Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archive 1
archive 1
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOC limit}}
{{TOC limit}}
== September 2010 ==
== September 2010 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harmon Killebrew/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/German Type UB I submarine/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/German Type UB I submarine/archive1}}

Revision as of 14:16, 11 September 2010

September 2010

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:16, 11 September 2010 [1].

Harmon Killebrew

Nominator(s): Alex (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because 1) it has already attained Good Article status. 2) It went through a massive overhaul not too long ago to add information and copy edit what was already there. It has good length, images and references. 4) It is a notable person. Alex (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • While I appreciate the fact that sometimes you need to use web.archive.org links, they should be so marked in the references. They should not be exclusively used, if the site itself is up, because it is an additional hoop to jump through to get to the information about the reliablity/etc. of the site being used. If the site is no longer available, then it really really needs to be noted that the site link is to a web archive not to the original.
How might one go about noting the archive.org in the references? Where might one suggest putting it? Alex (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine is a good place to start. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That being said.... why'd his homepage go down? And why should we trust a autobiographical site (that no longer exists!) for information about the subject of the article?
I believe his site went down because he replaced it with http://www.harmonkillebrewfoundation.org. Alex (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need to have somewhat better sourcing for this than a now-deleted autobiographical webpage. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the factoids that references the defunct website now references a current website. Still working on finding links for the other three. Alex (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All information that relied on the defunct website now has references from current and/or better sources. Alex (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced it with the source whence that article originally came. Alex (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspaper/magazine/journal titles should be italicized. (See current ref 14, the sporting news isn't... probalby others also.)
Fixed the Sporting News one. Alex (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Baseball Cube is an established online statistical baseball resource. Alex (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need something more than that to show it's a high quality reliable source, which is required for FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a search of the Google News Archive. [2] Baseball America, for one, referenced it. Alex (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two pages, with many of them passing mentions is not exactly impressing me that it's being used often by other reliable sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball-Reference links to it at the bottom of each player's user page. (for example: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/n/newmaal01.shtml). One could deduce that if Baseball-Reference trusts it, it is reliable. However, looking at what The Baseball Cube is used as a reference for, we could easily switch it out with Baseball-Reference with no ill effects.Alex (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced The Baseball Cube links with Baseball-Reference links. Alex (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decide if you're going to italicize website names or not. You've got Baseball reference italicized but not Retrosheet, etc.
Retrosheet is not italicized because it is marked as the "publisher" of the source, while Baseball-Reference is italicized because it is marked as the larger "work" of the source (the source whence the information came). If anything, it might be wise to remove Baseball-Reference.com as the "work."Alex (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it "looks" inconsistent, suggest following the second idea. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Alex (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 73 (Harmon Killebrew...) lacks a publisher
Fixed. Hopefully. Alex (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 74 (Danny Thompson ...) lacks a publisher
No publisher could be found. Alex (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hint... it's going to be the foundation that puts on the gold tournament. (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did find some references to a Danny Thompson Memorial Foundation, so I believe that will suffice. Alex (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use the Harmon Killebrew Foundation as a reference, so it shouldn't be in the external links. Likewise his stats from the Baseball reference.
Fixed. Alex (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks to be a self-published work, why is it in the external links? Does it really add anything in addition to the stuff in the article? Or is it a spamish link?
It seems to provide extra biographical information about Mr. Killebrew. Alex (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is selfpublished and if it was that good, wouldn't you use it as a source? I'm seeing it more as a way for this person to sell copies of their book. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It could be removed, it really doesn't bother me one way or the other. Alex (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to remove it. Alex (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." As such, make sure the primary contributors are notified next time. Granted, myself and Wknight are now aware of this and it was more a baseball collab effort to begin with. I'll take a look though, I think there's some things that needed fixing first. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This is not a full review by any means, but three suggestions:

  • The introduction does not need all the statistics. The characterizations or summaries are sufficient if supported in the text below, as yours seem to be.
  • There are two uses of "currently" (in this article, in sentences with nearly identical content). "Future-proof" the article; it should still be accurate ten years from now even if you walk away from it tomorrow. "Currently" is a word which should not be used. If you don't want to use the "as of" formulation (which does seem strained), you can, for example, state that he moved to Scottsdale in 1990, and leave it at that.
  • He has "23 grandchildren", not "23 grand children". Kablammo (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed these, plus linked some terms in the lead that weren't but shouldn't be. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "In the early 1990s, he married Nita.[75] Their family consists of 9 children, 23 grandchildren and 2 great grandchildren.[78]" so in 15-20 yrs they have greatgrandkids already. The first and second wife info appear to be mixed together incorrectly YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: While the article is looking pretty good, it's not yet ready to be promoted to Featured Article. A lot of common baseball terms aren't linked, and terms/stats/jargon that can abbreviated at various points in the article aren't (AL). Most of all, some of the prose is rather confusing, either by omitting details (e.g. why Killebrew missed playing time) or by jumbling together various season summaries before going through the years individually (e.g. 1961-1963). I would aim for a more focused season summary approach like was done with Mariano Rivera and Stan Musial - in many cases, the Killebrew season summaries jump back and forth to various other years. Some of the prose just needs to be condensed and copywritten a little more thoroughly (e.g. "On that date, Twins third baseman Rich Rollins made a poor throw to Killebrew at first. In trying to save the play, Killebrew's elbow was dislocated when he and the runner collided and Killebrew was out of action until mid-September"). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another point to make is that some of the citations are curiously constructed. Many of the Baseball-Reference citations do not indicate they are from Baseball-Reference, instead only referring to the publishing company, Sports Reference LLC (this is insufficient). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:31, 9 September 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 13:54, 11 September 2010 [3].

Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)

Nominator(s):   Perseus 71 talk 02:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is second time I am nominating this article. The First nomination has been archived here. The nomination got archived for one reason only. There were not many extensive comments on the subject of this article. As you can see, there were no opposes. Only Comments on the Sources and image copyrights.

My rationale for nomination is same as before. 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. The Sources of this article were extensively validated as part of the A Class review and the first nomination.   Perseus 71 talk 02:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will start fixing these in next few days.  Perseus 71 talk 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be more consistent in the way references are formatted. Consider: "United States War Deparment" vs "US War Department"; multiple-author references with second author first-name first vs last-name first; shortened citations with two authors using "and" vs "&"; etc.
  • No it's not - USWD still not consistent.
  • Is Frieser and Greenwood 1995 or 2005?
  • Is Caldwell and Muller 2002 or 2007?
  • Does the book by Lepage have one author or two? The formatting leaves this unclear
  • Formatting is still unclear here.
  • Is the second author of the Taylor book Percivale John or John Percivale? Again, unclear formatting (and Google search suggests neither is correct?)
  • Is the second author of the Williamson book Andrew Stephen or Stephen Andrew?
  • Deighton appears only in References, not in Citations
  • You have two Mitcham 2007s on the Reference list, but the Citations don't consistently distinguish between the two (one says 2007-b - which one does this refer to? What about the one that says only 2007?)
  • Okay, but now you have Mitcham-a and 2007-b - use a consistent formatting
  • Weal 2001 appears only on the Reference list
  • Check publisher for Caldwell
  • The linked page gives the publisher as Greenhill Books.
  • comment - stylistic issues:
  • I agree with you. However I have been scolded time and again for using too many German languages and making the article unreadable. So finally I have decided to follow WP guidelines to the letter with English words on first use with German words in parenthesis. At second use simply use German word in italics.  Perseus 71 talk 00:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead - introduces the expansion of the Luftwaffe to have its own ground troops and goes on to list some of them, but not the why of it. How about dropping the list of ground units for a sentence on the reason for these units? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primarily because Luftwaffe of this period is only a specific period of the history of modern Luftwaffe. Secondarily, it's just a slight emphasis on the distinction that the Luftwaffe of this period was a air force formed as a Strategic force/instrument part of of war and not part of Army or Navy. I guess we could call it Luftwaffe of the Wehrmacht. But then we will need to rename History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) too.   Perseus 71 talk 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main article is an underdeveloped stub. The information there does not have proper books cited to back the facts. This article has come from a similar stub level to FAC through rigorous reviews of GAN and ACR. I am perfectly happy to move the Main Links to See also section if that helps.  Perseus 71 talk 01:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have stated the facts as provided by the books cited. FallschirmPanzerkorps Hermann Göring was formed from the merger of Luftwaffe Armored Paratroop Division and Fallschirm-Panzergrenadier Division 2 Hermann Göring as cited with four different citations.  Perseus 71 talk 01:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This FAC article isnt sufficiently consistant with the main articles, that following the link actually brings the reader into a conflict between information, while the other articles arent up at FAC the significant points in this article should have some corellation with the information in the main articles. Gnangarra 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Switching to Oppose
    • I feel that there are too many lists in the article, would it be possible to turn some of these lists into paragraphs?
    • In the Gruppe section, you have an uncited paragraph, this needs to be corrected.
    • In the Staffel section you have two uncited paragraphs, this needs to be corrected.
    • In the Schwarm, Rotte and Kette section you have two uncited lines that need to be cited. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, no feedback from nominator since September 3rd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 11 September 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 19:18, 8 September 2010 [4].

