comments. There were multiple Kennedy/Nixon debates, though people really only remember the first. You have it in the singular. I will let the image hawks advise you further, but as the Humphrey/Muskie bumper sticker (again with the web address!) consists entirely of lettering, it is probably PD. That should be moved to the infobox, as having a PD logo kinda destroys the rationale for the one in the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And still more. You might want to review Jonathan Aitken's bio of Nixon, which contains an account of him going to Humphrey's funeral. Somewhere on the web, you should be able to find a great photo of Nixon in a campaign parade in an open car with crowds on either side and signs "Nixon's the One" which I believe is PD, This is a worthy start to the article, but I believe it probably needs more work than can be done during the limited time of a FAC. Nice effort to a tough subject though, but just a bit superficial.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have pluralized debates per your suggestion. I do not want to give too much weight to Nixon in this article, since there is a campaign article on Nixon where an in-depth account would be appropriate. Let me know how I can rephrase the sentence on the peace talks disruption to be more neutral.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the logo issue, the first logo was used for the primary campaign and the second was used for the general election campaign.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I believe I have expanded and better explained all the important aspects you mentioned above, with the exception of Murray Chotiner. I agree that it is necessary to include in the article but I am having trouble on where to place it. Any suggestions?--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if you added a line or two about media coverage of the campaign, then mention the Chotiner spy thingy (which he repeated in 1972 btw), it would be good. See Ealgyth's comments below.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The data in that particular website is valid, I have checked numerous times. It is used for ease of access, and is used in numerous wikipedia articles including the FA Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Whether it's been used in other FACs isn't really going to show reliablity in this case (I'll also note I didn't weigh in on that FAC, nor was the site shown to be reliable there). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a list of books that use the website as a source. And here is an explanation of how the data is compiled.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also note the lack of scholarly articles being consulted. A very superficial Google Scholar search shows a good number of possible articles, including a number on how the television coverage shaped the election. While not all of these will necessarily be relevant, the total lack of journal articles is a concern. This is mainly a pointer to other reviewers, as I don't honestly have the time to plunge into a long research project on this.
This will be addressed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaving both of these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re Tet offensive. I think the article could stand another couple of sentences on the Tet offensive and, specifically, its effect on public morale in the United States. It might be wise to consult the appropriate pages in Robert Caro's vio of LBJ or another reputable source, and read how he sees the sequence of events leading to LBJ's withdrawal.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not use that source, but added what you suggested.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:41, 11 August 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 23:43, 10 August 2010 [21].

Don Valley Parkway

[edit]
Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it comprehensively covers the subject matter in greater detail than any other single source available (anywhere), it is very well sourced, it contains no speculation, original research, or any of those oh-so-evil impurities :P Grammar is my weakest point, but I am hoping that through peer review and the help of fellow editors (with a special mention to Alaney2k who has been a huge help on this article) that the prose is above par. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—a dab link to Newmarket; no dead external links. Why is the TOC not in the standard place? There is some minor inconsistency in the references (most say "Retrieved <date>", a few say "Retrieved on <date>"). Ucucha 16:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dab fixed. The TOC is more or less in the standard place (its placed as such to remove a 3 inch blank space). The citation issue is an issue with the citation templates, which I cannot edit since I am not an administrator. This is beyond my control unfortunately :(
EDIT: It was cite report, one of the newer citation templates. It hasn't been locked down yet, so I edited it so as to remove the "on" - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Thanks. I fixed Template:Cite report for you (it looks like I was there first). As for the TOC, WP:TOC has something to say on the topic, including that the TOC should not be placed within the lead (as it is here) because that disrupts screen readers. Ucucha 16:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Looks like SandyGeorgia beat me to it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are still numerous MOS errors, but I'm traveling and don't have time to list them all; someone will need to do a MOS review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a fairly thorough MOS cleanup. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source Review by Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs)
  1. All external links check out at this time.
  2. There's a weird formatting error with the {{cite report}} template for the City of Toronto report in the "Bibliography" section of the References. The date is listed first because there's no author. We should ping someone to help correct that. Alternately, is there a body of the city's government that authored the report? Such an "author" could be listed to correct the formatting, and simplify the shortened references in the footnotes that refer to this source. (In this case, I'd consider a committee or department of the City to be the author of the report and the City as the publisher.) The format should be noted as PDF as well, like other references.
  3. The Filey reference's title should be rendered in Title Case. (At least Amazon is rendering it that way off the ISBN search.) Likewise with the Sewell reference.
  4. The Sauriol reference should be reformatted. Natural History Inc. should be sufficient as the publisher. Remove the period after the "Inc" and the ISBN so that the template doesn't double the periods. (The Darke reference #15 is by the same publisher.) You could pipe a link to the magazine to display the publisher's name, or create a redirect likewise.
  5. Moving on to the Footnotes, and this is more of a personal preference than anything, but I guess I don't see the need to list the company that publishes a newspaper. To me, the name of the newspaper is enough, especially with it's a big paper like The Toronto Star. Removing that detail would clear up an inconsistency with the publisher of The Globe and Mail because it looks like the paper either changed owners or the company changed names at some point between 1961 and 1965.
  6. Another stylistic opinion, but since "CTVglobemedia" is the owner of a TV station or network in Canada, I'd prefer that if you can attribute those news stories to one of their outlets (CTV News, I assume) that would be preferable over the company. That would be consistent with citing some references to CBC News.
  7. Refs 20 and 21 look to be the same thing with different access dates. Is there some way that either a) they could be combined together or b) the titles be changed to distinguish them better?
  8. Ref 15 is a book source used only once. I'd move it up to the bibliography with the rest of the books and convert the footnote to a shortened reference accordingly, for consistency. Likewise Ref 30.
  9. Ref 48 should be reformatted. I assume that it's another {{cite report}} error.

The sources of your references all look good to me. Imzadi 1979 → 17:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes made accordingly. Books moved to biblio (I assume the book with editors as opposed to authors uses the editor for the shortened ref), cite report errors fixed, periods removed, title caps fixed in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Composition titles, CTV News used, and refs distiguished. As for #5 and #9: The Globe switched around 1963 from a private individual as the publisher to a corporation as the publisher. I have always been told to add publishers when they aren't included. As for 9, I'm not sure whats wrong in the ref (guessing the location of PDF), but this is {{cite journal}} (as it is a periodical), which is one of the heavily maintained cite templates. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three:
    • File:DVP Shield.svg - Too simple to be eligible for copyright as mere text and simple geometric shapes. Should be re-licensed accordingly.
    • File:Don Valley Parkway 1963.png- No license (!), no author/copyright holder (NFCC#3A), likely failure of NFCC#8. Why is a picture of a lack of safety devices needed to understand there were no safety devices? Why wouldn't "there were no safety devices at the time of completion" be sufficient to convey that understanding (NFCC#1)? Where is that even discussed? The word "safety" only appears once in the article and in another section and context.
    • File:Toronto-dvp-route.png - Fails NFCC#1. A free equivalent could be easily created from a PD map.
    • See MOS:CAPTIONS for when full stops should be used. Эlcobbola talk 19:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed the two licences. The last image will be replaced very shortly with a free equivalent (I'm working on a route map now). I'll go through the captions in a few hours when I have a chance and fix them up. As far as I know, every one uses full sentence structure. I'll probably hide the historic image in the interim until something can be figured out around that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    These are now all remedied. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved. Thanks. Эlcobbola talk 16:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


oppose WP:FA Criteria 3 File:Toronto-dvp-route.png is replaceable with free content Fasach Nua (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am making this right now. Check back in about 24 hours as it should be completed by then. Was there any reason besides this that you'd oppose? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, the image has been replaced by one of my own making. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work on this page, but there are a some areas I'd like to have more coverage of. What ran through the valley before the DVP? The lead mentions the Don Roadway, but there is nothing about it in the body. There is also nothing about the ecological impact of the DVP and it's effect on the Don Valley. What about the debate over it's construction? Charles Sauriol's Don Valley Conservation Association failed in it's efforts, but the campaign led directly to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the successful anti-expressway moments of the 1960s. - SimonP (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I read on some of this, but the only coverage I found of it (the debate over it) was in his own books. It seems otherwise that it generally went through with no regard, and anyone in the valley was expropriated. Metro had a lot of power when it was first formed, and the ideals of the 1950s were very much "build us this massive project so we can be proud". I think the history of the valley is best left to the Don Valley article, as there is over a hundred years of documented history going on in the valley that it could be made into an FA of its own. As for the TRCA, as far as I've read it came into existance as a direct result of the washed out floodplains left by Hurricane Hazel and the city's desire to prevent subdivisions from being built into the ravines any longer. IIRC they (TRCA) expropriated Sauriol's cottage. I'll see what I can add about the former roads in valley though. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For an added reference, I seem to recall Murray Seymour's Toronto's Ravines: Walking the Hidden Country including some content on the lack of nature in the Don Valley since the DVP was developed. - SimonP (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just picked it up today, reading. I'll try and add some info with it and use what I can from Sauriol's books as well. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, I hope that's the right one. I read it when I was making the Toronto ravine system article, and I seem to remember that book dealing with this issue. - SimonP (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a bit more at the beginning of the History section. A summary of the natural history of the ravine. There are other details interspersed regarding the former valley taken from Sauriol's book, such as the two removed hills and the re-routing of the Don. Hope you like :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query now that certain updates have been made to the template, is there any reason not to revert this article back to the "standard" style infobox that it used before March 24, 2010? Note that I'm not advocating reverting to the information used in that infobox. Imzadi 1979 → 17:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So long as its fine by other reviewers, I planned on switching all the Ontario infoboxes very very shortly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I've done a bit of light copy-editing as I have read along, please feel free to revert.
    • "...veering slightly to the right as it passes below Queen Street East." - Seems to me that should be veering east or west. In response to the comment below, I pulled out my maps of this area, and it's pretty clear this particular "veer" is to the west, despite the additional twists and turns later in the road, so I've made the modification myself; hope that is okay. Risker (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...where on the right-hand side is Todmorden Mills..." - same concern. This sentence is also somewhat unwieldy and could use rewording. (Suggestion: try reading it out loud, anywhere that one stumbles or finds difficulty will also likely be difficult for a reader.)
    • In the History section, please include the date that the project was approved by Metro Council.
    • The last sentence about the Route of Heroes would benefit from being restructured. I've done a bit further copy editing to this sentence, which I think smooths things out, but feel free to revert if you prefer the previous version. Risker (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reworded the paragraph about the 2010 municipal election, but the last paragraph with the two environmental assessments needs some further work.
    • I suggest dropping the "location" on the chart at the bottom, as those differentiations are no longer recognized within the City of Toronto and haven't been for a long time; even the introductory sentence at the top identifies that the entire route is within the City of Toronto.

Generally, I found this article to be more informative and interesting than many "highway"-type articles, and will be happy to support once these additional issues are addressed. (Please ping me when you feel they have been, so that I can strike my comments in a timely way.) Thanks for the opportunity to review. Risker (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I feel my concerns have been addressed. I'll just comment, per the discussion below about Canada Post delivering to places with the names of the former boroughs: Canada Post delivers to the building or location associated with the postal code, regardless of what city name is included in the address. They still continue to deliver letters marked "Willowdale" and "Weston" even though those places haven't technically existed as anything but neighbourhoods since the 1950s, and if you put the "mid-town Toronto" postal code on a letter destined for a house on a street with the same name in Scarborough, it will be delivered to Toronto even if you indicate it should go to "Scarborough". Risker (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Awesome, it reads much better now. I've already made most of the fixes required, but wanted to comment on two of them:
      • The first note on veering - While I fixed the other instances that I can see, this first case I believe should remain. I cannot figure out a better way of wording it, but essentially it changes direction from north, very slightly angled west, to north, very slightly angled east. The highway curves to the right when travelling north. Any suggestions? Worst comes to worst, I'll do out with it entirely.
      • On dropping the location: While I recognize that they are no longer valid, many residents still divide the city by the former boroughs. In exchange I would put in the neighbourhoods (as named by the Toronto Star neighbourhood map), as I did at Gardiner Expressway... However, I think it is standard per WP:RJL to have at least the location column (Toronto would normally go in another column, the Division column). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's only standard to have that column if the roadway exists in multiple locations. M-185 (Michigan highway) is completely within the City of Mackinac Island on Mackinac Island and so the table omits both the County and Location columns. Contrast that with M-108 (Michigan highway), which while in two counties because it is on the county line omits the County column rather than have it span all the rows of the table. If the roadway didn't extend outside of the Village of Mackinaw City slightly, the Location column would be omitted as well.
          In this case, Toronto is more like a consolidated city-county in the US, both the county and the location. In cases like Interstate 70 in Colorado with Denver being consolidated with the county, Denver spans both the county and location columns. I'm seeing both sides of the coin here. If the former boroughs are still in use argument wins, I'd retain them for the Location. If the argument that it's all Toronto now wins, then the Location column gets pulled because it's all in one municipality. I don't know that the neighborhoods idea is better, being the arbitrary creation of a newspaper instead of an actual governmental unit. If used though, the column should be retitled to reflect "Neighborhood" and not "Location" since the latter is understood a bit differently. Imzadi 1979 → 18:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I am led to understand, though the whole city is legally now Toronto, the former boroughs are still recognized units and their names are still in use by the post office, which means they still exists. Besides that, they existed for most of the history of the Parkway. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The USPS will deliver mail address to "Green Garden, MI 49855". Green Garden is an unincorporated "location" south of Marquette off US 41 near Green Garden Hill. The ZIP code, 49855, in that situation is the one for Marquette. The reason that they'll deliver that mail is there is a satellite post office there for receiving outgoing mail and selling postage, but the actual sorting and delivery is performed by the Marquette Post Office. If Canada Post is similar to the USPS, then the reason the former boroughs are in use would be similar: satellite facilities using a Toronto postal code. At the moment, I'm sympathetic to retaining the locations, but leaning toward saying that they just don't exist anymore unless there are some current third-party maps still listing them. (I've been known to list the name of an unincorporated community at a junction instead of the name of the township which legally does exist. Usually in those cases the post office bears the community's name and isn't a satellite of another facility.) Imzadi 1979 → 23:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding your recent comments, I suppose I was using veer incorrectly instead of 'curve'. At Queen Street, the highway curves from north-north-west to north-north-east (which isn't much, but it's pretty sudden). Cheers - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-source review by Imzadi179

In no particular order, I have a few minor comments to make on the article.

  1. Should "William R. Allen Road" be in the "See also" section? It is wikilinked from the infobox and the navigation template at the bottom of the article.
  2. "It connects the Gardiner Expressway in downtown Toronto with Highway 401 and is one of the busiest municipal roads in the city - some sections carry an average of 100,000 vehicles a day" in the lead, that hyphen should be either an unspaced em dash or a spaced en dash. (I personally prefer the former, but either works.)
  3. Can you mix up word choice a little? The lead as a four consecutive "the parkway" constructions in the last sentences of the first paragraph and the first sentences of the second paragraph. You can substitute "route", "roadway", "expressway" or even "highway". And unless you're using the full name, I don't think "parkway" should be capitalized because without the "Don Valley", "parkway" isn't a proper name. Watch for consecutive sentences that start with the same subject wording and fix them accordingly.
  4. The map could use some context. Can you add an inset of the province of Ontario in that dead space below Hwy 401 and above the DVP? Use the inset to show where in Ontario the whole map is depicting. You could also add some labels for the other highways and a caption using the |map_notes= parameter of the infobox. Maybe you could zoom it out a bit to show a little more of the surrounding freeway/expressway network, in the process reducing the height in proportion to the width.
  5. The "Route of Heroes" name in the infobox shouldn't need a citation if it's cited in the body of the article. That's not a controversial or unrepeated statement of fact.
  6. The first paragraph of the Route description is almost unnecessary, unless it is acting as a mini-lead for subsections below. It gives a nice overview of the whole course, but it's a bit jarring to go from a sentence on the northern end back to the southern end in the next paragraph. Maybe you should add some sub headings?
  7. "... pass under the CN/GO Toronto railway viaduct ..." Can you spell out the abbreviated names this first time, with the abbreviations in parentheses?
  8. "... each adding a lane to each carriageway." How about: "each adding a lane to both carriageways."? That removes the extra "each".
  9. "The expressway continues northward, sandwiching the Don River between itself and Bayview Avenue." Which, the roadway or the river, is sandwhiched? How about: "The expressway continues northward, with the Don River sandwiched between the parkway and Bayview Avenue." That should clarify which is the bread and which is the meat of that particular hamburger.
  10. "The expressway curves eastward as it passes the Half-Mile Bridge railway bridge where it meets the interchange for Bayview and Bloor. The long off-ramp to these roads was the beginning of the Parkway in 1961.[8] The off-ramp was later proposed as the eastern terminus of the proposed Crosstown Expressway. The Crosstown, opposed by the City of Toronto, was never built.[9] The Crosstown was projected to be built only after the completion of the Spadina Expressway, which itself was cancelled in 1971.[10] In this section, the highway is in a cut of the hillside."
    1. Can you pipe the redlink to remove the extra "bridge" from the first sentence, or change the second occurrence to "crossing"?
    2. The stuff in the middle about the other expressways doesn't flow well. Try moving that last sentence ahead of the expressway stuff, and copy edit it for flow. By moving it up, you shouldn't have a sentence dangling without a reference.
    3. "The Crosstown" feels like it's repeated too much. You can use "This other expressway was opposed by the City of Toronto and never built. It was projected..." to help the flow.
  11. "the Bayview-Bloor interchange" should have an en dash.
  12. "south-bound" isn't normally hyphenated in US English, and I'm not aware that it is in Canadian English. Ditto for the other cardinal directions in the article.
  13. "Changeable Message Signs (CMS)" is unlinked on first occurrence and linked the second time in a photo caption. Both usages have the abbreviation. I'd ditch the abbreviations totally and move the link.
  14. "The Don Valley Parkway is one of Toronto's busiest municipal routes, along with the Gardiner Expressway." Move the appositive into the middle of the sentence so it reads "The Don Valley Parkway, along with the Gardiner Expressway, is one of Toronto's busiest municipal routes." Otherwise the Gardiner is kinda an afterthought dangling there.
  15. In the first sentence of the history section, "Don River valley", valley should be capitalized.
  16. "one and a quarter million cubic metres" needs a conversion.
  17. "The final cost of the project was $40 million." could use an inflation-adjusted number.

In general the article is well researched and well written, but it just needs some copy-editing for polish. Imzadi 1979 → 23:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My responses, in particular order to avoid confusion :)
  1. Removed accordingly. Even so, Allen Road isn't significant with regard to the DVP.
  2. Done. I've used a space ndash; in several articles so far, so I'll stick with it for consistency.
  3. Done.
  4. Will do. I actually have some other minor details (offramps) to complete in the map as well.
  5. Done. Probably only cited because of how recently it happened.
  6. It is a mini-lead. I am unsure of what subheading would be appropriate for the break between the paragraphs. Would Details work?
  7. Done, same with CPR later in the article.
  8. Done
  9. Done, but now I'm hungry...
  10. Fixed
    1. Done
    2. Done
    3. Done
  11. Done
  12. Done
  13. Done
  14. Done
  15. Done
  16. Done
  17. Done - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's all looking good. I'll skim through the history for any additional copy editing needed, but pending that I think this article is pretty much ready. Imzadi 1979 → 22:07, 8 August 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 23:43, 10 August 2010 [22].

U2 3D

[edit]
Nominator(s): –Dream out loud (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has gone under two peer reviews and I have done everything possible to perfect the article since its creation over three years ago. I have taken the advice of every single editor who has helped me and implemented their suggestions and worked with both WikiProject Film and WikiProject U2 to ensure the success of this article. I have wanted to nominate this for over a year now, but wanted to wait until the last possible moment to ensure a successful nomination. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—Could you move the setlist further down the article? It gets in the way of the flow of the prose. Is the list of band members useful here; it basically gives information of their names, which I doubt anybody reading this article wouldn't know. (If they don't they could always go to the U2 page linked in this article.) 114.143.169.165 (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it could be moved, but the reason I had it towards the top is so it's in the same section as the synopsis, which is equivalent to a non-documentary film article's plot section. I'm not against moving it and I see how you feel is messes up the flow of prose, but I'm not sure where it would be moved to. Any more specific suggestions would be helpful. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
U2 3D has been nominated for Featured Article by Dream out loud. U2 as a general topic was nominated for featured topic by Y2kcrazyjoker4, who I believe misunderstood what the specifics of that process were (ie. full topics rather than just the best articles as he assumed). The two nominations are unrelated apart from being about an aspect of U2. Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Comment—Why three different columns for Country, City and Venue in that Filmed concerts table? I think just one Venue column with "Estadio Azteca, Mexico City, Mexico" is enough. The flags are completely unnecessary, and I think the country, city links can go too. 114.143.172.245 (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—formatting and prose. Here are samples from the opening:

  • Overlinked (see WP:OVERLINK). I've removed some from the first half. In particular, common geographical names and repeat links. Please, don't dilute your valuable links, especially when some of them are technical. Don't link "US$", and MOSNUM says no US: it's the default currency.
  • WikiProject film (or was it TV) decided "3D" is just fine, now that the cinema industry uses it almost exclusively in film titles. The hyphen is awkward, and the article TITLE doesn't have it ...!!!
  • "The film consists almost entirely of concert footage, with political statements addressed during several songs." How does the second half of the sentence relate to the first? And please try to find alternatives to "with" as a clause connector, where possible.
  • Here's another awkward jostling of clauses: "Following the 1988 rockumentary, Rattle and Hum, U2 3D is the band's second feature film, and it was praised over its predecessor." I find the ideas jammed into single sentences without clear logic. Sit back, absorb the things you want to say, and put them into nice, logical sentences that flow and are of reasonable length. Punctuation and "and" are important variables. (Is "is" correct here?)
  • "The film also became the first ever live-action digital 3-D film, and created many other "firsts" in the history of cinema." Why "also"? Why "became" rather than "was"? Not sure I want to know about lots of "firsts" in the lead if you're not going to mention even one or two others.
  • "is displayed on screen featuring various religious symbols, and "Miss Sarajevo" where an excerpt from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is read aloud by a narrator." I don't understand the "where" ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 01:01, August 10, 2010
I don't see the need for an "Oppose" due to the above. It's not like the entire article needs to be rewritten, there just some rewording that needs to be done in a few places. As far as "3D" vs. "3-D", I chose the latter because of the formatting of 3-D film. Plus, it also distinguishes the name of the format from the name of the film. If a standardization was made to "3D" I don't understand why 3-D film would be formatted the way it is. Overlinking can be easily fixed, as it was already mentioned before, and I simply haven't gotten to it just yet. For everthing else, a simple copyedit could clear some things up, but an opposition is not yet necessary. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me when it's been zipped up. I opposed because I felt the problems were not just on the surface. The article title for "3-D film" is a problem, but it can be piped. I can well imagine why the marketers would not allow the hyphen: it is much neater without: Avatar 3D, or Avatar 3-D?

Can you get someone who's unfamiliar with the text to go through it? This is a good way to network for future co-authors. You might explore the history pages of topic-related FAs to see who the word-nerds are. Tony (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a word nerd you need, I can probably fill that role. I haven't done a start-to-finish read of the article yet. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:05, 10 August 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 23:43, 10 August 2010 [23].

Russell T Davies

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sceptre (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, FAC, I've missed you so. Here's someone we should all know about: Russell T Davies, the man who brought back Doctor Who and saved Saturday primetime television—and arguably British television drama. This article has been a long time in the making and, after about a year's work, it's finally ready to go through the featured article process. Thanks go to BillDeanCarter (talk · contribs), whose work on Aaron Sorkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) provided a skeleton structure for this article, The JPS (talk · contribs), whose work on Steven Moffat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) inspired me to do the same for this article, and Zythe (talk · contribs), who gave me several tips on how to write the trickiest part: the reception section. This is the first BLP I've taken to FAC; however, I hope that the article is nevertheless exemplary and passes all of our stringent standards. Sceptre (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media File:Russell_T_Davies_on_Play_School.jpg fails WP:NFCC contextual significance (WP:FA Criteria 3), thus the article currently fails FA criteria, otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does it? We devote a good paragraph to the appearance alone, in the second paragraph of "Children's television career", as well as some text outside detailing his work as an artist for the childrens' department at BBC outside the paragraph. I included the still more because of the second part of the praragraph: the appearance is so infamous that people request the tapes of the performance at a joke at several wrap parties, hence I believe that the performance, or at least, a still from it, would be significant enough for the article. Sceptre (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph is very well written and is capable of standing on it's own merits, non-free content is not required to enhance my understanding in this case Fasach Nua (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that removal of the image, because of the notability of the performance both in context and in the industry—a full paragraph about just one presenting job on one children's TV show nearly 25 years ago!—would have a small detrimental effect to the supporting paragraph. If possible, I'd like to gauge others' opinions on the subject matter to see if there's a consensus either way on whether it passes the NFCC. If there isn't any feedback from other editors supporting the inclusion of the image in the next couple of days, I'll remove it. Sceptre (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:FA Criteria 3 inappropriate use of non-free content (drop a note on my talk page if things change)Fasach Nua (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, don't you think that's a little immature? I'm trying to compromise on an issue where the NFCC is infamously vague, and there was no call to oppose this candidacy so quickly with that offer on the table. Sceptre (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FA Criteria 3 Pending further feedback Fasach Nua (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the use of the image meets the criteria so you have my support Sceptre. Cavie78 (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Fasach: while it's not as many outside opinions as I hoped, I'll keep the image on the page unless I get some more opposition to it. However, I will solicit opinions from people known for very strict compliance of the rules :). Sceptre (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is immaturity. I'm bending over backwards to try and find a consensus regarding this image. I even left Scott Mac a message asking for his opinion. If it'll please you, I'll get rid of it, but I'm unhappy about the way I've been forced to do it. In future, you should take image disputes regarding an image used solely on one article to FFD. Sceptre (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Page ranges require pp, not p (see refs 4 to 8, possibly others)
  • Refs 151 and 154 Publisher information appears to be lacking.
  • In general the sources look OK. Content reviewers may wish to comment on the possible over-dependence on one source, Aldridge and Murray, which is cited over 150 times, around two-thirds of the total. This is not necessarily a problem, but should I think be noted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page ranges fixed.
  • ABHoTT is, technically, a self-published source. However, it cites its sources itself, is among the websites the BBC acknowledges as an exemplary website wrt Doctor Who (e.g. [24]), and has been used in previous FACs without question (e.g. The Stolen Earth). In addition, I'm only citing the Appreciation Index figures for the two stories given. I do have access to Doctor Who Magazine Special Edition #20, which verifies Sullivan's figures across the board for the fourth series, at least. I could change the second source to DWM if you object to it; however, I haven't found a source for the "Love and Monsters" rating other than Sullivan.
  • I'm going to come clean and admit that I did use the source almost exclusively up until the Writer's Tale section. It was the only book I could find detailing Davies' career before Doctor Who. Books about Doctor Who tend to skimp on details about the producers in favour of the show. Sceptre (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've looked at the Lead and Early life and youth career so far. I think that this is a very interesting article and quite well written. However, the length is an issue and there are a few other points. I feel the article may benefit from a copy-edit as well.