German Type UB I submarine

Nominator(s): White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 17:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because in the past few months, Myself and to a lesser extent, Ceranthor have been improving this article from the state that it was left in once User:Bellhalla left Wikipedia back in December of last year. When I found this article, no one was working on it but it remained in very good shape. I decided to further work on it by taking it through a Peer Review and promoting the remaining U-boats from this class to GA status, thus making this article the centerpiece of a Good Topic. Ceranthor may make a few passing comments and help out here and there on the FAC but he has declined my offer to have him co-nom this FAC with me. As for the article itself, the German Type UB I submarines were a series of very small U-boats that three of the four Central powers operated in the First World War. Both German, Austria-Hungary, and Bulgaria used them and it was a Type UB I submarine that became Bulgaria's first true U-boat. These small vessels patrolled the coast of Belgium, France and the Netherlands as part of the Flanders Flotilla, the Adriatic sea, The Baltic sea as part of the Baltic Flotilla, and the area around Ottoman Turkey as part of the Constantinople Flotilla. Any comments would be much appreciated. This is my first true FAC that I myself am undergoing. I was a co-nom in the FAC for the Austro-Hungarian Battleship SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand yet it failed. This time around, I will be addressing most of the comments and I hope to promote this article to FA status.White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 17:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. - Dank (push to talk) 22:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I feel my concerns have been adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Comments - a neat article, and I wish you luck in getting it to FA status. Below are some suggestions/questions for further improvement. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per criterion three:
    • File:SM U-10 (Austria-Hungary).jpg - Dead source. 1915 is a creation date. License depends upon date of author death. Who is the author? When did s/he die?
    • File:SM UB-2 and SM UB-16 in Flanders.jpg - Purpose as is does not appear to be a significant contribution to our understanding. However, given that the current infobox image has a unsupported license, this would be appropriate re-purposed in the dual roles (NFCC#3A) of primary visual identification and illustration of "One of the minor differences" - assuming no free version exists.
    • File:Sections of SM UB-13 on train.jpg - Decorative (NFCC#8). That "the boats of this class were designed to be shipped by rail in sections" is not something that requires visualization to understand. An image of sections on a rail line only serves to identify the design was successful in that regard (something a reliable source could do), not to illustrate meaningfully aspects of the actual design. Now moot, but image is not low resolution (NFCC#3B). Эlcobbola talk 20:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. This seems generally OK on first pass, but I think a few things need fixing:
  • "The process of shipping the submarines by rail involved breaking the submarine down into what was essentially a knock down kit."
  • "The boats were equipped with compensating tanks designed to flood and offset the loss of the C/06 torpedo's 1,700-pound (770 kg) weight, but this did not always function properly ...".
  • Randomly butting in here - I'm 99.9% sure Malleus means your tenses don't match. "compensating tanks" is plural, "this" is singular. Same with the "submarines" vs. "the submarine" comment above. Dana boomer (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over the Type UB Is' first year of service ...". Surely the type is singular?
  • "After Italy had entered World War I ...". Called it the First World War earlier in the article.
  • "During their trials, the Type UB Is were found to be too small and too slow, and had a reputation for being underpowered". They had a reputation for being underpowered during their trials?

Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to them as soon as I can. I'll also be looking for replacement sources to them.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with White Shadows over the reliability of Uboat.net as a source. As Bellhalla has shown, that website is used as a reference by the authors of several printed books. I see no good reason why that source cannot be used in this or any other relevant article. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not seeing that uboat.net complies with WP:SPS (it has not been established that the author is an established expert on the topic); I suggest someone raise this at WP:RSN to get a definitive reading, since the fact that it got by previous FACs is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I'm concerned that standards on Ship articles not slide. We haven't yet gotten an answer on why the published books weren't consulted instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a mountain of evidence against you Sandy, Bellhalla's page, the ACR, the FAC. In fact, the ed17 was the one who told me about the site in the first place and told me that it was trustworthy. Several dedicated editors of this topic have told you and provided evidence on this site's reliability and yet you continue to shove OTHERSTUFF down their (and my) throats while claiming that "It is not at all clear to me that this site [Uboat.net] meets the requirements of WP:SPS". I'm getting rather tired of you trying to throw this FAC off track with your position of power in this process and I'm beginning to think about requesting input from the other delegate or the FA director. All of us cannot be dead wrong on this issue and comments like "I'm concerned that standards on Ship articles not slide" really are like spitting in the face of the members of WP:SHIPS and WP:MIL who edit these articles. There is enough sources in Wikipedia alone, much less the books that have cited the website to show that this site does indeed meet WP:RS.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re which sources are used, the fact that a published book exists is not the same as having that book to hand to check the info -i.e. if you haven't got the book, then you can't use it as a source, whereas the website is accessible online by all. Suppose a book is used as a source, and you don't have that book, then how can you tell if it has been used accurately or not? You can't, can you, but you can easily check the website if it is used. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Highest quality sources are required for Featured articles, and editors here have yet to establish that the authors of this website are published experts in the field, per WP:SPS-- there seems to be some misunderstanding here of the requirements for high quality sourcing in Featured articles, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:SPS, and the accessibility of a source (online vs. book) is most certainly not how we judge our best sourcing. I've entered an inquiry at WP:RSN, as editors have delayed here for several weeks on doing that. We need independent review of ship articles, but we get ship editors consistently supporting ship articles, with little independent review-- sourcing still needs to be resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason that Ships editors generally support ship articles is because most of the major issues from our perspective have been dealt with at our ACR. I agree that fresh eyes are needed for outside perspectives, but I think that your own perspective may be distorted by the fact we may not comment at length in comparison to outside reviewers. I know that I've certainly delivered some drive-by supports for ship articles, but I reviewed them at our ACR. I reject any imputation that Ships editors automatically support ship articles; if it were otherwise then this discussion would not have begun as it would gotten the requisite number supports from project members. That it hasn't speaks volumes from my POV; you may disagree. I'm not so foolish to claim that our ACR is flawless as the quality of each review depends on the reviewers, but it certainly does eliminate many issues that may commonly arise with articles from projects that don't have an ACR process.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not at all clear to me that this site meets the requirements of WP:SPS, and the fact that it cleared previous FACs is neither here nor there (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Could we please get some independent views on how this site meets WP:SPS, particularly because so much of the article depends upon it. As SPS says, if the information were reliable, surely better sources would have picked it up; if the author is indeed an "expert" (that hasn't been established), and if his info is reprinted in other books, why aren't those books cited, rather than a dubious website? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but I'm going to have to put my foot down on this one. I see no reason to remove Uboat.net as a source to this article and quite frankly, I refuse to do so. If this source leads to the downfall of this FAC, then so be it. The fact that the site is used extensively (while technically falling under OTHERSTUFF) in another FA, SM U-66 is enough proof IMHO that the site has and continues to meet WP:RS.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 20:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One, standards for sourcing for FAs have risen in the last few years. Two, I suggest that "putting your foot down" isn't the best method of persuading others to see your side of things. There's a perfectly sensible solution, go look up the books that uboat.net uses and use them. I'm not minded to oppose over the sourcing just yet, but a cooperative attitude is definitely helpful in keeping folks from opposing. The fact is that it is a SPS and nothing I'm seeing shows that it's by an expert. I'm glad to be shown wrong on that, but the page Sandy linked to doesn't inspire confidence that the people putting out the site are experts. All over Wiki, standards of sourcing are rising, and while it may mean more work for writers, it's an important and useful thing for the reputation of the encyclopedia as a whole. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think all you're expected to do is to answer SandyG's question. The reason that the type name (Type UB 1) isn't hyphenated is that it might cause confusion with the submarine UB-1, or some such. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think listing each name in the last section, then having a table with all of them is the best possibility. First it is redundant, and a bit not very esthetically pleasing. How about just having a table with colored lines for non-German ones. Nergaal (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate a bit further on that? Thanks.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and the comment. I'll send in a request for copy-editing in terms of comma usage :)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed Support. Sourcing at issue.

Updated comments:

  • My support was indeed on the basis of Criterion 1a alone, and I should have made this clear.
  • It is fine for members of a related WikiProject to visit and support an article, but all eyes are on the scope with which they delineate their support, and the depth of their comments. We would be delighted if such members stayed around to review chosen aspects of a few articles outside their area; that way, everyone benefits and we can gain familiarity with their analytical and critical approaches.
  • White Shadows says: "I linked Uboat.net to every submarine merely for the convenience of readers since many of them may not have Sokol or Gardiner or any of the other books mentioned in the article. While I linked every U-boat in that table to Uboat.net, I did not mean to do so as a source more than a way for readers to see info on this subject without going to the library or spending 70$ on books of this subject." But this is not the point. WP damages its reputation significantly if we get it wrong, and that is so easy to do, especially in MilHist. The cost of books is irrelevant; they are available at public libraries, and even through GoogleBooks and Amazon, where you and/or readers can in some cases gain access to excerpts that contain key search words. Where there is a more reliable hard-copy source, it should be referenced as well as a URL: the best of both worlds. I suggest this FA be withdrawn and a thorough audit conducted on the sources. In other respects, it is very close to being among our best work. Let's ensure that we can be proud of this article in terms of its verifiability, too. Please, it's worth the extra trouble. Tony (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is savable, but needs work. Here are examples from the top.

I know it was an empire; "who" is used for people. "The German Imperial Navy subsequently ordered an additional pair of boats to replace two sold to Austria-Hungary, who ordered a further three boats in April 1915." Isn't it "which"? Tony (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. I probably shouldn't have bothered you with this. Tony (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess many readers won't have a clue how to visualise what happened. A map of northeastern Europe at the time, with arrows, etc? But this is beyong the call of duty; just a thought for the future. Tony (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your responses. Tony (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note on sourcing, will editors supporting this article please speak to the outstanding concerns about reliable sources? Specifically, "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ..." Are high-quality reliable sources consulted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've become accustomed to seeing the uboat.net web site used as a reference in these submarine articles and I believed that it had been accepted as a reliable source. That the editor-in-chief, Guðmundur Helgason, is not a professional naval historian is not a matter of concern to me; he is in fact described as a naval historian in at least one article published in the Journal of Military History. What does concern me is that there's no indication as to where the information on the uboat.net web comes from. In this particular article I'm also concerned that it over-relies on uboat.net even where there are equivalent sources published by university presses, such as Fontenoy's Submarines: an illustrated history of their impact published by the University of Hawaii Press and available on Google books. On the other hand, I think it's quite likely that the information on uboat.net is accurate, so I'm not prepared to oppose because of sourcing. Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the main thing to remember here is that about a year ago, sourcing requirements for FAs went from "reliable" to "high quality reliable". So while uboat.net probably meets RS, it may not meet the high quality side. Note that I generally don't get that involved in the "high quality" evaluation, because that varies according to the subject of the article. What's "high quality" for a medieval bishop (peer reviewed journal articles, books by university presses) isn't possible in say horse biographies (the next peer reviewed horse biography article I find will be the first). Every reviewer needs to evaluate the sources in a particular article against the "high quality" criteria themselves ... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Nice work, I've made a small tweak, hope you like it if not its a wiki. But:
"In addition, five of the German Type UB Is assigned to the Pola Flotilla" is followed by a list of just four subs.
There were only 4 U-boats in Pola (as stated earlier in the article) not five. I've fixed that.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 19:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It mentions that one sub was interned by the Dutch, can you check for more info on that incident? I would have thought that such a breach of Dutch neutrality would have been covered.
    • There was no breach of neutrality. The Dutch simply had the sub interned there.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 18:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "UB-6 ran aground in Dutch waters" If I was Dutch and in WWI I would have regarded a German submarine straying into my waters as a breach of neutrality. Hence I suspect the internment. ϢereSpielChequers 19:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interment is when a ship or other military personnel/equipment makes it's way into a neutral nation and rather than face the enemy across the border, they "intern" themselves in the neutral nation. It was not a breech of neutrality at all. They "surrendered" themselves to a neutral nation :)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The relevant law is enshrined in the Hague Convention; as White Shadows says, there was no breach of neutrality. Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the explanations. But I read being caught running aground where a sub shouldn't be and deliberately sailing into Dutch waters and surrendering to a neutral as somewhat different. Do you have sources that say which of those scenarios applies? Or were German submarines free to pass through Dutch waters as long as they held fire and didn't run aground? ϢereSpielChequers 19:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • On 10 March, UB-6 left Zeebrugge to patrol off the Mass lightship. Two days later, UB-6 entered Dutch territorial waters after their captain, Steckelberg made a navigational error, and ran aground at the mouth of the Maas River. Because the Netherlands was neutral during the war, and UB-6 did not leave Dutch territorial waters within 24 hours as required by international law, the submarine and her crew were interned by the Dutch. The Germans protested, but because UB-6's grounding was merely the result of an error and not because of distress, the Dutch could not release the submarine. Does this explain the situation? I'd rather not add it into the article as that would be going into a bit too much detail.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 20:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks for looking that up, I'd suggest that the gist of that either belongs in an article on UB-6 or a footnote here. "UB-6 entered Dutch territorial waters due to a navigational error, and ran aground. Because the Netherlands was neutral during the war, and UB-6 did not leave Dutch territorial waters within 24 hours as required by international law, the submarine and her crew were interned by the Dutch. Germany protested, but because UB-6's grounding was the result of an error and not because of distress, the Dutch could not release the submarine." IMHO would not be overdetailed for a footnote IMHO. ϢereSpielChequers 10:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is quite a bit of repetition for example "becoming Podvodnik No. 18" in slightly different wordings is in three consecutive sections.
Too small and too slow. In what way were they too small? Also some info on typical speeds of target ships would be helpful context.
Ships sunk, damaged, or taken as a prize. Any chance of an expansion on this such as which theatres, any tonnages and whether these were military or civilian targets. Also with only a deck machinegun I'd be very impressed if they'd taken anything as prizes.
Crew of 14 - any info as to how that breaks down?
I'm afraid not. There was a captain but other than that, I'm not sure about any other crew positions/rankings within the submarines. I can take a crack at trying to find out if you want me to but don't be surprised if nothing turns up.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 03:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking - FA only requires us to go as far as the sources go. ϢereSpielChequers 10:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does the 33 second dive time relate to? I'm assuming it isn't the one hour that the sub could travel submerged. Also do you know how long they could stay submerged for before running out of air? ϢereSpielChequers 21:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 33 second dive time refers to how long it took for the sub to reach the regular test depth of 50 metres. Would you like a mention of this or do you think this is too obvious to include and goes against the "don't go into unnecessary detail rule"?--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 03:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest either a link to an explanation of that test or a footnote. ϢereSpielChequers 10:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Delegate note: I've made a request here for more eyes on the sourcing issue as I am conflicted on how consensus is leaning in terms of WP:WIAFA. Karanacs (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have mixed opinions about sourcing from uboat.net. Generally, I am comfortable sourcing to an amateur historian who has developed a good reputation and is widely cited in published sources. The problem is that I can't tell from looking at pages on uboat.net, where that information is sourced from. I would be more comfortable if uboat.net and other such sources used on Wikipedia had more meticulous references for where it gets info, and that you could follow the sources. I would feel the same way about a published book that lacks meticulous sourcing, unless perhaps the author has stellar, beyond-a-doubt expertise, and don't care that in this case, it's published online. For example, here, where did he get that information? Can you find another more official or reputable source to back up this information? I think this article over-relies on uboat.net as a source. Used more sparingly, perhaps I would support this as a featured article. Right now, I can't support but not going to oppose, either. --Aude (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've seen more and more of these submarines go through GAN, and I'll admit, the reliance on u-boat.net has made me stop and shake my head once or twice. Might be why I've never chosen to review any of them; I know I'd get into an argument on the site's reliability. Their sources page, [8] lists a good number of sources, but one sentence that concerns me, "We also have a number of things here that are not available anywhere in print." So where are they getting their information from? Who is fact-checking everything? Are they conducting original research? Here they are soliciting writers. What kind of credential verification are they doing for those writers to keep an enthusiast who has never seen the inside of a university library from doing their writing? This honestly doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the head's credentials. Then I see pages like this one on UB-9. What did she do for four years? Was she only operational for a week, as that's how long she's listed as having a CO? The page seems quite incomplete. I won't oppose over it, but it does seem like there are better sources available, though one may have to read German to understand them. Courcelles 19:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about uboat.net - I understand we are asked to accept uboat.net as a WP:RS based on the following:

Nevertheless, per WP:V:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; [...] In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.

Although I can see why the site's mention in published works lends it an air of respectability, I'm currently unable to see that WP:V recognizes that as a principle determining reliability of a source for a Wikipedia article. PL290 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It seems to me that a "representative survey of the relevant literature" on this topic (a military vessel designed, constructed and operated by German-speakers) would include reasonable consultation of German sources. The only German source appears to be this online excerpt (a violation of WP:LINKVIO?) Was the book itself surveyed, or just that site? Whatever the status of uBoat.net, the apparent neglect of the substantial German publications seems problematic. For example:
    • Bendert, Harald (2000). Die UB-Boote der Kaiserlichen Marine 1914-1918 Mittler & Sohn Verlag, ISBN 3813207137
    • Rössler, Eberhard (1997). Die Unterseeboote der Kaiserlichen Marine. Bernhard & Graefe, ISBN 3763759638
    • Rössler, Eberhard (1996). Geschichte des deutschen U-Bootbaus. Band 1. Bernhard & Graefe, ISBN 3860471538
    • Sieche, Erwin (1998). Unterseeboote der K.u.K-Marine Podzun-Pallas, ISBN 3790906506
    • Botting, Douglas (2001). Die deutschen Unterseeboote im 1. und 2. Weltkrieg Gondolino, ISBN 3811218530
    • Basch-Ritter, Renate (1991). Österreich auf allen Meeren. Geschichte der k.( u.)k. Kriegsmarine von 1382 bis 1918. Styria im Styria Pichler, ISBN 3222117969
    • Gruber, Karl (2005). Seemacht unter rot-weiß-roter Flagge. K.u.K. Kriegsmarine. Milizverlag Salzburg, ISBN 3901185259
Were any of these surveyed? Эlcobbola talk 20:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would try to incorporate these sources into the text...if I spoke German or had access to them. I'm in no position to get them and what 1-2 books on that list I can read on Google books, is in German.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 20:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly agree with comments above; particularly Courcelles and Elcobbola. Haven't the time for a full search, but it seems that a book such as the following should have been consulted:
    • R.H. Gibson, Maurice Prendergast. "The German Submarine War 1914-1918". Periscope Publishing Ltd., 2002. 9781904381082
  • Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Reading through the comments above, I can sense the reluctance of editors tackling the question of uboat.net's status. On the one hand, Gudmundur is clearly a devoted student of the boats and appears to have taken considerable care in his work. Ditto White Shadows. Further, that website has been relied upon for various articles at GA (I understand) and no-one wants to see the quality status of a series of articles potentially unravel over a discussion only now taking place. I can also hear myself thinking "how will we ever consistently get English-language FAs on non-English subjects if we insist on consultation of non-English language books?" (I hoped to one day get Art of Iceland up to this standard, and own almost all the English-language books on the subject, but can see that ambition fading...)
So. There seem to be two issues mixed together here: whether the website is a "high quality reliable source"; and whether a comprehensive survey of the lit. has taken place in the absence of reference to major German-language books on the subject. I am not commenting on the latter question. On the former:
  • None of the editors / contributors appears to have relevant qualifications. Like Malleus, I agree that this in itself may not be necessary to establishing reliability, but it may influence judgement about "high quality" reliability.
  • The fact that there is a general list of sources, but no sourcing on the individual pages, I think counts against the site's quality.
  • Is it just me, or is there another factor here, in that we are relying consierably on what is in fact a tertiary, not a secondary, source? What Gudmundur has created is essentially the U-Boat Encyclopedia. Note WP:RS includes: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." (emphasis in original) Yet Gudmundur has used the secondary sources (acording to his sources page) to create what is now a tertiary source.
  • The strongest argument in favour of uboat.net's favour is its reputation amongst other writers. Slp1's list at the discussion here is germinal in this regard. However, the list isn't as impressive as it first appears. The first link: it certainly receives high praise from writer Gordon Williamson, though as Malleus has noted, that is in the context of online resources. Second link: didn't work for me - no relevant content. Third link: not sure that any claim to reliability can be made in the context of this particular book (on a very tangentially-related subject). Fourth link: Intute, an online resource for which I could find no evidence of its own reliability. Fifth link: a list of links appended to a commercial TV documentary webpage. Sixth link: a book about using online sources to teach critical thinking skills. I don't think the authors are frankly qualified to comment on whether the site is good or not (not that it stops them from doing so). Seventh link: A university website listing links to WWII resources: but it explicitly puts quote marks around the assessment of the site, indicating it is not the site's author's own assessment. Eighth link: Listed in a book called "The history highway 3.0: a guide to internet resources". Describes the site as "A comprehensive study of the German u-boat", which is simply inaccurate, calling the source into question. Ninth link: The Naval Museum of Manitoba's list of links that describes uboat.net as "very accurate and complete".
  • My feeling about the endorsements / praise for the site from most other sources is that they have done less fact-checking than anyone here, with the possible exception of Gordon Williamson. His alone is the only endorsement out of all the above that I feel can be trusted as coming from someone competent to reach a view. The rest are too tangential or themselves unreliable for us to use them as an assessment of whether the webpage in question is a "high quality reliable source".
  • Having said all of that, I would also comment that the dominant use of the website is for some fairly bare facts - launch dates, commissioning dates, and ultimate fate. Not sure whether this should be a factor in our deliberations about the extent of reliance on the site.