  • The article seems very long, which leads me to wonder if all the details in these sections are necessary. For example, the details about his mother and school seem to be overdone. My personal opinion is that, while interesting, I'm not sure it is relevant given that he is notable as a writer and producer.
  • Is it necessary to describe him as a "gay Welsh television producer"? It seems to be shoe-horned in; the fact that he comes from Wales explains that he is Welsh, and while his sexuality is relevant to his work, the information emerges in the rest of the lead. It should be changed, even if for no other reason than it does not read well in the first sentence.
  • "Davies was succeeded as executive producer by screenwriter Steven Moffat and is currently living in Los Angeles, California." I don't think the identity of the next producer of Doctor Who is necessary in an article on Davies in the lead.
  • I think the lead is over-linked, especially the third paragraph.
  • "At the same time, Davies started exploring his sexuality, eventually coming out as gay in his teenage years." Surely this should wait until you reach his teenage years, as it seems as if he has come out already when you read about his school days.
  • The primary school section is far too detailed and reads like a school report.
  • "The group allowed Davies to define his own sexual identity..." I'm not sure what this means.
    • The stuff about his early life does prove important, either sooner or later. His mother being on the morphine drip led to an inspiration to write, watching television all the time led to his quest to return Who to the airwaves, the Olchfa school building being closed inspired Dark Season, et cetera. It'd be less confusing for a reader to know about the inspirations early on than run headlong into it later in the article and not know where it came from.
    • I admit it does look strange having "gay" and "Welsh" next to each other. I'd prefer "gay" over "Welsh", but it'd break the precedent of including the nationality. I'll probably take cues from Ian McKellen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on this and let it flow.
    • Removed the mention of Moffat.
    • Removed some extraneous links in the lead.
    • See bullet point below.
    • I only mention the primary school once, as it's not important. I think the confusion stems from my use of "first year", which is a British expression for the first year of secondary school.
The part which includes "In his first year, the main school buildings..." should also specify secondary school to avoid confusion.
  • While appreciating the points you make above, I still believe that the article is too long and too detailed. The article contains 65k of prose and comes in at over 10,000 words. And of the sections I've read so far, I find the information about his school years to go into too much depth. I do not feel it is necessary, for example, to list plays he performed in or scripts he wrote at school. Nor do I consider it necessary to mention the fact that he didn't have a rugby career. But that is just my opinion.
  • Not sure what "At the same time, Davies started exploring his sexuality..." means.
  • With regard to the comment on using Aldridge and Murray, the article does rely on this a lot. Are there any other sources which could be used, such as interviews? I think it needs at least some others. --Sarastro1 (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Well, I'll have a look to see what I can excise when I can.
    I would've thought it was obvious: teenagers sexually experiment. They always have done, always will do.
    There 'are, but nearly all of them of note were used by the book itself. Sceptre (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've removed quite a bit about Olchfa, but I've kept most of the stuff about the WGYT. I'm finding it hard to see places where I could cut content, to be honest: his important shows pre-Who have, at the most, four paragraphs, and even then I think I'm skimping on a bit of the detail. It might be because I feel that it's not enough to just list what he wrote: you need to give some context to each series, hence why I use {{see also}}, not {{Main}}), and given the amount of projects Davies has done, you don't want a reader going to a dozen different articles, most of them undeveloped, for information that really should be in the article about the writer. They're all part of the same thing, y'know? Man writes story, you want to know what the story's about. Same man writes roles, you want to write about who the roles were written for, the characterisation, et cetera. Man's TV show goes on the air, you want to know how well it did: and, for everything from 1994 onwards, except for Casanova and Who, those metrics are viewers and awards. In short, I treat each show, as well as I can, like I'd treat the lead sections of each episode article I write: one paragraph for the plot, one for the writing, sometimes one for the cast, and one for the reception. It's a formula that's worked well in the past and I think works somewhat well in this article, even if it does make the article long. Sceptre (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I have to agree with Sarastrol above; the article is overly long and quite a bear to slog through. While I understand the editorial need to introduce, describe and connect an individual's works with their personal life (having written a few literary bios), but the article isn't titled Productions by Russell T Davies for a reason. ;) A lot of the more detailed info that doesn't deal with Davies directly or indirectly can be cut, or else moved to the separate articles. Some specific comments/suggestions:
  • A few days ago, I removed both "is a gay Welsh television producer" from the lead, and the improper use of ellipses in "Early life and youth career". Both were quickly reinstated, which unfortunately turned me off of copy-editing the rest of the article. Since then, I'm glad to see that "gay" has been removed per MOS:BIO, but the ellipsis is still there and incorrectly used per WP:ELLIPSES. Please fix this.
  • There is no reason to list the chapter titles in the shorthand citations; specific page numbers are used for that very reason.
  • Davies was a childhood fan of comic books, television, and literature, and aspired to work as a full time comic artist in his adult life -- what child (who isn't Amish) isn't a fan of television? Also, the first part of this sentence, before "aspired", is over detailed for the lead. A few other examples exist throughout, including "was persuaded to study English literature" (change to "initially studied English literature"? the fact that he was advised to study English takes too long to explain here), and the entire sentence beginning "the short-lived soap opera Revelations deconstructed organised religion..." -- this info merely restates what is already said, and detracts from the subject of the article: Davies.
  • I see quite a bit of redundancy and repetition in the prose. "Davies" in particular is overused, appearing in every single sentence in the lead, and many, many times later in the article -- it's fairly clear who the article is about by now! Also watch repeated phrases, such as here: "Davies' tenure as executive producer of the show oversaw a surge in popularity in the show that led to the production of two spin-offs".
  • In his first year, the main school buildings had been closed off for renovation after inspectors discovered the cement used in construction caused other public buildings to collapse. -- "had been" (past perfect) is incorrect here, as I'm guessing that the buildings were closed in his first year.
  • Davies also made the decision in his teenage years to study literature after being convinced by a careers advisor at Olchfa not to pursue a career as comics artist because of Davies' colourblindness. -- This is interesting, but very clumsy. Needs rewording to better reflect the how and why.
  • In 1985, a friend of Davies suggested that he should talk to a producer for the children's show Why Don't You...?—who was seeking a temporary graphic artist—, which begun his professional career in television. -- The "who" should refer to the producer, not the show; the comma is also out of place.

I've only reviewed the first few sections, but I think the article could use a thorough copy-edit from an uninvolved editor or two. Some culling, per the previous comments made here, would also help tighten the article. I'll be glad to take another look once more work has been done. María (habla conmigo) 17:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on most of the points listed. I'm going to look at cutting down the Davieses to around one or two per paragraph at the most—I think too many "he"s or "him"s look unseemly—and try and find places where I can cut down on content without sacrificing too much detail. Sceptre (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also a note on chapter names: as page numbers sometimes change between printings—for example, The Writer's Tale has different page numbers in the original version than in the updated version because the latter excises a lot of the draft scripts from the former—I put the chapter names as a guide. Admittedly, I could just do with chapter numbers, but even then, I think the chapter numbers slightly change in The Writer's Tale where the original ends and the new content starts. Sceptre (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See how you've listed all of the bibliographic information under "References"? That's awesome, and it's there for a reason; there is no way for readers/researchers to mix up various editions of books or even journal articles if the specific edition you used is listed and easily located with a simple click. Therefore, chapter titles are not necessary, and only gunk the place up. Keep them if you want, but they're superfluous.
Also, I don't think your Harvard refs are working. When I click on "Aldridge & Murray 2008" and other links under "Citations", nothing happens. Isn't it supposed to link to the bibliography? María (habla conmigo) 19:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Mind you, it doesn't really impact too much on the article, and it's the way I've always done them (blame the documentation for the citation templates). I've fixed the Harvard referneces too; I forgot to set a parameter in the bibliography. Also, I've done a sweep for extraneous "Davies"es and cut down a kilobyte on prose. Sceptre (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are quite a few redirects that no longer link to any section in the article. — Dispenser 04:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. I'll go through links to the article to change any wayward links... Sceptre (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • "one of his first memories, at the age of three, was watching the First Doctor's (William Hartnell) regeneration into the Second Doctor (Patrick Troughton) at the end of The Tenth Planet." It's a nice detail, but there's no way to explain to those not familiar with Who what regeneration is, so I'd say just stub it down to saying he remembered watching X episode of Doctor Who.
    • I'm not sure of the utility of Davies' colorful explanation of his mother's psychosis. I think cutting it out and getting on with the tale is better reading (especially since I'm not sure what the lines after really mean. Was the couple in danger of losing the child before the intervention?)
    • Since this is such a large article, I think streamlining some sections would improve flow and readability. There are lots of small details that don't really seem to have much importance to his career building, for example the long mention of Welsh language dramas.
    • " In 1984, Davies performed one last time for the WGYT and came out to his parents shortly after his graduation from Oxford." Already had a mention of his sexuality and that he came out, so it's repetitious to bring it up again in this way.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, David. Let me go quickly through your points.
    • I've moved that into the Doctor Who section, where it makes more sense.
    • Removed the quote and streamlined the paragraph. I agree it that it was somewhat extraneous.
    • I'm more inclined to keeping the dramas as they were his first proper works.
    • Reworked the sentence and the following one.
    I'll have a look further down in the article to find some places to streamline. Sceptre (talk) 17:30, 10 August 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 23:43, 10 August 2010 [25].

Loretta Jones

[edit]
Nominator(s): RAIN the ONE (Talk) 21:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article is about a controversial fictional character. The article contains many referenced sources, backing up the claims and how the character affected the public over the subject of child murder. The character was also portrayed as a pole dancer, but she was used to change perception of the profression. I've tried to stay away from complicated wording, making it easy for everyone to read. I've also adressed all the layout during a GA review it once took. The article also contains discussion of character development, casting, reception. Masses of sources for fictional characters from serial drama's also are hard to come by, so the best was done in that respect.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 21:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:FA Criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give specific details of your oppose? Candidates should not have to indulge in a guessing game. Brianboulton (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to guess, I would say that the second non-free image in the body of the article is excessive and does not significantly aid readers' understanding per WP:NFCC. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that nominators shouldn't have to guess. It is the reviewer's job to state precise reasons for objection, not to talk in riddles. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the role of reviewers to assess the articles, and it is the obligation of nominators' to present articles in a state close to, or exceeding FA requirements, my effort with the review correlates with the effort put into meeting the WP:FA Criteria Fasach Nua (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I fix the references and remove the second image, would the chances of approval be likely? What is the view on the prose?RAIN the ONE (Talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold for approval is here Fasach Nua (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I read through when It was at the GA stage, so I worked on those points then. With the image being removed it would meet the C3, then it is just an opinion on prose that is perhaps needed. I feel it meets. I'd also it would be refreshing for WP to feature this article, it would also engage readers once more with the issue of child murder in fiction, which from the article it's clear to see is a present issue in society.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 22:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{FAC-instructions}}: "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed" (emphasis original). Fasach Nua, there are legitimate NFCC failures in this article; why make your oppose unactionable by not reasonably articulating them? How is anyone helped by this? Эlcobbola talk 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How Do, cover media centric news for the North West of the UK, it's a reporting source, I've used it in articles previously and went to the realiable source notice board. Babe Mag, I used it for analysis of the character, nothing to sensational, they will often review fictional chaarcters... What is it's faults? I can repiar the other references, The website that closed down is a shame, must have happened last week, because I use it a often - so I'll remove them both.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All stated refs fixed, leaving 19 and 35 in the article for discussion.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 19:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the reliabilty issue, User:Ealdgyth, who has reviewed FAC sources for aeons, defines reliability thus: "To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated." She also points to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches as a source for further advice on this issue. Brianboulton (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How-Do removed, it's been proven as a good source via a discussion on the reliable source noticeboard, but removed for this FA. More discussion via Babe Magazine for a reception quote, if it is still deemed not notable enough I shall remove it straight away.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 22:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Babemag removedRAIN the ONE (Talk) 16:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three:
    • File:LorettaJones.JPG - Image's purpose ("illustrate the subject of the article") is entirely redundant to File:Loretta and Chrissy Childkillers.jpg. The character is clearly visual in both - two are thus not acceptable per NFCC#3A.
    • File:Loretta and Chrissy Childkillers.jpg - How does an image of two people standing convey "shows [sic] big storyline in the 2009 later quarter"? What knowledge is imparted that the prose does not (NFCC#1)? What is the significant contribution to our understanding of the character (NFCC#8)?
    • The interplay of the images is complex. File:LorettaJones.JPG is unacceptable if File:Loretta and Chrissy Childkillers.jpg is present, but I don't believe the latter is at all necessary. However, if File:Loretta and Chrissy Childkillers.jpg is removed and the no longer redundant File:LorettaJones.JPG retained, I'm concerned that what is merely a closely cropped headshot of a woman whose character has no meaningful or unique makeup/prosthesis/etc. could be considered replaceable by an image of the still-living actress (NFCC#1). Is there perhaps an alternative scene that would actually have some meaningful understanding to convey and depict the character? Эlcobbola talk 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can get hold of an image where the character is in her alter ego appearance from earlier episodes, she was depicted as a pole dancer in earlier episodes and the chaarcter was tarted up for those scenes as interviews with the actress has explained.. Even if I do that though, I noticed you said there are a number NFCC failures within the article, so is everything else fine? Because I'll sort that as soon as possible. (other wise, it's worth noting how difficuilt gaining a free image of a British soap actress can be, as in the case of previous fictional character FA, Pauline Fowler, the article had the same NFCC issues but was promoted.. that featured 5 extra images, I wouldn't dream of using that amount of Non free content and trying for a FA)RAIN the ONE (Talk) 23:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The use of the plural "failures" is because there are two images, each with issues. I don't believe there to be issues in addition to those articulated above. I think a reasonable case could be made for an image like the one you've described, but I'd obviously need to see it implemented to make a determination. Note however that, unfortunate as it may be, the criterion that precludes non-free images of still living people (NFCC#1) only considers that a replacement could be obtained, not how easy or difficult that might be. Эlcobbola talk 14:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask why Pauline Fowler is a fellow fictional character with non-free images (6 head shots), a Featured Article. One rule for one, one rule for another., indeed.. (I've emailed a number of people for a free image, photographers who have an image of Melissa Walton)RAIN the ONE (Talk) 16:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be featured, but that's not relevant to this FAC. 1) WP:OTHERSTUFF; 2) It did not receive an image review; 3) Wendy Richard is dead, Melissa Walton is not - see NFCC#1. Эlcobbola talk 17:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Running out of options here, because no replies as of yet. What about an article with no images for FA?RAIN the ONE (Talk) 17:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Evans (swimmer) - Promoted 15 July 2010. There are numerous others. Эlcobbola talk 17:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that's sorted then, images now vacant from the article. :)RAIN the ONE (Talk) 20:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image issues resolved. Эlcobbola talk 16:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support?RAIN the ONE (Talk) 16:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Due to issues of time and expertise, I generally abstain from complete reviews, which precludes supporting nominations. I would note, however, that I believe the article is in need of a thorough copyedit, as issues include, among others, awkward phrasing (eg. "including facing"), unencyclopedic phrasing (e.g. the colloquial "axed" to mean "canceled"), inconsistencies with comma usage and tense, grammar issues, etc. Эlcobbola talk 18:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The prose fails criterion 1 (a). It is not well written, of excellent or professional standard. Examples:
    Despite this occupation, Jones has been portrayed out of conjunction with the blonde stereotype.
    The character is most noted for the series intending to portray her as a child murderer trying to piece her life back together.
    She also had a pole set up in her living room to carry on practicing.[3] Speaking of her research Walton stated: "I loved it. It's really good exercise. It's really good for toning. They didn't ask me to, but I did... I went and I had pole dancing classes. I had a pole put up in my living room." (repetitious)
    On 8 June 2010 Walton filmed her final scenes with the serial along with two fellow cast members, Scare and Gerard McCarthy (who plays Kris Fisher).
    After being axed by Marquess, he changed the character's direction and her persona changed.
    When episodes that were intended to feature the storyline transmitted, they instead featured a selection of then "last minute" scenes. In these scenes, Hodgkiss portrays a new character, Caroline, who holds Loretta and Jake hostage.
    In her exit final episodes Loretta had managed to convince everyone that Jake was mentally ill once more.
    Later she goes on night out in The Loft nightclub and threatens Charlotte Lau (Amy Yamazaki) that she will kill her if she ever goes near Jake again, making viewers realise that Loretta had changed her personality and her behaviour since her absence. Loretta pretends she had Lukemia but Jake finds out the truth, ends their relationship.
    She send messages from Jake's mobile phone and plants defaced pictures of her and Jake in his coat to make it look real.
    These are just some of the more obvious examples of poor prose, below GA standard. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I concur with Jezhotwells' prose assessment above. Some more examples from reading a couple of sections:
  • "Jake later decides he doesn't want her, of this Walton states that:"
  • "Walton towards Loretta's exit that she was now a dangerous and deluded woman."
  • "…Channel 4 announced that it was axing the storyline due in part to Fergus's reaction to the storyline."
  • "When episodes that were intended to feature the storyline transmitted, they instead featured a selection of then "last minute" scenes." Sasata (talk) 05:55, 9 August 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 23:43, 10 August 2010 [26].