Dont know if that is any help. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conway's All the world's fighting ships, 1906-1921 By Robert Gardiner, Randal Gray, Przemysław Budzbon is a reliable source already used to a significant degree in the article. It appears to contain information that can be used to replace stuff coming from uboat.net in some instances. I note the WP article cites uboat.net in support of the first line in the uboat table. That line includes in the "fate" section: "Handed over to Italy as a war reparation and scrapped at Pola by 1920." Yet Gardiner p. 180 has this: "wrecked 4.6.15 and [broken up] 1918" as well as the subsequent handing over and scrapping in 1920 (p.343). Firstly, we should use Gardiner in preference to uboat.net; secondly, the wrecking is omitted from uboat.net's page. It looks to me as though a bit more can be drawn from Gardiner. This will also minimise the losses from the article that would occur if we avoided uboat.net as a source altogether. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most of us (considering this FAC has about 10 supporters and currently no opposition) can agree that it is OK to use Uboat.net as a source as long is other secondary and offline sources are consulted as well. Uboat.net is great for those who do not have any offline sources available and can be regarded as a great online source but I understand that books always trump websites. I linked Uboat.net to every submarine merely for the convenience of readers since many of them may not have Sokol or Gardiner or any of the other books mentioned in the article. While I linked every U-boat in that table to Uboat.net, I did not mean to do so as a source more than a way for readers to see info on this subject without going to the library or spending 70$ on books of this subject. Every single book on German U-boats coast at least 50$ such as Sokol's and as a result, the use of Uboat.net is sometimes needed to complete the article. It may appear that the article overly relies on Uboat.net but there are only a few instances where something is cited by Uboat.net and not another offline source. I did use it as a tertiary source for the most part but still fail to believe that the site is not of high enough quality to remove or degrade or a "filler" source. If need be, I can add in yet more pages from Conway's into the table but I honestly think that such a course of action is not needed. I will continue to use this site on any future works on U-boats that I undertake as I have yet to see someone who actually works on the subject questions the site's reliability.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (considering this FAC has about 10 supporters and currently no opposition). I'm not seeing ten supporters (pls clarify), and there is plenty of concern raised by editors who aren't willing to oppose, but aren't convinced. Some of the supports are from WikiProject members who routinely support all ship articles, and Tony1 supports only on prose (I wish he'd consider all issues raised before supporting, but know from history to consider his supports only on 1a, and a 1a support from him is valuable, but limited). I'm also aware of other cases where high quality sources end up contradicting non-peer-reviewed online sources, so it is always a problem to rely on marginal online sources. These issues should be addressed; would it be possible to review the uboat.net sources and try to diminish the reliance on that source or replace them with higher quality sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, "delimited" would have been a more diplomatic term, particularly since I am distraught that you should seek to undermine my work elsewhere, and since I informed you that I would ignore you henceforth. Tony (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "delimited" would have been a better term; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I really appreciate the restraint shown by Malleus, Aude, Courcelles, Elcobbola and hamiltonstone in not opposing, and all the work they've put in to helping us decide the question. Taken together, their arguments are persuasive. uboat.net has been relied on too much for this article, and as currently sourced, it seems to me the article falls apart if you remove uboat.net. I'm not opposed to this article ever becoming an FA, but it's going to take more than a day or two to fix the sourcing problem. Btw, what's notable about this FAC isn't that SHIPS people are piling in to support, what's notable is that they aren't. TomStar gave a weak support, and his reviewing work is incredibly valuable, he always has perceptive things to say, but like Tony1, he's not expecting everyone to take his support as a clue that they don't have to do their own work, he works as part of a team. Everyone else who normally reviews and supports SHIPS articles at A-class and at FAC is notably absent. I've never heard a credible argument that SHIPS reviewers can't be trusted, and in my 6-month history at SHIPS, I haven't seen any articles pass FAC or A-class that shouldn't have. - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I don’t consider it so much restraint as an attempt to avoid being unfair, as I’m uncertain of the extent to which the relatively new "representative survey of the relevant literature" verbiage requires consultation of foreign sources (although my personal view is that it certainly ought to; especially in cases such as this: non-English topic where a questionable source is being heavily replied upon). As a fundamental property of Wikiepdia is the ability to collaborate with geographically and culturally dispersed editors, however, I don't accept as valid issues of inability to read a given language and inability to access “foreign” works, whether cheaply or otherwise. Have any Germans (e.g. via Babel categories or Wikiproject Germany) even been asked to assist? KuK, for example, appears highly involved in Marine articles at de.wiki and has an English Babel level 3 (advanced). Has s/he been asked whether s/he has sources or could go to a library and get them? How much effort has really been put forth here? Эlcobbola talk 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:51, 7 September 2010 [9].

Dhaka Residential Model College

Nominator(s): Tanweertalk 10:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working for this article from early 2009. From then the article has received two peer reviews and also been copy-edited. It was listed as a GA in early 2010. I've relentlessly contributed to this article with a view to making it a FA. It's now a comprehensive article about Dhaka Residential Model College, a high school in Dhaka which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. I would love if I'm showed the problems that may be act like impediments in this way. I am confident that it meets all the FA criteria and I hope you agree. Thanks for your understandings. -- Tanweertalk 10:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 2 dabs (President's Award and Viva voce; no deadlinks. PL290 (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues concerning dabs have been solved. Please let me know where in the article http://www.drmc-edu.org has been used. -- Tanweertalk 16:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last line of the infobox. Ucucha 18:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's given as the link to the college website (last entry in the infobox). The link checker currently reports no deadlinks for me, though I notice it says this link has a "Connection issue", evidently something to watch out for with this tool in future as I cannot in fact connect to the site from the infobox link. PL290 (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such things can evidently depend on who is trying to get to a link. The drmc-edu.org link still doesn't work for me. Ucucha 12:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues

  • There are numerous citations to "Srijon" and "Shandipan". What are these - books, journals?
  • Format consistency is necessary, e.g. in ref 39 you have "Srijon (2002), p. 40" while 62 reads Hossain, M (2002). "DRMC wins BTV quiz contest". Srijon: 35,36.
  • What makes http://www.storyofpakistan.com/person.asp?perid=P017 reliable? This biography of Ayub Khan is far from scholarly.
  • Why is Banglapedia a reliable source?
  • What makes http://www.tariquerahman.net/index.php/profile reliable, and why is the spelling in the reflist different from tht on the site itself?
  • The Parjatan Bichitra, if it is a newspaper or journal, needs to be italicised.
  • The college's website is used as a sources, and should not therefore appear under External links.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

  • Srijon and Shandipan are both annual magazine of the college. The name Srijon was used until 2002, since 2003 the name is Shandipan.
  • I take your concern for StoryOfPakistan seriously. So this ref has been canceled and I've used http://pakistanherald.com/Profile/Muhammad-Ayub-Khan-1180 instead as this is the official website of Pakistan Herald, one of the newspapers of Pakistan.
  • Banglapedia, written and edited by experts in concerned arenas, is the national encyclopedia of Bangladesh. Please read the article Banglapedia to know more. So there is no doubt about the accuracy and reliability of the encyclopedia.
  • http://tariquerahman,com is the personal website of Tarique Rahman. Spelling issue has been solved.
  • I would like to know about this matter in details. The college's website has been used as source. But why it shouldn't appear under External Links. Please let me instead, know what should appear?
    "External links" should provide links to associated websites other than those used as sources for the article if you think they may be of some general interest to readers of the article. It's a bit like "Further reading", but it relates to online material. Brianboulton (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we generally make an exception for links to a topic's official site, though. Ucucha 18:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regards. -- Tanweertalk 16:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

  • Parenthetical information seems like poor style for the introduction, particularly: "when Bangladesh was still a part of Pakistan (Bangladesh gained independence in 1971)" seems like unnecessary information for the lead.
  • "The school was the only one in Bangladesh under the direct control of the Ministry of Education, and it continues to enjoy this special status as of 2010" - could this be reworded to: "Since it's creation, the school has been the only one in Bangladesh under the direct control of the Ministry of Education"?
  • "DRMC is one of the most competitive schools in the country" - the source for this does not actually comment on DRMC's competitiveness.
  • "The Government of Bangladesh recognized the school for its strong performance in the Higher Secondary Certificate examination in 2008" - The source seems to indicate that it is specifically the Dhaka Education Board awarding this; if that's correct the sentence should be changed.
  • "Dhaka was the capital and the largest city of East Pakistan" - is this necessary background information?
  • The information on the number of current students is imprecise. Can you find a source that doesn't round to the nearest thousand?
  • "a four-storied house named Dr. Muhammad Shahidullah" - is that the dorm's name, or is it named after him?
  • "emphasizes student discipline in all of their activities" - what does this mean and why is there no source for it?
  • "In addition to a terminal exam, two class tests are held each ....... scholarship examination." - this is unsourced, as is the following paragraph.
  • Much of the admission section is unsourced
  • Why are extracurricular activities like quizbowl given so much coverage? Are they really that important? Similar concerns about the alumni association.
  • If alumni are notable, they should be linked to their own articles, even if they are red links. I think.
  • "Many senior government officials and public representative of Bangladesh are Remians" - unsourced

~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 02:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose - POV and sourcing
    • Although the article seems to be mostly sourced, many of the sources don't check out
      • Campus section: ref4 is to Ayub Khan and doesn't fit any of the two lines before it. 37 only covers the infirmary and not the other claims about the football field etc. "The school has its own water-pump for the water supply of the college.[37" ref is actually about the hospital. So the first half of the para only has one sentence actually reffed, the others have window-dressing refs that don't work. SEcond half is Bengali, so I can't check it
      • "Houses" The second half of the first para and the whole second para, is not at all in the ref attached. 75% of the section is attached to bogus sources
      • Exam stats table. None of the sources give teh % pass rate of 99%+. Only the number of GPA-5s are given. What is the source for the claim of near perfect success???
      • Sports section ref does not give the result of the football match
      • Admission: The sources only say that there is an exam and that supply < demand, not all the rest as well
      • Start of academics. POV claim about great discipline and large library not in ref. r16 only covers the last sentence not the other stats before it
      • History. "DRMC was originally established by the Ayub Khan, the first military leader of Pakistan,[4] to provide education for army officers in East Pakistan. The school, and later the college, were modeled after public schools in the United Kingdom (according to the British Public Schools Act 1868), particularly Eton College. The house system was designed to resemble Eton's. After the independence of Bangladesh, a board of governors was appointed with the Education Secretary as its Chairman. " not in the source "DRMC was established as a fully residential educational institution with five dormitories, but because of a significant increase in the number of students over the last two decades, the school also offers a non-resident option for students. Built in 1960, Qudrat-i-Khuda House was the first dormitory for students in grades 3–7. Another dormitory named Ayub House was built in 1961, capable of accommodating around 200 students of the same grades" not in the ref afterwards
  • Is the DRMC Preospectus [12] actually in English or Bengali. I opened it but it shows stuff in the English alphabet but meaninglessly. It is not tagged bn atm YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • POV
      • "Dhaka Residential Model College's results from 2005 to 2009 for the Secondary School Certificate level examinations are as follows:" misleading. Those are its ranking in Dhaka, not all of Bangladesh as implied by no conditions being attached
      • "DRMC publishes a magazine annually, Shandipan, containing school related news, poems, articles, stories, science fiction, jokes and other items of imterest, written by the students, teachers and staff. The magazine reflects the creativity of the college, and provides an opportunity for students to express their thoughts. " Are they allowed to criticise the school then?? If so, the school saying the students are free is not indept
      • " won championships in 4th International World Youth Mathematics Intercity competition,[66] National Math Olympiad 2008 and Math Olympiad 2009 hosted by Bangladesh University of Business and Technology" The 4th IWYMIC winning thing isn't in the source, and the 2008 NMO isn't either. Can we have indept RS for claims of success etc?? Most/all schools and unis lie on their CVs, unfortunately
        • "Dhaka Residential Model College is noted for its academic performance and extracurricular activities, having produced many notable alumni including leaders in business, the military and state and national politics as well as senior government officers, scientists and engineers.[5][6" source only says it is "coveted" and doesn't say anything about influential people
        • "The institution was awarded 'Best College' in the 5th National Debate Festival 2010, the largest debate contest in the country organized by the National Debate Federation Bangladesh" - nonsense the source says that it was won by another school; this is in the lead
        • Other victories mentioned in the lead, with no independent source

In short the article has lots of unsourced stuff, or nominally sourced stuff linking to bogus cites. Many claims of great achievement link to sources that say no such thing, or to school sources. This article gives the perception of a puff piece, especially as all of the wrong/dubious information are positive claims and make the article more incorrectly POV, and there is nothing negative in the article YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In addition, the claim that "DRMC is one of the most competitive schools in the country" goes to this which says nothing of the sort. Another one is that the source for Mohamed Mijarul Quayes being a alumni does not mention it, so it's useless. The "Best College" source says "Best College- Eden Women’s College, Residential Model College, ...", which presumably refers to this one, and to multiply winners. Imagine the offline and other-language sourcing just as bad. As pointed out, sourcing is extremely shoddy, and the article should be stripped of its GA status. Christopher Connor (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Eden thing is in Barisal, another city, so someone else won. Yes this article should not be GA. It is a joke. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 10:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:51, 7 September 2010 [10].

Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another in my series on the early history of London's transport system. An exceptional administrator, Stanley was running the Detroit tramway system at the age of 20, the New Jersey tramway system at 32 and most of London's railways, buses and trams by 38. From 1916 to 1919, he was a member of the British cabinet as President of the Board of Trade. In the 1920s he was the driving force behind the creation of London Transport and led it through its "golden era". For something to do in his spare time he was a director of the Midland Bank and ICI. DavidCane (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • No publisher for the Spanish American War Centennial site. (http://www.spanamwar.com/yosemitecrew.htm) and what makes this a reliable source?
    • It's there to link to additional information. I've found the book that the website references online, so I've linked to that, although his mini-biography there is a bit inaccurate about his knighthood, which was not a baronetcy. I've moved the Centennial website to the External links.--DavidCane (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://thepeerage.com/p7739.htm#i77386 a reliable source? (Hint... it's not.)
    • Just there to provide the date of the wedding and confirm the name of his second daughter. Barker, Who Was Who and the Times Obituary say that the marriage took place in 1904 and that he had two daughters but are not explicit on the date of the marriage and the daughters' names. I've found a Court Circular in a 1923 copy of the Times that gives both of their names, which can be used instead.--DavidCane (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise http://openplaques.org/plaques/360?
    • The English Heritage citation provides a reliable ref. This was added by another user, but as it provides a link to a photograph of the plaque and a location map, I left it in. I've moved it to external links. --DavidCane (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Overall, looks like a very finely researched article, splendid job. My one suggestion is to clarify his term of service at the head of transport things - which establishes his importance and gives the reader a little more reason to be interested in this fellow. At the moment, the lead looks like this (and I know you may still be working on it):
In 1907, his management skills led to his recruitment by the struggling UERL which he quickly helped recover from a financial crisis and then managed during the London Underground's greatest period of expansion.
He was Member of Parliament for Ashton-under-Lyne from December 1916 to January 1920 and was President of the Board of Trade between December 1916 and May 1919.
Two questions spring out at me here: first, you don't say exactly when the Underground's "greatest period" was; and second, you don't indicate that he had a long career at the helm of things nearly until his death - long after 1919, the last date mentioned in the lead. All this is brought out eventually in the course of the article, but it's nice to have a quick summary at the start.
I think you could easily improve the lead in these respects with just one more sentence or so in the lead, nothing too elaborate. Cheers! Textorus (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. When you know a subject well, it's sometimes difficult to see the obvious bits that others are likely to find important. Of course his dates need to be there. Done.--DavidCane (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know just what you mean. I just created the article Pensacola and Atlantic Railroad - which is not ever intended to be FA status. Still, if your time permits, you might give it a glance and tell me what obvious omission(s) I've committed. Grin. Textorus (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:51, 7 September 2010 [11].