Action of 9 February 1799

[edit]
Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel this article meets the requirements of Featured Article status and wish to improve wikipedia's coverage of the Quasi-War. This battle was the first in the Quasi-War and the first victory in combat in the history of the US Navy.XavierGreen (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources comment: Sources look OK, no issues. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 05:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry, I think the article needs some more polish. Here are examples from just the "Background" section, but entire article would benefit from a copyedit. Sasata (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the outbreak of an undeclared war with France in 1798…" American naval history is not a strong point for me. I need the basic question answered: what were they fighting about?
  • "… sending four naval squadrons to the Caribbean in order to seize French shipping and stop French letters of marque from attacking American vessels." Is a letters of marque a legal document? I don't understand how it could attack a vessel?
    • Letter of Marque has two meanings derived from the same concept. Letter of Marque can either refer to the state issued documents issued to privateers that allow them to attack shipping of certain nationalities, or it can refer to the vessels carrying those documents. In otherwords in the sense used in the article Letter of Marque is simply a synonym for privateer.XavierGreen (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • what's a brig? a revenue cutter?
    • I wiki linked them. A brig is a type of sailing vessel, and a revenue cutter is a cutter (another type of sailing vessel) that was used for customs collection purposes by the United States Revenue Cutter Service in the 17 and 1800'sXavierGreen (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Opposing Truxtun were a number of privateers" What's a privateer? How many is "a number"?
    • I linked privateer. A privateer is a privately armed vessel given permission by its mother government to attack the shipping of certain nations. The number of privateers in the area was constently changing, there are no reliable figures to my knowledge describing how many privateers were in Truxton's area of responsibility during his flotillas deployment there.XavierGreen (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • link throwing weight
  • There seems to be some inconsistency on the usage of hypens, e.g.: 20-gun USS Baltimore vs. 32 gun Sémillante-class frigate. Does "…ten 12 pounders" need a hyphen after the 12? How about "Barreaut's 950 ton ship"? I'm not familiar with WP:Ships recommended usage in these situations.
  • "was armed with 40 cannon." cannons?
Cannon is one of those words that has a plural that is the same as the singular. It doesn't always appear that way, but it is correct (or at least acceptable) to use 'cannon' when speaking of more than one cannon.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Learn something new every day; thanks. Sasata (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are correct, and i added the page numbers.XavierGreen (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. Эlcobbola talk 21:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose.Comments This still needs a bit more work I think. A few examples, and I stress these are only examples, of the kind of things I'm talking about.
  • "On her next cruise Constellation fought another frigate duel against the La Vengeance, though she would escape the fate L'Insurgente had suffered." Another duel against La Vengeance? When had they fought before? Why "the La Vengeance? "La" is the French for "the", so this is saying "the The Vengeance. It's not even consistent, as it doesn't say "the L'Insurgent". It's also ambiguous; which ship escaped the fate of L'Insurgente? Constellation or La Vengeance?
La Vengeance is the name of the ship so one would say the La Vengeance just as one would say the Constellation. The actually names of the ships are listed, La Vengeance and L'Insurgente were the exact names of the vessels as commisioned by the french navy. Another duel as in the second duel Constellation had fought against a frigate. After defeating L'Insurgente, Constellation engaged another frigate (the La'Vengeance) several months later but that frigate escaped capture while L'Insurgente was siezed by the americans and commisioned as USS Insurgent.XavierGreen (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It still seems strange to me to say "the La Vengeance", but more importantly the article is in any case not consistent. For instance, the image caption in the Background section says "A diagram of Constellation's engagement with L'Insurgente". By your logic that ought to be "A diagram of Constellation's engagement with the L'Insurgente" ought it not? Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A search of google books shows both styles being used in a variety of works.XavierGreen (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's as may be, but this is one work, and the usage within it needs to be consistent. Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think ive managed to standardize it withing the text now.XavierGreen (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... however by nightfall it had become separated from the captured frigate in a squall." Elsewhere in the article it's "she".
Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At noon on 9 February while cruising independently, Truxtun's men sighted a frigate off the coast of Nevis." How did Truxton's men manage to cruise independently? Independently of what?
Of her squadron, i change this to reflect that though in naval literature it is usually sufficent to say crusing independently i understand that someone not familiar with naval jargon would not understand this.XavierGreen (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After again outmaneuvering the damaged L'Insurgente, Constellation crossed the frigate's bow a third time, but Barreaut had by now sustained massive damage. Attempts by Barreaut's crew to repair L'Insurgente's rigging were fruitless however ...". What is "however" supposed to be telling us here? How does it relate to what has gone before?
I removed it.XavierGreen (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the United States government decided to go on the offensive by sending four naval squadrons to the Caribbean in order to seize French shipping and stop French letters of marque from attacking American vessels." Why "in order to" rather than just "to"? I know what a French letter is, but what on Earth is a "French letter of marque"?
I changed it to say with orders to. Letter of Marque is another word commonly used to describe a privateer. Letter of marque can refer both to the actual document itself and to the ships that carry them.XavierGreen (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I'd always seen ships under Letters of Marque referred to as privateers. I'd never seen the LoM used to describe the ship as well. Maybe if you just used privateer it would make more sense.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that, but then id be using privateer twice in the same sentence. Most of the sources im citing use letter of marque in the sense i am using it in as well.XavierGreen (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum 17:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:30, 9 August 2010 [29].

Titanic (1997 film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 04:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because since the last time it was nominated, the issues that were in the last one have been cleared up, the article had been revamped/expanded to include more information that isn't too trivial, the page is more organized and uploaded more pictures that help make the article more educational. It is with great pleasure (and thanks to Flyer22, who has agreed to let me proceed with the nomination and help consult during the nomination's course) that I nominate Titanic to be Featured Article again. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 04:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done fixing the dead links. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 01:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ucucha 08:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

Good work on the article so far, it's come a long way. There were a few issues I noticed with a quick look-over.

  • In the lead, to improve the article's flow the single sentence should either be incorporated into another paragraph or be expanded.
  • In the first sentence of the lead, the link to 1997 in film isn't needed. If you want to link to it, a see also section can be added that lists that link (along with any other relevant articles).
  • The plot is currently over 1,000 words. Per WP:FILMPLOT, it should be around 400 to 700 words. See if any subplots or extraneous details can be removed. It's not necessary to link to the actors' names after the character mention since there is a cast list that directly follows the plot.
  • The final sentence in the plot covers possible views on the endings. If there are other sources that touch on this (or that focus on the themes), that would be helpful for starting a new section.
  • In the cameos section, "Greg Ellis cameos as Carpathia Steward. Oliver Page cameos as Steward Barnes." could probably be combined into one sentence.
  • To help justify the inclusion of File:Kate-winslet titanic movie pencil-drawing.jpg, add some details to the caption from the neighboring prose about the drawing (for example, File:Titanic breaks in half.jpg does a good job on linking the readers from the critical commentary in the prose to the caption describing the image). Expanding the FUR on the image's page would also be helpful.
  • Do the same for File:TitanicBaja.jpg, there should be justification as to why the image is being included. Otherwise, it appears decorative.
  • In the box office section, "and ranking #1 at the box office", consider changing to "and ranking number one" or "and ranking first" along with any other occurrences.
  • The heading "Awards and honors" should be "accolades" to be in line with other film articles.
  • I don't think that we can justify keeping File:Titanic5dvd.jpg in the article. Since several home media releases are mentioned, there doesn't seem to be any special reason to include this one over the others. If there was critical reception that focused on the layout of this release or if there was some significant impact of its release, that should be covered in the caption. As it currently stands, it appears decorative (home media non-free images usually are hard to justify).
  • Some of the current citations could use additional parameters, such as author, publisher, access date, etc. Also, for titles of news articles, even if presented in all caps on the website, when sourced they should use standard capitalization (for example, see current citation #15 for Entertainment Weekly).
*For the books included in the "further reading" section, since they are being used as sources, the section should be retitled to "bibliography". Further reading would be for other books or articles that are not used for sourcing information within the article but could be helpful for readers.

Again, it's good to see the article so well-developed, and hopefully the above comments are helpful for addressing a few issues. If any clarification is needed on any of these, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done - I've cleared almost all the problems you addressed (I'm working on the citations), but what do you mean by "The final sentence in the plot covers possible views on the endings. If there are other sources that touch on this (or that focus on the themes), that would be helpful for starting a new section"? Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 18:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A source is included on the last sentence of the plot concerning the two possible perceptions on the ending. If there are other sources available (such as books or critic's reviews) that focus on this, it may be beneficial to start a new section that covers it. If there are also other interpretations on the themes of the film, that could be helpful. For an example, see FA Changeling or GA Avatar. If no other sources are available, it would probably be best to just end the plot as "The final shot of the film is of young Rose being reunited with Jack at the Grand Staircase of the Titanic, surrounded and applauded by those who perished on the ship." Then the remaining bit could be included in the "writing and inspiration" section. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done again I couldn't find a reliable source that discussed the ending, so I moved the sentence to "writing and inspiration". Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 03:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above issues still have not addressed. The plot could still lose another hundred words or so. I still found a few citations that are missing publishing dates, authors, have incorrect titles, etc. Go through each one to make sure they have all available details. There are also several book citations within the references which are not included in the sources section. The citation for the book Titanic: anatomy of a blockbuster does not list any pages for what is being cited, just the book in general. Seeing that the 200+ page book covers many details about the film, I'm surprised it is not more heavily used throughout the article. A large portion of it is available on Google Books to view, but I would recommend picking it up at the library to help further source the article and reach comprehensive requirements. Since this film is over ten years old, there are multiple books that cover it, and it would be beneficial to exhaust all potential sources, especially if they can touch on themes/sybmolism/the ending. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nehrams2020, looking at the Plot section, I feel that it has been cut as much as it can be without losing vital information. We have to remember that this is a three-hour long film, longer even than Avatar. Likewise, an exception was made for Avatar's Plot section because of that film's length. I know that the Avatar (2009 film) article is only GA, but could not an exception be made in this case as well? Flyer22 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, there some prime examples of films that are way over the plot limit but where still promoted to FA, like Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan and Transformers (film). Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 02:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerning the two films listed above, those films don't really have complicated plots that would require an extensive plot outside of the guidelines. Unfortunately plot sections blossom as they're the favorite section of editors and IPs alike. I took a stab at editing the plot, and condensed it down to 700 words. I don't think I took out any vital details, and it complies with the guidelines. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I added your plot section. I hope Flyer22 doesn't mind. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 17:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nehrams2020, good job at tweaking the plot length down. I still feel that these two film plots cannot be treated as simply as other film plots, given their films' length. What you chose to cut out, with the exception of two things, shows me that I was right. You mostly cut out tiny, trivial mentions that do not really need to be mentioned. But I was also thinking about IPs and editors who love editing the Plot section of articles and will feel something is missing, so they add to it. I tweaked the plot just a tiny bit to this for the reasons stated in that edit summary. "After much turmoil" was my solution to people who want it acknowledged that much happens in between Rose freeing Jack and Jack and Rose returning to the deck. Before I shortened it to that, it was plot boat. And the line about Jack assuring Rose she will die an old woman, warm in her bed, I feel is important, per what I stated below about that. Some might also feel that mentioning Cal commits suicide is important, but I did not add that back. Flyer22 (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Jack's hopes for her to die an old woman are relevant. After all, this is just a drama film, and he has no way of knowing if she will survive either (he can't see into the future). Placing the emphasis on that much detail seems to be so it can be considered foreshadowing as was mentioned above. We already know that she will survive, as she is alive at the beginning of the film telling the story. A brief mention that Jack wants her to live should be sufficient. Again, if there is any development from other sources that covers the ending, then that detail provided by Jack could be alluded to within that section. Are there any updates on using the other sources for the themes/ending analysis? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nehrams2020, the foreshadowing aspect is important because it attempts to answer the question of whether or not Rose dies at the end of the film. Most people walk away from that film feeling that she dies due to the very thing Jack says about her dying an old woman, warm in her bed. It, combined with the film's very end, is considered one of the most powerful parts of the film. For example, in The Screenwriter's Bible (3rd Edition, Expanded & Updated), screenwriter David Trottier explains: "This [Jack's prediction to Rose] comes late. The whistel. This is also introduced appropriately late, and its payoff is powerful." I do not feel that we need a section on the interpretation of the ending. That is already covered elsewhere in the article, in two places (The Cast and characters and Writing and insipiration sections). For the plot, Jacks words being there, should also help people to not add that Rose dies (which has been a constant problem with this Plot section). Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There you go, that Screenwriter's Bible source would be helpful for sourcing the ending if it's considered powerful. As I (and Steve below) have pointed you to just a few sources available there should be no issues in delving into these for looking to expanding the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeComment (Sources): The references have not been prepared with adequate care, leaving a very long list of required fixes. Most of these are relatively minor, but there are just too many of them:-

  • Ref 1 lacks a retrieval date
  • The publisher for ref 2 (The Numbers) is Nash Information Services
  • Ref 24 (Robert Ballard) lacks publisher and date information
  • Ref 30: "Lord, 127". Where is "Lord" defined?
  • Ref 31: (Lynch) lacks publisher information
  • Ref 33: You should stick to one retrieval date format. Other instances of the same: 68, 79
  • Ref 34: (Joughin's report) is inadequately formatted
  • Ref 37: and others are to the Marsh book, which is listed as "Further reading", not as a cited source. The title needs to be removed from the Further reading section and defined within the references.
  • Ref 48: (Leydon interview lacks source and publisher
  • Ref 53: provides inadequate information for the source to be identified
  • Ref 62: (Parisi book) Same comment applies as with the Marsh book
  • Ref 66: retrieval date should not be italicised
  • Ref 76: What makes http://www.filmjunk.com/2009/02/06/top-10-chick-flicks-that-men-secretly-love/ a reliable source?
  • Ref 80: What makes http://www.manolith.com/2010/01/05/why-avatar-will-not-beat-titanic/ a reliable source?
  • Ref 84: I'm not sure why this is entitled Titanic "Titanic". Also, the publisher of the metacrtic site is CBS Interactive.
  • Ref 86: lacks publisher information
  • Ref 87: Please check the url. The site doesn't seem to be the right one.
  • Ref 93: You need to be consistent in the provision of access dates. For example, there seems no reason wht a retrieval date id given for the next ref - The Los Angeles Times but not here. Check throughout to ensure consistency.
  • Ref 96: Fox news is not a print source & should not be italicised (per MOS)
  • Ref 100: lacks publisher information
  • Ref 105: The publisher is The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
  • Ref 106: The publisher is The Recoeding Academy
  • Ref 107: RIAA should be spelt out
  • Ref 118 is uninformative
  • Ref 119: The publisher is Turner Broadcasting System Inc
  • Ref 122: The publisher of The Insider is CBS Interactive.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done adding the links and link changes you requested. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 23:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references have been tidied considerably, although because some numbers have changed, it is not always possible for me to see exactly what has been done. There are still a few problems:-

  • Ref 1 is not template formatted. In general you have used templates, and you need to be consistent.
  • There is a problem with the formatting of ref 109
  • There are still inconsistencies in the provision of retrieval dates. These should either be given for all references to online material, or should be restricted to non-print sources. At present, some of your print sources (e.g. 7, 8) have retrieval dates, others (e.g. 5) do not. There are also cases such as 88 which require retrieval dates. Probably your easiest bet is to give retrieval dates for all on-line sources.
  • The Marsh and Pirasi books should be listed under a heading (e.g. "Sources", rather than being left floating. Incidentally, the Marsh book has a co-author, Douglas Kirkland, and he should be shown in the book description.
  • For all citations to the listed books you should use the short citation. For example, ref 42 should read "Marsh and Kirkland, pp. 130–142". Many other cases.
  • Page ranges need to be separated by dashes, not hyphens. This needs fixing throughout.

In view of the progress made I have struck my oppose and the original list of required fixes, so you should concentrate on the shorter list of outstanding concerns. Brianboulton (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also: please note that on the FAC page, "use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as  Done and  Not done) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time." (see general FAC instructions) Brianboulton (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 15:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done fixing the other refs. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 16:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couiple of very small sources points outstanding, per above. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Done. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 18:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done (and I'm glad I wasn't the only one who didn't like that scrollbar). Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 01:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work on further tweaking things, Secret Saturdays. Sorry that it took me so long to show up. I will see what else I can do to further tweak the article, if it needs it. I thought only regular contributors of the article could nominate it for FA, but I admire your boldness and it is only helping this article. So thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not really for removing the sentence in the plot covering possible views on the endings. That was added due to various attempts by users to say that Rose dies. While it is clear to me that she dies, Cameron said it is left up to the viewer to interpret whether she died or is simply sleeping. That simple addition satisfies both interpretations. Any real objections to adding it back? Flyer22 (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not in any way a fan of including interpretation of the final scene in the Plot summary. I feel that section should be for describing what explicitly occurs, not for extrapolation of the events shown on screen. That being said, I fully support discussion of the sequence elsewhere in the article. Doniago (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, Doniago, and I see what you mean. I just remember that whether to put that Rose dies or not was brought up on the talk page before, and that sourced sentence was seen as a way to satisfy concerns. I will go ahead and add that Jack says Rose will die an old lady, warm in her bed, however, seeing as I feel that this is clear foreshadowing and handles all of this quite well. From my experience, most viewers believe she dies at the end anyway, and adding this line by Jack corresponds greatly to the end of the film. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. Well, if it was brought up on the Talk page and consensus was to keep it in despite MOS conventions, I guess maybe it should be in there, though perhaps as a footnote rather than in-line text. I'm not really a fan of including the foreshadowing line either, as it seems like plot bloat and one of the things I'd trim if I was working on streamlining the summary. Sorry to be being argumentative/nit-picky. I wouldn't suppose there's any sources out there establishing the intention of that line was to be foreshadowing...if it was then mentioning it elsewhere in the article (as opposed to Plot) would be cool. Again, sorry I'm being anal-retentive about this. Doniago (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's an issue of anons adding interpretations, then a hidden comment can be added stating that the plot is to show only what is seen, not readers' perceptions. I don't think we would want to bury it in the footnote, and it currently fits well in the production section. I would still recommend to keep searching the current sources, and maybe Google Books/Scholar, to see if there are any details about the ending, symbolism, and/or the themes. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it plot bloat, Doniago, since it brings the whole end of the film together brillianty. I tweaked it to this. I can assure you that it is foreshadowing. The Foreshadowing article's explanation makes it even more clear. But I know not to expect Wikipedia to just take my word for it. I do remember reading about this foreshadowing aspect of Titanic's in professional analysis of its script and in screenwriting books (such as The Screenwriter's Bible, 3rd Edition, Expanded & Updated, page 15.), however. I believe Cameron fully intended for that scene to correspond to the film's ending. Once some people started to question whether or not she really dies at the end, he decided he would not answer definitively. All I can further say on this matter is to keep it as is; we do not need sources calling it foreshadowing since I am not calling it that in the Plot section. Flyer22 (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks to be comprehensive and well researched. I'm finding issues with the prose. Just dealing with the lead section at the moment:

  • An "epic romantic-disaster film". Very odd. It's about an epic romantic disaster? If you're convinced both terms need to be here, perhaps "epic romance/disaster film".
  • "members of the ship's passengers"? No. Simply cut the awkward parenthetical. If a story centers around the voyage of a ship, we can be fairly certain that most of its characters will be found among that ship's passengers and crew.
  • Gloria Stuart "portrays", but then Billy Zane "stars"? An odd sequence.
  • "footage of the real wreck of the RMS Titanic." Crisper, more concise: "footage of the actual Titanic wreck."
  • "Shooting took place on board the Akademik Mstislav Keldysh – which aided Cameron in filming the real wreck – for the modern scenes,..." Clearer, more concise: "The modern scenes were shot on board the Akademik Mstislav Keldysh, which aided Cameron in filming the real wreck,..."
  • "which aided Cameron in filming the real wreck" is itself clumsy and ambiguous. I imagined you meant something like "which Cameron also used as a base for filming the real wreck". However, when I looked at the primary text of the article, I could find no description at all of the "aid" provided by the Akademik Mstislav Keldysh.
  • "At the time, the picture became the most expensive film ever made..." Not "became" here, just "was".
  • "The film was originally to be released on July 2, 1997, but post-production delays pushed back the film's release to December 19, 1997." Unnecessary, awkward repetition of "the film": "pushed back its release".
  • "The film turned out to be an enormous critical and commercial success." Second consecutive sentence to begin with "The film", unnecessarily. "Turned out to be" is just verbose. Try this: "It was an enormous critical and commercial success."
  • "due to be re-released in theatres". "Re-released in theatres" rings redundant (though in the age of multi-format re-releases it technically is not). "Theaters" is also preferred to "theatres" in American English. Recasting smooths over the first issue and avoids the second while making the phrase more concise: "due for theatrical re-release".

The lead section often features the highest-quality prose of any section in a given article. In light of that, and in light of the prose issues I've identified, I suggest an independent copyeditor be enlisted to perform a thorough top-to-bottom copyedit. DocKino (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done fixing the prose. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 03:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not so.

Oppose Now poor Billy has no verb at all! The primary text still fails to explain the role played by Akademik Mstislav Keldysh in the filming of the Titanic wreck. And have you started your search for a good copyeditor? Your Contributions page suggests you have not. Do try the Guild of Copy Editors. This article requires some serious copyediting assistance to meet the Featured Article prose standard. It currently fails criterion 1a and, insofar as the primary text does not adequately support the lead, 1b, as well. DocKino (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have three things to say about your comment: 1) I just added a verb for "poor Billy" 2) the role of the Akademik Mstislav Keldysh IS explicitly stated in the primary text and 3) I asked the coyeditors. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 05:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I have three things to say about your comment:
  • (1) Why did you emphasize added?
  • (2) Your second statement is sorely mistaken. Just as I said, the primary text in no way connects the Akademik with the filming of the actual Titanic wreck. If you want to attempt to correct a reviewer in the future, may I suggest you provide a little, you know, evidence for your position? Of course, you can't do that in this case because you are flatly wrong. In the "Cameos" subsection, there is an obscure reference to an Akademik crew member, "Anatoly Sagalevich, creator and pilot of the Mir submersibles." What Mir submersibles? The article never explains what those are. Let's be very clear: You have brought an article to this process that is well short of our prose standards. You can be gracious about recognizing that fact, or not. It is immaterial to me. I am done here for the time being. If you wish, notify me when the article has been copyedited top-to-bottom and I will be happy to revisit your submission.
  • (3) At least that's a start (and yes, they are coy, those copyedtiors). DocKino (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay obviously, we're having a failure of communication here, so I think you should explain what I need to do with the Akademik, (i.e. do you want why the ship was selected, or why is it mentioned in the text or how it helped film the scene). P.S. the "coyedtiors" was a typo, as I was responding on my iPod. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked around the artical and it seems very close to FA, so I will support it. --Pedro J. the rookie 07:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I can't get to a review of the prose because of terminal overlinking. At best they are extremely annoying and at worst they are just plain stupid - click on "railrack" for example. Terms linked include steel, Italian, handcuff, Atlantic ocean, alter ego, shipwreck and an absurd fuck you. There are loads more. Graham Colm (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't think of linking fuck you as absurd when I did it, but I get your point. I cannot take credit for the other linking you mention, though. But removing overlinking is not a big deal. Will you be okay with this article once all of that is taken care of? Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not done - did you click on "railtrack" as I suggested? And please don't try to rush me by leaving messages on my talkpage. As I said above, I haven't even begun a review of the prose—this will take a few hours, when I get round to it. Graham Colm (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworked the link to the generic term. Howw is it now? Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 23:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GrahamColm, I am sorry you felt rushed. I am sure that Secret Saturdays was just eager to see if this was enough for you to reconsider your oppose vote. Flyer22 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments On the whole, this is a well-written and engaging article that I enjoyed reading. There are many direct quotations that perhaps could be paraphrased, but this is just a personal preference. Similarly, I would have liked to have seen more uses made of paper sources such as David Lubin's "Titanic" (BFI Modern Classics)" [30]. I have made some minor edits to the article and would like to list a few more nit-picks:

  • I don't like the "romance/disaster" device, wouldn't "romance and disaster" work just as well?
  • "DeWitt Bukater" is hyphenated later.
  • This is a bit clumsy ,"since the marriage will mean the eradication of the Dewitt-Bukater debts". It's the use of "mean" that I don't like. How about something like "because the marriage will solve the Dewitt-Bukater's financial problems."
  • This lacks flow, "Cameron said he needed the cast to feel as though they were really on the Titanic, its liveliness, and .." Something is need before "its liveliness", how about "experience" or "relive"?
  • This sentence needs more work; "When casting the role, various established actors, including Matthew McConaughey, Chris O'Donnell, Billy Crudup and Stephen Dorff, were considered, but Cameron ultimately felt that a few of them were too old for the part of a 20-year-old". It begs the question, what was wrong with the others?
  • I don't understand "a reputed empty shell".
  • I don't think the use of "cameo" as a verb is fully accepted and "cameoed" is especially ugly. Can't we simply have "played a cameo part"?
  • "1912 manners" is a little too shorthandish. I think it will have to be "to instruct the cast on the manners of the upper class gentility in 1912".
  • There is a problem with the tenses here: "The climactic scene involving the breakup of the ship just before it sinks and its final plunge to the bottom of the Atlantic, involves a tilting full-sized set, 150 extras and 100 stunt performers".
  • This is untidy, "The film debuted with $8,658,814 on its opening day". How about a simple "took" or "earned" instead of "debuted with"?
  • There is redundancy here, " After it was released, it stayed at number one for 15 consecutive weeks in the United States".
  • Lastly, two more odd links, "significant disappointment at the box office" and "word of mouth". Graham Colm (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Manolith.com. I asked about the reliability of this site at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I only have one response so far, and even that response does not seem to judge this source as definitively unreliable. Judging by the lack on responses to this, so far, I would say it shows the confusion over just how reliable/unreliable this site is. I can see how it is not the most reliable, but I still question whether it is not reliable at all by Wikipedia standards. Flyer22 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, guess I should avoid it after all. Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose from Steve T • C This is an impressive achievement, to be sure, especially with regard to the level of production detail. Which is why I feel a complete tool for opposing this nomination on 1(b)—comprehensiveness. Very few, if any, film articles have successfully passed at FAC in the last couple of years without some kind of themes or interpretations section, something that goes into detail about the levels of analysis the film has attracted from academics. Obviously, not all films will get this treatment, but something with the visibility of Titanic is not one of them. Just a couple of minutes throws up several potential sources, which I'm certain are not even close to the tip of the iceberg (ouch, sorry, it's been a weird month):
    • Dassanowsky, Robert von. "A mountain of a ship: locating the Bergfilm in James Cameron's 'Titanic.'" Cinema Journal. 40 (2001): 18-35.
    • Anshen, David. "Out of the depths and through the postmodern surface". Cineaction. 51 (2000): 23-29.
    • Kendrick, James. "Marxist overtones in three films by James Cameron". Journal of Popular Film and Television. 27. 3 (1999): 36-44.
    • Kraemer, Peter. "Women first: 'Titanic' (1997), action-adventure films and Hollywood's female audience." Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 18. 4 (1998): 599-618.
  • And that was just a random selection from the first page of results at the Film Literature Index. Unfortunately, this isn't something that I think can be addressed during the normal FAC timeframe. See my reading list for American Beauty, for example, which took a heck of a long time to sift through for useful information before I even began to write anything into the article. Still, if I can be proven wrong, hey, that'd be brilliant, so I'll keep this page watchlisted and check back in tomorrow evening. All the best, Steve T • C 21:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, with themes and interpretations, at first I thought you were talking about what themes Cameron says he added to the film. I was about to say that is covered in the Writing and inspirations section, and that this film does not have as many themes as Avatar, but then I saw that you said "analysis the film has attracted from academics" and then I knew you meant something like The Dark Knight (film) article. You are right, I currently do not have the time to add that kind of stuff to this article. When I significantly expanded/improved this article some time ago, it was to help it hold on to its GA status and because I like this film and like improving articles. I was eventually going to add more to this article, but not at this time, no. Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 8 August 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 04:40, 8 August 2010 [31].