The Harbingers

Nominator(s): d'oh! talk 01:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after a copyedit and a bit of a expansion since the last FAC, I feel this article meets the FA criteria. d'oh! talk 01:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Footnote 6 - "The Gatekeeper..." the "original" link doesn't work any longer, might as well remove it.
  • I have a concern about the number of sources consulted here. What I'm seeing is that there was an article in this horror fanzine Bloodsongs and that's pretty much the only major discussion of the game outside the game booklet/game website.Is there nothing else? I did a google news search and turned up nothing at all.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right BGG is not a reliable source as its a wiki too I believe, but the reviews on BGG was used to show the reception of the game by gamers. WOF was the biggest fan website for the game on its release as such the creators did a few interviews with them. Only the interviews was used in the article. For footnote 6, the dead link was removed. I do have other sources for this game, like an article in the Business Review Weekly, which back ups most the other sources, but didn't add much more other than one piece of information, which is why it was largely left out. I also just added info from an article in the The New York Times. 15 years has past since this game was released, so sources was a bit hard to come by. Thanks for the comments. d'oh! talk 15:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WOF and BGG still won't work as sources, however, as you need to show a reputation for fact checking, etc. Right now the vast majority of the article is sourced to primary sources - the game itself. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WOF and BGG has both been removed. The use of primary sources doesn't appear to be a issue in other FA articles, but if its is a issue I will try and address that issue. d'oh! talk 04:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, that particular FA was promoted 2 and a half years ago. I'll leave the last issue out for other reviewers to consider. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK in terms of prose. A few points:

  • "Players who fail to become Harbingers within ten minutes must play the main game as "Soul Rangers"—miserable scavengers who play to their own rules." It's towards the top, so I bothered to scan for reps. "who obey their own rules" might avoid play play?
  • top ten best-selling games.
  • Typo space after atmosphere) ,
  • then then. Why not remove both, since we know its a sequential narrative.
  • "until either they are released by the Gatekeeper,[18] or they collect the Keystone" ... perhaps "until either they are released by the Gatekeeper[18] or collect the Keystone"
  • six different colour Keystones: the difference in colour is the requirement? If so, "six Keystones of different colour" might be clearer.
  • Should Video board game be a "main article"? I'd have thought a link within the text, or in "See also" at the bottom.
  • Does the fair-use image pass our WP:NFCC 3 and 8?
  • Down the bottom, a link to "List of Australian inventions" (must be a small list). Isn't this of sufficient interest to tell us during the narrative? Tony (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All done. The images should pass both #3 and #8, since both the game board and video is detailed in the article, and the images aid the readers understanding of the game. Trying to combine the two images or drop one will confused the reader and mislead them, into thinking the game is only a board or video game. Thanks. d'oh! talk 11:24, 7 September 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 08:28, 7 September 2010 [12].

Santana discography

Nominator(s): Taro-Gabunia (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... Taro-Gabunia (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Discographies are, by definition, lists, so the proper venue is featured list candidacy. But don't bother just yet. The lede needs to be three-four solid paragraphs, against the single sentence it is now. The references need to be proprly formatted with title, work, author, publisher, publication date, and access date. (Many won't have all of those, but as much as possible needs to be given.) The chart positions need to be cited. There's a ten chart max for discogs, where you have 20 in one table; far too wide for usability. When it's ready for FLC, don't start the list with "This is a list..." find something more interesting for the lede sentence, see recently promoted discogs if necessary. This is a worthy article to work on, but it's not yet up to scratch, and when it is, FAC is the wrong venue anyway. I'd suggest you withdraw this candidacy. Courcelles 05:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—2c: inconsistent. Large number of works cited lack author or editor attribution, publisher, date.


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 08:20, 7 September 2010 [13].

Jack Coggins

Nominator(s): Avi (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have just completed the implementation of most of Ottava's excellent suggestions after the last, failed FAC. At this point, I think the combination of the suggestions from the last FAC together with the critical review on the articles talk page, makes this ready once again to brave the rigors of FAC. -- Avi (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the lead fulfils its required function of providing a concise overview of the whole article, it doesn't really matter how many paragraphs it's got. Does it do the job? is the question. Personally, I'm more concerned about the scrappy nature of the "Biography" section. Such sections need to maintain a continuous chronological or near-chronological narrative. In this case we more or less jump from 1933–34 to his marriage in 1948. The actual biographical information is very thin throughout the section, with significant events such as his loss of an eye reported almost laconically. The sources for information on his early life appear to be two magazine articles, and I can't help doubting the accuracy of some of the information (for example, if he left England in 1923 aged 12, he wouldn't have been old enough to have attended an English public school). There are also prose oddities, such as "Jack was born in the Sydney's barracks". The article's milestone history shows that it hasn't had a peer review since 2006, its GA status dates from 2007 (re-confirmed 2009) and it has failed two FACs. At this stage, in all honestly, it doesn't read like a finished article. Definitely should have had a new peer review before coming here, and maybe that would still be the wiser route. Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the talk page. This was subject to a detailed review by User:Ottava Rima in 2009. Whatever one may think of him, he had a fantastic eye for copyediting and prose. As for the articles, they are both well-fleshed out and perhaps the only extant biographical information outside of the obituary. Reliable sources are reliable sources. -- Avi (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying hard not to oppose this, but I find the above reply somewhat complacent. "Reliable sources are reliable sources" is a meaningless phrase; sources can be "reliable" in terms of WP definition but can still give incomplete or even inaccurate information. Sometimes it is necessary to dig deeper than the most conveniently available sources. Ottava's prose review of 2009 is very much weighted to the "Illustrator, author and artist" sections; the biography section comments are little more than nitpicks and don't address any content issues. There are significant matters to deal with in this section, including the accuracy of the information, the filling of lacunae and questions of balance—at present the loss of his eye gets the same degree of attention as the "meaningless" naming of his house. Brianboulton (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This isn't ready, as BrianBoulton is almost too kind to say above. What's clear is that the sections dealing with Coggins' later work are substantially more developed than the biography and early career material, making the whole article seem uneven. A few specific examples:
    • The lead is to short to adequately summarise the article, but what's worse is rather untidily constructed. For instance: "He is also known for his books on space travel, which were both authored and illustrated by Coggins." Using "both" here makes it look like Coggins only wrote (why "authored"?) two books.
    • "After moving to New York, Coggins enrolled at Roslyn High School in Roslyn Heights". Did he move to New York on his own? What about his parents?
    • "Coggins's interest in sailing and maritime subjects began in London when he would sail model yachts on Round Pond in Kensington Gardens." What is "would sail" meant to convey that the rather more direct "sailed" does not?
    • "During the early years of World War II, Coggins took a sampling of his war illustrations to Worthen Paxton". Why "sampling" instead of "sample"?
    • "Appearing on July 15, 1940, this was the first of many war time illustrations for LIFE. Some of Coggins's works are in the Anne S. K. Brown Military Collection." I just can't see the connection between those two sentences.
    • "Because of the quality of his maritime illustrations, Coggins was invited by publisher Doubleday to provide artwork for a children's book about the U.S. Navy; the author being Fletcher Pratt". Can you see anything wrong with the way that sentence ends? "Being Fletcher Pratt"?
    • "During the late 1940s and early 1950s Coggins' marine art was featured on covers of Yachting Magazine[28] and other publications, as well as on advertising material.[29], and his science-fiction art illustrated covers for pulp science fiction magazines". Not sure what's happening with that sentence, or the punctuation there. I can't quite discern the meaning of "science-fiction art illustrated" either.
    • "Due to reduced interest in his pre-war work, Coggins applied for a position teaching watercolor at Hunter College." Moving swiftly over the misuse of "due to", what has the reduction of interest in his pre-war work got to do with anything? What about his war work, or his post-war work?

Malleus Fatuorum 14:29, 6 September 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 02:42, 4 September 2010 [14].

University of Texas at Dallas

Nominator(s): Oldag07 (talk), Stan9999

I am nominating this for featured article because it has gone through enormous improvements over the last several months, and all concerns from past peer reviews have been met. Oldag07 (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - While it is a good start, I think this nomination is premature. The last peer reviewer promoted this article to C-class just four days ago and recommended GAN as the next step. I have to agree. I share the reviewer's concerns about the lead and overall quality of prose. But my primary concern is the very heavy reliance on school websites as sources. Surely reliable third-party sources could be found for more of this article. I would kindly suggest withdrawal, more work on referencing and prose, and a pass through GA before relisting here. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good points all around. The reliance university articles have on university websites seems to be a common concern. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that this is a very young school with only a division 3 athletics program. I would appreciate more opinions on this page before closing this nomination. Thanks Oldag07 (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • UT or University of Texas? Better to use the second, and be consistent.
  • See comments on "idiosyncratic capitalization of the definite article" below. It is very common to call this school "UTD". Less so "UT Dallas", but it is still pretty common. There is a need for consistency, but there is also a need to use different names for the same thing over and over. At a glance, "UT" is used just as much as "OSU" is used in Ohio State University and "UT" is used for the University of Texas at Dallas. Oldag07 (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Cecil and Ida Green ref (current ref 9) is actually a book, so should be formatted as such.
  • What is ALTA? UTIMCO? ASCE? CSISS? Please spell out abbreviations used in the references.
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. You also need to be consistent in this... you've got some instances of Bloomberg Business Week italicized and most not.
  • You cannot say to see another wikipedia article for references, you need them here in this article. (Current ref 35)
  • Current ref 47 (Kiplinger Top 100) is borked somehow.
  • Current ref 104 (Construction goes up) lacks a publisher
  • A concern is that large chunks of this are referenced to either sources from UT Dallas itself of to the websites of the particular organizations/companies that are being described. This is primary sourcing, not secondary sourcing, and surely there are published works on this that can be consulted. If nothing else, the various university sites aren't going to cover any controversies that might have arrisen.
  • I noted there are around 40 outside sources referenced . UTD doesn't have the extensive rich history as some of the older universities, major long standing sports programs, extensive list of notable people and has only been admitting freshmen for 20 years. Due to the short period of existence outside published works are hard to come by.Stan9999 (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
∗∗∗

A couple of notes:

  • I figured I’d link to the astronaut guy’s article in the photo caption lest readers assume he’s utterly non-notable.
  • Cleaned up some really weird table markup, but then I consider HTML Tidy more a safety-net than a hammock. Unpopular view, I know.
  • We sure don’t need a dozen section links to the same article.
  • I’m not sure whether we should respect their idiosyncratic capitalization of the definite article.
    • There was a big debate (two sections) on this page on that issue. The compromise was to respect the university's naming conventions throughout the article. However, we would keep the "The" out of the title of the wikipedia article. Still more input on that debate would be appreciated. Oldag07 (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article teems with glowing praise. Nothing about crime on campus [18] [19] [20], budget cut protests [21], etc. You know, something to re-assure readers this isn’t a paid advertisement.
    • Agree with the statement. However, note that the budget cut protests occurred at the University of Texas at Austin, quite a different place. Admittedly it did say that the costs were higher at UTD. I am not sure if the crime rate notably high on campus. None of the university FA's I have read, mention those stats. Still, I will look for more stuff to try to give the page a more NPOV. Oldag07 (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Waterview attracted a certain amount of controversy, being dubbed "the Dorm from Hell" in an April 2005 article in the Dallas Observer" was noted. I am unable to find anything else like that.Stan9999 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Student demographic table is flawed in that it uses mutually non-exclusive terms. Also, I’m sure you mean “Anglo” as a euphemism for White American of any ancestry but that’s a misnomer many would find offensive.
  • {{Reflist|group=Note}} was empty, so I removed the section containing it. You’ll want to re-insert it if you plan to use that ref group.
  • ==External links==, when present, are always the last section.

―cobaltcigs 08:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the section called “==External links==” which I moved to the end but which previously was positioned much higher. ―cobaltcigs 19:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—Poorly written.
  1. I am inclined not to go along with some pretentious insistence by a university, and even more by a "system", on the upper-case "The". This has come up before at the MoS. I see there's no "The" sticking out in "the Graduate Research Centre", etc.
  2. "With a number of interdisciplinary degree programs and over 50 research centers and institutes its curriculum is designed to allow study that crosses traditional disciplinary lines and students participate in collaborative research labs." This is a clumsy and over-long sentence. "More than" would be nice. A comma after "institutes" to avoid the jostling of two nouns in a longish sentence. The last clause doesn't flow from the previous clauses.
  3. Where there's more than one "and" in a sentence, and one is ranked more highly in a structural sense, a comma after it would be good: activity", and the
  4. "High research activity" is pretty awful out of context, anyway ... is it cloud research? Better a "high" level of research activity.
  1. Comma after "commencement" and after "alumni".
  2. Remove "located".
  3. "acres" is an epithet qualifying "industrial park", not a noun itself, and should be singular. Remove "located" again.
  4. Bad sentence: "Almost 600,000-square-foot (56,000 m2) of new facilities have been added from 2007 to the summer of 2010 with another 280,000-square-foot (26,000 m2) planned to be completed by 2012." No hyphens. Here, "feet" is the noun, so plural. "planned for completion".

On this basis, the whole article need urgent attention by unfamiliar copy-editors. Tony (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actively search for them: creates linkages with others who can be future collaborators. Try looking through the edit-summaries of the history pages of similar FAs and GAs to identify the word people. Tony (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Some quickies on the Athletics section:

  • Before ASC is used as an abbreviation, there should be a definition provided after the initial use of the full American Southwest Conference. Putting the abbreviated version in parentheses immediately afterward is the most common way of doing this.
  • "Baseball and softball also made its third consecutive appearance in the ASC post-season tournament." Doesn't work well because baseball and softball are two different sports; therefore this should be "their third consecutive appearances...".
  • Remove space before references 117 and 118.
  • "before falling in an OT loss." In this case, I think general readers will understand this better with "overtime" instead of OT.
  • Intramural sports: The first sentence of this sub-section could use a capitalization check, as there are some words that probably don't need the capital letters. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:13, 4 September 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 23:24, 3 September 2010 [22].

The Wizarding World of Harry Potter

Nominator(s): Themeparkgc  Talk  06:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria. I have worked on this article to reach it to GA status. Most recently I requested a peer review which resulted in a variety of recommendations that I have incorporated. Themeparkgc  Talk  06:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: There are grievous grammatical errors and riotous rhetorical disasters in each of the first three sentences of this article. Please archive expeditiously.—DCGeist (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal - this article is not ready for Featured status. A quick scan reveals immediate problems with structure, spelling and prose, such as:

  • "After the closure of Harry Potter Movie Magic Experience in Australia, the rumours returned." - no rumours have yet been mentioned.
  • "Appraisal by both Harry Potter fans and general guests alike of the attention to detail and the immersion that the land provides." - not a complete sentence.
  • "This popularity has lead to long queues ..." basic attention to spelling.

PL290 (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I peer-reviewed this a couple of weeks ago; my comments are found here. In my review I refer to "the major overhaul and expansion that the article requires if it is to be considered as a FA candidate". There has been some expansion, and an effort has been made to tackle the specific sample issues I raised, but the extent of the work required to bring the article to FA standard has perhaps been underestimated. The prose is ragged in places, as noted above, and needs the eyes of an uninvolved editor. The existence of so many citations in the lead indicates that this section is not doing its proper job of summarising the main article content, per WP:LEAD – the citations should be in the article itself. The article has undoubtedly improved since I last saw it, but it still needs a lot of work, including an independent copyedit. Brianboulton (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Redlink image? large, unnecessary non-free file lacking a rationale? Random bold text? This needs serious work, there's a lot wrong at the moment. A lot of the sources are very questionable. Harry Potter fansites? YouTube videos? Excessive use of primary sources? Loads of theme park websites of questionable reliability? Formatting on references is also poor... 1, 2, 30, 40 and 42 for example. This needs a lot of work before it is ready for FAC. J Milburn (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please end the pain: Several edits have been made to the lede. The first sentence is now acceptable. The rest is a minefield.

  • Second sentence: "The area is one of seven themed areas within the park." Not fluent English. Try "It is one of..."
  • Third sentence: "The concept of a Harry Potter theme park attraction first occurred within Universal in late 1990s or early 2000s." Not fluent English. People have concepts. Concepts occur to people. Concepts may be raised within organizations. Concepts do not occur within organizations.
  • Third sentence (again): "The concept of a Harry Potter theme park attraction first occurred within Universal in late 1990s or early 2000s." Basic grammatical failure. "In the late 1990s".
  • Fourth sentence: "Upon approaching the author of the books, J.K. Rowling, Universal discovered AOL Time Warner owned the rights to the franchise." Failed narrative. What "books", pray tell?
  • Fourth sentence (again): "Upon approaching the author of the books, J.K. Rowling, Universal discovered AOL Time Warner owned the rights to the franchise." False sourcing. Two inline citations follow this sentence. Neither source mentions AOL Time Warner.—DCGeist (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest withdrawing and finding more reliable sources for the information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Under-referenced and full of grammatical errors. I'd give more detail, but I feel it would be pointless; this article needs serious work. I agree the article should be withdrawn. Tom (talk) 22:48, 3 September 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/September_2010&oldid=384202784"