Glee (season 1)

[edit]
Nominator: CycloneGU (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, quite simply, it is a very succinct summary of the entire first season of Glee, a show on the FOX network. I believe it meets all of the featured article criteria and deserves to be considered among the best. Frickative (talk) has been extremely diligent about ensuring that the material in the article is well-sourced, and even after completion of the first season has taken the time to add tidbits such as releases of DVDs covering the entire season. He has even disagreed with some of my own mid-season edits (I can't blame him). In short, this is a great summary of the season and I think this and other articles related to the television series might be worthy noms. Even if voting disagrees, I would like to see it among the good article candidates and help work the article into featured status. CycloneGU (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moments ago posted a memo on his talk page. I earlier brought up the idea, to which he replied, "It's been on my to-do list since season one ended, but I just haven't quite gotten round to it yet - I think it just needs the episode summaries tweaking and it should be ready." Personally, I think it's ready as it is, though any tweaking is always good for any article. I've asked him to look in here. CycloneGU (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, this is featured article candidates; I believe you meant to nominate this at featured list candidates based on your comment at User talk:Frickative#Time Warp? and other television-show season articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree primarily because it's an article about the entire season with a fair amount of prose and other details. An article such as List_of_Glee_episodes would be more likely to be an FL candidate. However, that will be in constant production as Glee is now planned for four seasons (FOX so far has ordered three, not sure about the fourth). Would it still be a list entry in your opinion? CycloneGU (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many other TV season FLs have "a fair bit of prose"; see 30 Rock (season 3), The O.C. (season 4), and Desperate Housewives (season 1) as examples. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note taken. In that case, if the article is deemed "not ready", I'll renom. there in the future. I've done some work helping out with the Glee section in general a few months ago, however, and now I want to figure out what is needed and help fix up the article as well. CycloneGU (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to submit the article for peer review then. Should I take this as a formal withdrawal request? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, then. I clearly missed that step. Pardon my error, my first time trying to promote an article. Let's see what Frickative says. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate a couple of days to apply some of the fixes I've been meaning to get around to for some time, but I'm happy for the FAC to be withdrawn. A peer review submitted early next week, followed by an FLC, would be ideal. Frickative 04:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As she says, then, consider it withdrawn for the time being (but it will be back when she's ready). I mistakenly thought the article ready in any case, but I will take the comments below and look at it myself as well. CycloneGU (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not to mention it looks more like an FLC than an FAC. No dabs; ref 49 is dead, few others do funky things but ultimately go where they're supposed to; and four of the refs are bare URL's. In general, I'm seeing a nomination that isn't ready for either of FAC or FLC. Courcelles 04:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed ref. 49. It's working now. Nonetheless, possibly moving to peer review instead, didn't realize had to do that step first or where to go for that. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:27, 8 August 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 22:12, 7 August 2010 [32].

Illinois (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC), Jujutacular talk 18:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it met all of the requirements for GA status and was then further amended based on those recommendations. I have suggested some further changes, but the article at present is stable and none of those changes should be a serious impediment to FA status. User:Jujutacular and to a lesser extent myself (User:Koavf) have been the primary contributors. I am willing to amend the article based on comments here and I have posted to Jujutacular's talk to inform him of this FA nomination. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Consistency required on use of retrieval dates for on-line versions of print sources. For example, 29 (Washington Post) has a retrieval date, 18 (Chicago Reader) doesn't. It's OK to omit retrieval dates when printed versions exist as long as you are consistent throughout. Otherwise sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Jujutacular talk 17:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose: The prose is not up to Featured artcile quality in my opinion. Phrases such as the following don't read well to me. Throughout the article has a choppy feel, it doesn't flow, seems like a series of disconnected sentences. I think it needs a thorough copy-edit, preferably by someone not previously involved. Criteria 1 (a): "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" applies - I feel it fails to meet that criteria.
    "The album was produced between the autumn of 2004 and early 2005 and released on July 5, 2005, on Asthmatic Kitty Records domestically and the previous date through Rough Trade Records in Europe."
    "The album was primarily recorded in the Astoria, Queens studio The Buddy Project as well as Stevens' Brooklyn apartment."
    "Stevens mostly created the album in isolation:"
    "The recording equipment used was below the quality of most professional albums."
    "Many of the lyrics of Illinois make references to Christianity and the Bible. The song "Decatur, or, Round of Applause for Your Stepmother!" includes the line: "It's the great I Am", taking from the response God gave when Moses asked for his name in the Book of Exodus (Exodus 3:14.)"
    "Public reception of Illinois was strong."
    " Rolling Stone's Rob Sheffield criticized the song "John Wayne Gacy, Jr." as symbolizing "nothing about American life except the existence of creative-writing workshops", but ultimately praised Stevens' style of "going too far and trying too hard"."
    Jezhotwells (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose and structure concerns - sorry, but I feel more work is needed before this is ready for FAC. Per WP:LEAD (and criterion 2a) the lead should summarize the article; however, it gives little coverage of anything in Background and recording, only saying, "The album was produced between the autumn of 2004 and early 2005". Likewise Musical style gets no mention in the lead. Meanwhile that section, after devoting time to Stevens's musical style rather than that of the album, turns to influences and listening approaches but never actually identifies the musical style of the album. The third sentence in the lead, "The album was produced between the autumn of 2004 and early 2005 and released on July 5, 2005, on Asthmatic Kitty Records domestically and the previous date through Rough Trade Records in Europe", employs the needlessly clumsy "previous date", and in fact no previous date appears in the sentence. Another date approximation in that sentence, "autumn", is a form deprecated by MOS:DATE. Other sundry MoS issues jump out, such as "reaching number 1". Sorry; it gives me no pleasure to have to say this, but I suggest the nominators may wish to withdraw the nomination and devote considerable further attention to the article if it is to "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work". PL290 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:53, 7 August 2010 [33].

Massachusetts in the American Civil War

[edit]
Nominator(s): Historical Perspective (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this meets featured article criteria and am seeking any feedback to get the article to that status. If this successfully makes FA, I think it would be a good centerpiece article for a Featured Topic. Thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media When was the 3D artwork File:JohnAlbionAndrewStatue.jpg put on display? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please annotate the image to reflect this, otherwise WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've taken care of that. Historical Perspective (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: David Leip should be shown as the publisher of Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Otherwise, all sources look good, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added a better source listing for Leip's website under the References section using the cite web template and listing Leip as the publisher. Historical Perspective (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead is extremely choppy.
  • "In terms of" shows up twice.
  • Overuse of "radical". Also, "espoused" shows up twice in a paragraph.
  • "The Republican Party, formed in 1854, represented an alliance of many different political movements." doesn't seem directly relevant to the subject at hand and interrupts flow.
  • "Only two states (Vermont and Minnesota) had a larger percentage of the popular vote supporting Lincoln." seems a bit like synthesis to me.
  • "and 28 percent voting for the Democratic candidate, George B. McClellan." strikes me as irrelevant or framed improperly.
  • "his largest margin of victory occurring in 1864 with 71 percent of the popular vote." Perhaps the smallest margin would prove this point better?
  • I think the fact that the smallest margin of victory was 61 percent is sufficient, but I'm also fine with the way it is now.
  • "The 6th Massachusetts, after having been attacked by a pro-secession mob in Baltimore, was the first volunteer regiment to reach Washington, DC on April 19, 1861 and was quartered in the Senate Chamber." links two unrelated events. Also try to work on the wording: "after having been" is unwieldy.
  • "The first, the 54th, received tremendous publicity and strong financial support from Boston’s elite families.[21] Andrew convinced Robert Gould Shaw, son of prominent Bostonians, to accept the colonelcy. The 54th Massachusetts won fame in their assault on Battery Wagner on Morris Island in Charleston Harbor during which Col. Shaw was killed.[21] The regiment's participation in the rear guard during the retreat of Union forces at the Battle of Olustee in Florida, saved that small army from destruction.[22] The story of the 54th Massachusetts was the basis for the film Glory." seems to be a list of facts and is thus very choppy. This occurs elsewhere as well: try making changes like this.
  • I have no idea what either the "Department of the North" or the "Department of the East" are. Perhaps redlink them with the potential of establishing articles?
  • I still have no idea what these are, by the way.
  • More raw listing: "Another key source of war supplies was the Watertown Arsenal, which produced ammunition, gun carriages and leather military accouterments. Private companies such as Smith & Wesson enjoyed significant U.S. government contracts to produce weapons and ammunition. The Ames Manufacturing Company of Chicopee, Massachusetts became one of the nation’s leading suppliers of swords, side arms, cannons, and the third largest supplier of heavy ordnance."
  • "She had a reputation for rejecting nurses who were too young or attractive." is an interesting fact, but needs to be better incorporated into the text instead of plopped down in the middle of it.
  • The introductory sentences, and those in "Relief organizations" specifically, often feel choppy to me. "Approach" in particular is overused in this section.
  • "In the summer of 1861, perceiving a shortage of food and medical supplies in the growing Union army, Barton began personally purchasing and distributing all she could." All she could?
  • "Despite the loss of a major leader, the Republican Party in Massachusetts would become stronger than ever after the Civil War." Stronger than ever is unsubstantiated.
  • I'm not seeing where the source states, in no uncertain terms, "stronger than ever."
  • Not sure if we outright link to Categories in articles.
  • Not quite sure why you have a "Links to related articles" surrounding an already-collapsed American Civil War.
  • The American Civil War portal is already linked in See-Also; the mention under the bottom template is excessive.
  • Are your sources entirely available via Google Books? Have you looked for books not available via Google?

All in all, my most significant concern is flow: I would really like a copyeditor to look through this. Prose is very formulaic and often seems like a list of facts. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ♯♭ 14:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only major concern for the second look-through is my sourcing issue with "stronger than ever." By the way, ref 31 is missing a page number, I believe. Good work on the prose, it's looking loads smoother now. A third pair of eyes on prose wouldn't hurt any, though. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ♯♭ 13:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Hi. Thanks for your comments. I believe I've addressed just about all your specific concerns. Your general concern about the prose I have tried to address by re-vamping several paragraphs. Your observation about listing facts is well taken. But in large part that is due to the nature of the article and I beg a bit of indulgence in that regard. The idea here was to include as many significant politicians, corporations, activists, soldiers, etc. as possible to provide a good idea of the scope of Massachusetts's involvement. To do this, the prose does need to include some lists. But, again, I've made some edits and tried to remedy this. Here's what I've done, corresponding to your bullet points:
  • Significantly edited the lead, trying to focus on a better flow of one paragraph to the other.
  • Took out multiple uses of "radical" and "espoused." Although "Radical Republicans" and "Radical Reconstruction" were actual terms of the period, so I left those alone.
  • Took out the irrelevant bit about the Republican party formation.
  • Took out the bit about Vermont and Minnesota. I was trying to provide context with this, but I agree it could be interpreted as synthesis.
  • Took out the bit about votes for George McClellan.
  • Agreed. I decided to include both—the stats on his smallest and largest margins of victory.
  • Re-wrote the paragraph on the 6th Massachusetts. Hope it reads better.
  • Re-wrote part of the paragraph on the 54th Massachusetts. Same as above.
  • Added the suggested redlinks.
  • On the listing re: munitions suppliers, I did not make any changes here. I think it's fairly clear in the context of that paragraph that the aim is to briefly describe several additional manufacturers without getting into great detail about them.
  • I removed the multiple instances of "approach."
  • "All she could" was a poor phrase, yes. Took it out. I also made some significant edits to the prose on the paragraphs about Dix and Barton. I think they read more smoothly now.
  • Added a citation re: the strength of the Republican Party. And I think the following sentence fairly well sums up their dominance.
  • Took out the category in see-also. That was misplaced.
  • The "Links to related articles" was added at the request of a reviewer (during A-class) who felt the Civil War template was distracting. The template is fairly standard for States in the Civil War articles, so I wanted to keep it, but collapsed it with the templates box. I've removed the templates box. You're right, it's didn't belong.
  • Good point. I removed the duplicate Civil War portal in "See also."
  • As for how I physically obtain sources (i.e. electronic or looking for actual books), I always go for what's on my bookshelf first. About half of the references are books I own. I simply include the Google link so that people can have easy access to them. I supplement with sources found on Google books.
Thanks again for the comments. Let me know what else you think I can do to improve this. Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further Response to NocturneNoir: Following up on your additional comments...
  • I took out duplicate "in terms of"
  • I briefly defined the Departments of the North and East
  • I see what you mean, now, about "stronger than ever." That was unintended hyperbole. I've altered the sentence.
Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I agree with NocturneNoir that the flow needs work, and that the various facts in the article are not well-moulded into a cohesive whole. There is also a great deal of redundancy; I've eliminated some through copyediting, but more needs to be done. I'll try to give it another read through in a few days and make further improvements. Some specific questions for now:

  • "Massachusetts, as a leading center of industry and manufacturing, was poised to become a major producer of munitions and supplies." Was poised to become, or did become?
  • "Massachusetts played a major role in Civil War causation, particularly with regard to the political ramifications of the antislavery movement." This is a really awkward sentence, but I can't think of a better formulation offhand. I'll work on it.
  • "The Free Soil Party was eventually absorbed into the Republican Party, which became the dominant political party in Massachusetts." When did this take place? Specificity would be better than "eventually".
  • "Generals from Massachusetts commanded several army departments..." Is "departments" the right word, there? Not "units"?
  • "Official statistics are not available for the number of wounded." What about unofficial statistics? Steve Smith (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:53, 7 August 2010 [34].

Willie Irvine

[edit]
Nominator(s): BigDom 21:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A talented footballer whose fall from grace was as swift as his rise to fame. He came from a poor background in a small village, but became a Northern Ireland international before he even made his professional debut. The top goalscorer in England during the 1965–66 season, a succession of injuries curtailed his career and forced his retirement from the professional game at the age of 29. I feel that the article meets the FA criteria; it has undergone a copyedit by Malleus Faturoum to iron out some of the grammatical errors. Happy reviewing! BigDom 21:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and before anyone brings it up, the nifootball.blogspot.com website has been determined to be a reliable source, per this discussion. BigDom 10:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments "1973–1974 Great Harwood ? (?)" isn't really acceptable without annotation, if no records were kept add that, if they were ... more research is required. International/Honours section, did he participate in the winning team of the 1964 British Home Championship?. The infobox is generally Metric(Imperial) for non-US articles. Fasach Nua (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at the article. I am almost certain that no records were kept for the Northern Premier League, escpecially in the 1970s when the League was almost fully amateur, so I will add a note shortly. Also, Irvine didn't feature in the 1964 Home Championship. The infobox is generally Imperial (Metric) for UK articles as well as US articles. Metric measurements are very rarely used in the United Kingdom; height is still measured in feet and inches, weight is still measured in stones and pounds, distances are measured in miles. BigDom 08:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: From discussion at WT:FOOTY it seems pretty clear that imperial measurements are the most commonly used. Have added a note about the Great Harwood appearances. BigDom 19:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Page ranges should be prefaced by "pp." not "p.". Otherwise, sources look OK. The discussion about nifootball is noted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. BigDom 15:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I'm aware, nowhere on Wikipedia does it say that autobiographies cannot be used as a reference. And the book in question certainly isn't "self-serving"; there is such a thing as humility, you know. BigDom 06:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:SELFPUB, whether it is self-serving or not, such a source shouldn't form the primary basis for an article (see point 5). That's for articles generally. I think there is good reason to be even stricter for a FA candidate. But I'm willing to listen to views before expressing an oppose here.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heaps good then. But autobiographies are primary sources even if they are published by another printing house, and everyone that I've read has been self-serving YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I had to butt in again, as it is a ghost-written autobiography, ie the guy was paid to write from Irvine's viewpoint and it isn't a third-party work. I should have checked more carefully. This is the same as a press release written by a political staffer being independent of the political party. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some prose comments:
    • "On matchdays at Turf Moor, he also gives guided tours of the ground to supporters". "also" seems superfluous.
    • "He later worked as a window cleaner, which he did for 12 months before selling the round for a profit." Can we do without ", which he did"?
    • "After turning down the potential transfers to West Ham and Torquay": "the" is problematic because only West Ham is mentioned in the previous paragraph.
    • "However, he was then dropped from the team, no longer Saward's first choice upfront." I think a verb is needed somewhere after the second comma.
    • "died after being involved in a motorcycle accident in 1944": depending on what the source says, can we say "died in a motorcycle accident"?
    • "eleven months old": should be "11" for consistency as the article goes with numbers above 10 (eg age of "14").
Cheers--Mkativerata (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having a look. BigDom 07:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm satisfied from the explanation given on my talk page [35] that this is not in fact a self-published source. The line between biography and autobiography can be quite blurry and it seems this much closer to the former than the later. I don't think the content of the article that relies on the source suffers from being self-serving either.--Mkativerata (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support a nice read.Please use "DD Month YYYY" format, it makes it easier and is slightly supported by the MoS. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 17:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck sup per yellowmonkey Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 16:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support. I thought I had used the "DD Month YYYY" format; are there any examples where this is different? The sources for the book being written by Dave Thomas are the link further up the page and the book itself, which states that the writing was done by Thomas. Cheers, BigDom 17:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DD Month YYYY - your refs are in another format
  • It would appear that Mr Thomas was the ghost-writer. If that is the case, it does seem like OR to attribute the book entirely to him. I think a note is warranted, and perhaps re-instate Irvine as author, as that is what google/amazon/libraries has. Also, a ghostwriter is somewhat less critical than a non-ghost, due to the relationship with his client. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 08:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have re-formatted the references. The other editors above had no problem with Thomas being listed as the author, and I listed Thomas as the author as he did the writing; Irvine provided a brief outline of the story (memoirs, etc.) BigDom 08:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • In the lead, I thought having "out of the team" appear in consecutive sentences was concerning. I'd expect an FA to have a little more variety in terms of phrasing, especially in the most visible section of any article, the intro.
  • Burnley: Doubt that multiple Blackburn Rovers links are needed in a single paragraph. Football League First Division and Lausanne Sports also have two links in this section. In addition, Arsenal was just linked in the last section. This is something worth paying attention to throughout.
  • "He ended his poor run of form with hat-trick...". Missing "a", perhaps?
  • Preston North End: In a similar issue to one seen before, the Ipswich link is a repeat of one in the previous section. Same thing happens in Later career with Halifax Town. I know it sounds minor, but you don't need that much blue. There are more than enough links that are needed as is.
  • Later career: Again, multiple links of something in a section, this time Rochdale.
  • In the references, the order of the books should probably be reversed to be in alphabetical order. Chances are this was left untouched after previous changes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:53, 7 August 2010 [36].

His Band and the Street Choir

[edit]
Nominator(s):  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 14:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I now think it meets the FA criteria after numerous copyedits and help from editors (User:Philcha, User:Brianboulton, User:Zeality, User:Finetooth and User:I.M.S.) and two FA reviews. This is one of Van Morrison's key albums in his development as an artist, even though it is not remembered as one of his best. I've been working on this article on and off for about two years, so I've about exhausted all the sources I have on the album. I hope you all enjoy reading it and add some reviews. I hope it can pass this time. Thanks  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 14:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per criterion three:
    • File:VanMorrisonHisBand&StreetChoirCover.jpg - No source (WP:IUP/NFCC#6/NFCC#10A); no author/copyright holder attribution (NFCC#10A); rationale is neither detailed nor specific (NFCC#10C and WP:FURG).
    • File:Van Morrison His Band And The Street Choir back image.jpg - No author/copyright holder attribution (NFCC#10A); rationale is not complete, detailed or specific (NFCC#10C and WP:FURG). How is the physical appearance of the band members relevant to or a significant contribution to understanding of an album (NFCC#8)? Эlcobbola talk 18:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I think I've fixed this.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Partially. Saying "could be obtained from Warner Bros. Records" is akin to sourcing text with "could be looked up in Time Magazine". That's not helpful. From what website did the image come, or who scanned it, etc.? WP:IUP is the relevant policy (WP:NFCC#6 and 10A refer back to it and don't offer unique guidance). For that latter image, how is seeing people lounging about necessary to understand that there was a relaxed atmosphere (The word atmosphere doesn't even appear once in the article - how meaningful could it be when that's the case)? What's the significant understanding to a reader's understanding? (WP:NFCC#8) Why would explaining the atmosphere in prose not be sufficient? Эlcobbola talk 19:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The image was uploaded by User:Akamad in 2005, presumably copied from a website. Is there a way to determin, which website it's come from or should I upload another image? For the "atmosphere" thing with the second image I was thinking more along the lines of it confirms this quote by drummer and assistant producer Dahaud Shaar: "[Morrison] was feeling pretty good at that time, it was really kind of a positive vibe around the whole record."  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 19:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • For images like these (fair use of readily-available media), source is, frankly, largely a formality. If I were to ascribe a reason other than mechanical adherence to policy, I'd say it's to confirm the authorship information provided and confirm it's a legitimate representation (e.g. not a fan-created version). That said, I wouldn't have an issue with using any source that accomplishes that - e.g. an Amazon page. For the band image, I still fail to see why an image is needed to understand there was a "positive vibe". Again, this is merely an image of smiling people lounging about. Do we really believe that a reader's understanding of this article would be impaired without it? Эlcobbola talk 20:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I remember reading in a past discussion that the cover images of Van's albums were obtained from his official website (I might be wrong); however the website is not available any more, so I've added a link to amazon. User:Finetooth said during the second peer review about the photos that "The one of the band is more interesting and informative, I think, than the one of Morrison alone", so it's more people's judgement how much it brings to the article.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 21:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sourcing issue is resolved. Finetooth's comment doesn't appear to have been made in a context applicable to my concerns and, either way, it doesn't address them. My questions aren't meant to be rhetorical; what information does this image convey that words alone cannot? How is that information, if any, then a significant contribution to our understanding of the album? Эlcobbola talk 14:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It shows the background and the relationship the musicians had in the recording of the album, which is disputed later on in the article, therefore supporting that "[Morrison] was feeling pretty good at that time, it was really kind of a positive vibe around the whole record." However he disagrees with this interpretation of how the recording went, so this image shows insight on how he was feeling at the time. Morrison later called the photo "rubbish", so how can the reader see if the image is infact "rubbish" if there is no image. The packaging was complained about by Morrison, so the photo's an insight to why the album went wrong in Morrison's view.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 14:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Ok, good, that's the contextual significance I was looking for. That being the case, however, the image seems much more appropriate for the "Packaging" section, does it not? I would also recommend converting that response to a rationale and adding it to the summary. I'll strike in anticipation of that. Эlcobbola talk 12:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I've added to the "Purpose" section in the fair use box on the image's page. If I move it to the packaging section the caption would be redundant, because it describes Morrison's band members. It's also important to note who these people are, so would it be better to leave the image where it is and then refer back to it in the "Packaging" section as "the image with Morrison's band members" or something?  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 12:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Sources issues were resolved satisfactorily at the June FAC, and nothing untoward has arisen meantime. A couple of books added, a few more citations, bibliography in neater format – all well, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 15:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead contains many short, choppy sentences. Merging some of those would improve the flow of the text. I will give it a try myself. Ucucha 16:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the editorial comment [wives and girlfriends] in the quote about the female choir members really necessary? I think the meaning is clear without it.
  • "which Rolling Stone reviewer Jon Landau believes have a free, relaxed sound;"—the construction is unclear; does this refer to the songs or the genres? Also, "according to Landau" would sound more natural.
  • Please avoid using "autumn"—it confuses the Australians.
    • There is still an "Autumn 1968".
  • I think you're overusing direct quotes; they should generally only be used when their wording is especially trenchant, and that doesn't seem to be always the case with this article.

Otherwise looking good to me, and I am looking forward to supporting. Ucucha 16:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and ce; I'll get down to these points asap.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 16:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed all the issues. I've reduced the amount of quotes, but I may need to get rid of a few more. What do you think? Cheers  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 17:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are more you can get rid of—for example, under "Morrison and the musician's responses", both quotes hardly add anything to the rest of the text, and I think you'd cover the important points just as well without the quotes and with a few more words added. Ucucha 19:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut some the quotes in that section.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 10:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — sorry to ruin your day, but I am not convinced that the prose is up to standard. Just looking at the Lead we have "Reviewers praised the work of both sessions for their free, relaxed sound, though they contained simpler lyrics than his previous work". The subject of the sentence is "reviewers" but "they" refers to "both sessions" and the possessive pronoun "his" has no antecedent. And is it the "work of both sessions" that was praised or the recordings that were made during them? It doesn't flow at all well. This above, "Morrison entered the A&R Studios on 46th Street in New York City the following June to produce His Band and the Street Choir" is not idiomatic. "Entered...to produce"? Why can't we say "booked" or "rented"? This phrase is ugly "The work's success was largely owed to "Domino",". I see that an effort is being made to avoid repetition of "album", but it doesn't work. Here the "they" is redundant and confusing because the subject of the sentence is Warner Bro. "though less successful, they still managed to reach the Billboard Hot 100." How about something like "which were less successful but still reached"? There is also redundancy, for example "The first song recording that would feature on His Band and the Street Choir was" - why include "song"? If instrumental tracks were featured first, how about "the first recorded song that..". The flow of the prose is below par throughout the article. I don't think it's FA quality yet. Sorry. Graham Colm (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've given the article a copyedit per your suggestions. I've also reworded other parts of the article.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 15:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article would benefit from a fresh pair eyes; the prose needs a lot of polishing throughout. This example, again from Lead, "but plans for rush-release forced him to finish the album using some of the demo session tracks" would be better if it read, "but the record company's plan to rush the release of the album forced Morrison to finish it by using some of the demo sessions' tracks". The whole of the article suffers from this shorthand style, which ruins the flow of the prose. Graham Colm (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:53, 7 August 2010 [37].

USAir Flight 405

[edit]
Nominator(s): WackyWace you talkin' to me? 15:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am self-nominating this article because over the past several months I have worked to expand the article from a stub to what is now a GA. The crash itself, in my opinion, was one of the most influential in aviation safety today, as it highlighted the need for improved deicing procedures for aircraft, which are detailed in the article. Ice is a major issue in aviation, and I feel that this article not only states the facts of the crash and the aviation in detail, but also describes how deicing technology has advanced, and aviation is safer today for it. It is for these reasons that, unlike many other air crash articles, I feel it is a necessary and intriguing read for those interested in aviation, and those not familiar with the subject at all. WackyWace you talkin' to me? 15:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the link, and will try and find a different one that explains the same thing. WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review - some issues with sourcing, detailed below. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • All web sources should have access dates
Done
  • Link or spell out NTSB on first appearance, as the first reference using that abbreviation appears before it is linked in article text
Done
  • Ref 1: site update date?
Done
  • What makes Plane Crash Info a reliable source? Also, include author
I've removed this reference because I don't think it provided any useful information other than confirming the crash happened.
  • Why does ref 3 in "By"?
How do you mean? You mean who is the author? There is no record on the page as to who wrote it.
Looking back to this revision, ref 3 began with "By...". No other ref included that, so that was inconsistent; it has since been removed, so on that point all is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date formatting should be consistent
Done
  • Author name should consistently have either first name or last name first
Done
  • Ref 4: spell out publisher name
Done
  • Newspaper names are generally italicized
Done
  • Identical refs should be combined - for example refs 22 and 23
I think I've done this. If anyone spots any more identical references please don't hesitate to say.
There are two references with the content "{{cite journal|url=http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR93-02.pdf#page=9|last=NTSB|title=Washington D.C. 20594 – Aircraft Accident Report: USAir Flight 405|year=1993|month=March|accessdate=15 July 2010|page=9}}", and also two different references named "p10". Ucucha 20:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • Ref 25: authors?
Done
  • Ref 28: author?
Done
  • Be consistent in using newspaper name or website as publisher for newspaper articles
Done
  • Ref 33: no need to include "Crash at La Guardia" twice
Done
  • What makes Pilotfriend.com a reliable source?
Removed that reference because it did not add anything to the article.
  • Ref 46: need more information. This refers to an episode of the TV show? Include network, air date, link to show page (?), etc
Done
  • Ref 57: bare URLs are not acceptable references for FA - need more information
Done
  • Ref 63 needs more information - author, publication name, etc
Done
  • What makes b737.org.uk a reliable source?
All the information on the site is in a printed book, so I've cited the book as the source instead.
  • Ref 65: date?
Done
  • Ref 66: author?
Done
  • Ref 68: why is all of the information part of the external link?
Done
Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 08:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


media The resolution of File:Attemptedtakeoff405f281992.jpg is too low Fasach Nua (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is printscreened from the NTSB report, which is particularly badly done with several pages upside down. I don't believe there's any higher quality image that shows the same thing, and I think that it definatley adds to the article. I'm not a graphics design wizard and I don't have any professional tools, so if anyone wants to have a go at sharpening it up, please do so. WackyWace you talkin' to me? 08:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be comparable quality to the original would be acceptable Fasach Nua (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the file is the same quality as the image on the PDF, because to fit it in the PDF has to be zoomed out to show the whole page, which reduces the image quality. WackyWace you talkin' to me? 10:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a higher quality copy of the original to File:Attemptedtakeoff405f281992.png, please feel free to use it Fasach Nua (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for uploading that. WackyWace you talkin' to me? 10:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The big one: You need to check all the page numbers on the NTSB source. A spot check of several citations (39,20, etc.) revealed that the page number you list is the PDF page number, not the document page number. (e.g., in source 39, you list p.83, which the information is on p. 75 of the document).
You mean have the document page number in the reference title, but keep the URL the same so that it links to the correct page?
Hmm, I didn't even realize you were trying to pipe the link directly to a page. I have opened the reference on IE7/WinXp/Adobe Pro and in Firefox/Win7/Foxit, and neither way piped me directly to the page you listed. But ya, I was referring to the page in the actual citation. That report was originally a printed document, and the PDF is just a scanned copy of the paper report. -SidewinderX (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done for all NTSB report references.
  • What makes a domestic passenger flight "routine"? What would a non-routine passenger flight be?
Changed to 'regularly scheduled'.
  • I find much of the citation in the lead to be distracting. It seems most of that content is repeated later in the body and it doens't seem to be controversial (e.g., where it crashed). I think that moving some of those citations to the body would greatly improve readability. See WP:LEADCITE.
Reduced from six references to two.
  • I know you wikilink NTSB in the lead per an earlier comment, but I think it would be helpful to spell it out that first time.
Done
  • What does "ILS" add to the sentence about the landing (first paragraph of "Accident" section)? I'm an aviation guy, so I know ILS means, but it doesn't mean much to most people.
Changed to "instrument approach".
  • I suggest using "body" or "fuselage" instead of "the jet" in this sentence "The left wing then separated from the fuselage, before the jet impacted with the edge ...". If the wing has already broken off, it makes more sense to talk about parts rather than "the jet".
Changed to "fuselage".
  • At the end of the build-up of ice section (near cite 39), please include the ice particle density. Just saying 1-2mm ice crystals can cause 20%+ loss in lift is disegenous.
I've changed the sentence to "they found that ice particles as small as 1-2mm can cause a loss of lift of over 20%", but I'm not sure what you mean - I am unaware of what the ice particle density was in the tests.
The cited source includes that information, IIRC.-SidewinderX (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it does. Done.
  • When you start a quote in the middle of a sentence, please preceed the first word with "...", as in "... cry for me Argentina." This indicated that text was omitted from the quote.
I think I've done this in all the locations in which it is required. If there are any more sentences that need this change, please tell me and I will change them.
There are still several quote blocks that start with a lower case letter. Either they are the start of the sentence and need to be capitalized, or they should have the ellipsis. -SidewinderX (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Actually, if they are the start of a sentence they don't necessarily need to be capitalized. Per WP:QUOTE, if a quote forms "a grammatical part of a larger sentence", the capitalization is dropped (not sure if/where that applies here, just pointing it out). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, what should I do? Currently, when a quote starts in the middle of a sentence, the article goes "... abc", and if it starts at the beggining of the sentence, it goes "Abc". Should I leave it like this or do something different?
"middle of the sentence" in the article or the source? That determines the appropriate response. For example, if your source says "All cats are small.", your article text might say "Source X says that "all cats are small", which contradicts Y." If, however, your source said "He proposes that we believe that all cats are small," -> article text: "Source X says that "...all cats are small". Source: "All cats are small" -> article text: ""All cats are small," argues Source X". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "NTSB Reccomendations" section needs work. It seems like you couldn't make up your mind between using a list or prose and ended up somewhere in the middle. A list of reccomendations would be appropriate here if you'd like, or, if you prefer just a sample, summarize them instead of just quoting them. Unless it's a list you shouldn't have a different paragraph for each sentence.
Done.
The list looks better to me, but it's odd to see a list with just quotes (which seem awkwardly phrased, out of context). Have you thought about converting the quotes to cited prose? -SidewinderX (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some work on it and hope it looks better now.
Looks much better to me now. That said, the section seems pretty short. I know you don't want to reprint the entire section from the NTSB report, but did they have another other major reccomendations? -SidewinderX (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded.
  • In the Dryden report section, you mention that the FAA refuted the allegations... are there any more details to that? Any other sources for the allegations/complaints? Or was it just the documentary?
Upon multiple searches, I am unable to find any other reference to the FAA refuting the Moshansky's allegations. Air Crash Investigation is arguably one of the most reliable sources when researching aviation accidents. I assume the producers of the program must have contacted the FAA for a response to the allegations. I've added the "d".
I didn't mean to imply the TV program was unreliable! I'm just curious about the context/aftermath of the incident. If there's nothing else out there, then there's nothing else out there. -SidewinderX (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did a 1992 deicing conference follow a 1994 accident?
Fixed.
Should "flight 405" be capitalized? -SidewinderX (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done there and throughout the article.
  • The deicing conference section is dominated by that quote. Is the entire quote needed? Could it have been sumarized in the prose?
Shortened the quote.
  • The article mentioned Type I, Type II, and Type IV deicing fluid... was there ever a Type III?
As far as I am aware it was designed for use on small commuter aircraft. There's hardly any information on it on the web, and upon searching for Type III deicing fluid, Google asks "did you mean Type II deicing fluid?", so I would say there is not a good deal written on it.
Ok, fair enough, just curious. -SidewinderX (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the USAir section needed? You admit in the first line the change was connected with the accident. At the least, information about new aircraft orders in unneeded.
The exact same issue was raised in the peer review. I noted that there was no direct link between the rebranding effor, but stated that "I put that section there thinking it would swiftly be removed for being trivial, but I thought to the average reader it rounded off and concluded the article, if you know what I mean." However, I am, if you feel it is completely unnecessary, happy to remove the section from the article.
Well, let's see if we can get a third opinion on it. I don't like it, but that along won't keep me from supporting the FAC. Let's see if anyone else has an opinion before you strike it. -SidewinderX (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've added an anecdotal story about the frequent flyer letter. I'm not sure if it belongs in that section, or in the article.
Also, the more I look at that section, the less I like the information about the new aircraft orders... it's just really out of place to me. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read through the article from start to finish and I'm inclined to agree—it just doesn't fit in. As a result of this and your thoughts, I have taken the decision to remove the entire section. WackyWace converse | contribs 16:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of good information here! -SidewinderX (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • The phrase flight crew in the Crash section prompted me to check the sources and assuming the report isn't copyrighted so this isn't WP:Plagarism, it seemed to me like your summary of the crash uses close paraphrasing when quotes or copy/paste were appropriate
Report: The first officer said that they seemed to agree that the airplane was not going to fly and that their control inputs were in unison vs.
Article: The first officer said that the flight crew seemed to agree the jet was not going to fly.
  • Other times the close paraphrasing changes the meaning - The first officer stated that he did not touch the power levers. vs. The flight crew did not alter the power levers.
  • I read the standards and I think you probably should use just quote the report in this instance instead of paraphrasing but you it actually might be more appropriate to just copy the text from the report since in many cases that's the simplest way to say what happened. Hopefully other editors will give their opinion. Kirk (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean - the only realistic and verifiable way to explain adequatley what exactly went on is to use the NTSB report - which by US law is in the public domain - as they had access to the 'black boxes', and pesumably interviewed many witnesses, expert witnesses and passengers onboard the flight, something which Wikipedia does not have the luxury of doing. The thing is, I don't just want the whole accident section to be made up of quotes (or be copied without quote marks) from the accident report, since it looks lazy. WackyWace converse | contribs 07:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now been through the article and have done what you suggested above. WackyWace converse | contribs 11:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks although I had hoped someone else would have commented on my comment. There's a couple of spots in the paragraph where the text is then duplicated by a quote, but it looks better now. Kirk (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed one of the two times the small fires are mentioned—I assume that's what you mean about some text being duplicated in a quote. WackyWace converse | contribs 16:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will be going away for two weeks on August 13. If this isn't wrapped up by then, I will ask around for someone to take it over while I'm gone. WackyWace converse | contribs 19:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:53, 7 August 2010 [38].

Stark Raving Dad

[edit]
Nominator(s): Scorpion0422 23:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one I've been slowly pecking away at for about two years, and never got around to nominating (until now). It's about one of the most famous episodes of the show, and I feel it meets all FA requirements. I'll be around for 6 days, then will be going away for 8 days. After I leave, Theleftorium, will take over addressing concerns for me. Enjoy. -- Scorpion0422 23:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources comments:
  • Chris Turner book lacks publication year and publisher information
    • Fixed.
  • "Halstead, Craig; Chris (2003)" - seems an odd way of stating the author. In the citations the book appears as "Halstead & Cadman"
    • That was a mistake on my part. The template said "last2=Cadman|last2=Chris". I have fixed the error.
  • I imagine there should be a colon or something in the title Michael Jackson the Solo Years
    • Fixed.
  • Why isn't the Richmond and Coffman book listed with the references? There are more citations to it than to either of the listed books.
    • Moved.

Otherwise, sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 00:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • You appear to be in the camp of not having references in the lead. If that's the case, move the ref for the airdate into the infobox.
    • The last paragraph of the lead is a bit short and may want to be integrated into one of the longer ones. Or you could remove it entirely and let the reception section speak for itself.
    • The lead is an almost verbatim copy of the first paragraph of Production. Perhaps you could summarize it a bit more in different words? This might help in accommodating the above point as well.
    • "He was directed by James L. Brooks" --- probably can be trimmed out
    • Ref #27 does not appear to be about what it's supposed to support...
    • In Cultural references, it's a bit unclear who "Michael" refers to sometimes, the character or the real person.
    • No !vote until comments are addressed. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—In the Reception section, you mix contemporary reviews (i.e. those from 1991) with later, retrospective reviews. These should separated (as in, mention "In a 2009 blog for Slate magazine..."), as that would highlight how reception towards the episode and its themes has changed. 114.143.172.245 (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Theleftorium (talk) 10:23, 1 August 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 01:36, 2 August 2010 [39].

The Harbingers

[edit]
Nominator(s): d'oh! talk 14:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria. I been working on this article for a while, and after going through a peer view I believe it is ready for FA nomination. d'oh! talk 14:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, suggest withdrawal—poor grammar throughout; for example, "The video included with the game was criticise as events in the video can be memorise by players when played multiply times, this can reduce the ongoing playability of the game". The article is also based largely on a primary source (which may be unavoidable). I think it should receive a thorough copyedit before it can be brought to FAC again. Ucucha 15:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the article a look over to fix any bad grammar, but I had some bad luck trying to get the article copyedited from other editors, with most too busy to help out. Also it was my understanding that a primary source can be used to provide a description of the plot. In any other cases another source was used. I hope I have addressed your concerns. d'oh! talk 17:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: While I sympathise with your difficulty in recruiting a copyeditor, articles should not be brought to FAC with the prose in this state. If you withdraw it now, I will copyedit it within one week. This will by no means guarantee the article a successful passage at its next FAC, but at least it will read more smoothly. Please note that this offer does depend on a quick withdrawal. Ping my talkpage if interested. Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sorry about this, but the article starts "Before starting the game it is recommend that…", and is full of niggling inconsistencies (a mix of footnotes before and after punctuation, for instance). The illustration of a pizza "to show how the Provinces come together to create the game board" could probably safely go, too. – iridescent 19:23, 1 August 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/August_2010&oldid=382064410"