Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2011: Difference between revisions
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) promote 4 |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) promote 2 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==January 2011== |
==January 2011== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Salanoia durrelli/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry J. Wood/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry J. Wood/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peveril Castle/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peveril Castle/archive1}} |
Revision as of 01:35, 4 January 2011
January 2011
- 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:35, 4 January 2011 [1].
- Nominator(s): JFW | T@lk 15:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Self-nom. I am nominating this for featured article because I think that in its present form it represents the state of knowledge about this rare condition, is not too long for a rare topic, and relies exclusively on high-quality medical sources (apart from a single citation of historical interest). The condition is becoming more common in English-speaking countries and warrants a high-quality Wikipedia resource. JFW | T@lk 15:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks very good. Is anything known about heritability that could be added? --WS (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the sources don't mention studies looking into heritability. The thing is, it requires hyperthyroidism to unmask itself clinically. That makes family screening a bit academic. JFW | T@lk 22:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Images File:Illu08_thyroid.jpg lacks a valid source, File:AsiaPacific.png lacks any source Fasach Nua (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the images are PD, is a source actually necessary? JFW | T@lk 11:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do we know the image is PD if we lack a source? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely agree with FN. Without sources for these images, this should not be promoted. J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do we know the image is PD if we lack a source? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Will find sources or alternative images. JFW | T@lk 22:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good job, but it would also be useful to link the license Fasach Nua (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Have had to delete File:AsiaPacific.png as there was no source. JFW | T@lk 12:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the images are PD, is a source actually necessary? JFW | T@lk 11:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources comments: The sources all look suitably scholarly and reliable, and are properly cited. My only observation is that I am used to medical articles having a rather wider range of sources than we have here—and nearly half the citations are to a single article. Does this reflect a limitation in the availability of scholarly articles on his topic? Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a rare condition. On the talkpage you will find discussion about recent review articles identified by searching Pubmed for any review on TPP. Dpryan (talk · contribs) alerted me to the broader review about channelopathies in Neuron. Are there any sources that I have left out? JFW | T@lk 11:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose 1c. Both the article and the references list look rather short for a disease that is widely covered in the scholarly literature. The list below is just a sampling of recent reviews that haven't been used as sources. Sasata (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- :Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis: a case report and literature review. Barahona MJ, Vinagre I, Sojo L, Cubero JM, Pérez A. Clin Med Res. 2009 Sep;7(3):96-8. Review. PMID 19625499
- Hypokalemic thyrotoxic periodic paralysis with thyrotoxic psychosis and hypercapnic respiratory failure. Abbasi B, Sharif Z, Sprabery LR. Am J Med Sci. 2010 Aug;340(2):147-53. Review. PMID 20581656
- Hypokalemic periodic paralysis: a case series, review of the literature and update of management. Alkaabi JM, Mushtaq A, Al-Maskari FN, Moussa NA, Gariballa S. Eur J Emerg Med. 2010 Feb;17(1):45-7. Review. PMID 20201128
- Primary periodic paralyses. Finsterer J. Acta Neurol Scand. 2008 Mar;117(3):145-58. Review. PMID 18031562
- Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis and anesthesia report of a case and literature review. Diedrich DA, Wedel DJ. J Clin Anesth. 2006 Jun;18(4):286-92. Review. PMID 16797431
- Fontaine 2008 is a 20-page review article on periodic paralyses, and it is used only once, to cite the statement "TPP is one of a number of conditions that can cause periodic paralysis." ?
- Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis: an overview. Hsieh CH, Kuo SW, Pei D, Hung YJ, Chyi-Fan S, Wu LI, He CT, Yang TC, Lian WC, Chien-Hsing L. Ann Saudi Med. 2004 Nov-Dec;24(6):418-22. Review. PMID 15646156
- Thyrotoxic hypokalaemic paralysis in a pregnant Afro-Caribbean woman. A case report and review of the literature. Iheonunekwu NC, Ibrahim TM, Davies D, Pickering K. West Indian Med J. 2004 Jan;53(1):47-9. Review. PMID 15114895
- The pitfalls of potassium replacement in thyrotoxic periodic paralysis: a case report and review of the literature. Tassone H, Moulin A, Henderson SO. J Emerg Med. 2004 Feb;26(2):157-61. Review. PMID 14980336
- Electrocardiographic changes in thyrotoxic periodic paralysis. Boccalandro C, Lopez L, Boccalandro F, Lavis V. Am J Cardiol. 2003 Mar 15;91(6):775-7. Review. PMID 12633825
- Would you suggest that every single one of these are used? Is there a particular detail that I have omitted? I really wish you were more specific. JFW | T@lk 22:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, I'm just suggesting that in my opinion the article does not meet FAC criteria 1c ("well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature") because the level of sourcing in the article is not consistent with the availability of good sources available. Your reply to Brian Boulton above and the discussion of the talk page further confirm that the literature search was not sufficient for this to qualify as one of Wikipedia's very best medical articles. I could spend a couple of hours going through these reviews to find specific details that are missed, but that's the job of the nominator. Sasata (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute the claim that all recent reviews (particularly case reports disguised as reviews) should be cited. What you are seeing now is the product of four recent high-quality reviews, because other sources simply repeat the same observations that have already been made in the main reviews. As I stated, this is a rare condition. Bringing in more sources is not the answer. Again please feel free to challenge me with specific omissions. JFW | T@lk 23:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I did not claim that all recent reviews should be cited. However, they certainly should have been read as part of the literature review for this article. As for specifics, I'm not a medical doctor, but I'll try:
- Signs and symptoms:
- does the paralysis present asymmetrically?
- does it affect deep tendon reflexes?
- does it ever present as an upper motor neuron type weakness with respiratory, bulbar, and occular muscle paralysis, leading to ventilatory and pharyngolaryngeal junction failure?
- does it affect
mental function, cranial nerves, sensations, and bladder and bowel functions? - does resolution occur in the same or reserve order of initial involvement? Is there any ephemeral myalgia?
- have any of the following been reported to precipitate paralysis: trauma, stress, cold exposure, menses, infections; medications such as K+ wasting diuretics, insulin, amiodarone, adrenaline, physostigmine, cosyntropin, and pilocarpine?
- Mechanism
- One theory suggests that the thyrotoxic state causes a decrease in intestinal absorption of calcium and a high calcium turnover from the bones and kidney, which would explain the increased urine calcium in the face of normal serum calcium. PMID 4855209, PMID 4260573, PMID 2192868 None of these papers, nor the theory is mentioned in the article.
- Two TPP-presenting Germans had adrenal adenomas. PMID 1635436 How did these cases help explain why TPP is much less prevalent in white patients, why there is lack of correlation between the intensity of paralysis and the severity of hyperthyroidism, and why TPP is predominantly in males?
- Treatment
- potassium supplementation at a rate of greater than 40% of IV KCl at a rate of 10 mEq/hr may lead to rebound hyperkalemia; the article does not mention this nor the general recommendation that KCl replacement be slow. PMID 15666258
why do only non-selective beta blockers work in treatment? PMID 15666258, PMID 11228188
- Epidemiology:
"… with much lower rates in people of other ethnicities." what value does "much lower" represent?where's the discussion of differential diagnoses (Hyperkalemic Periodic Paralysis, HPP, Paramyotonia Congenital, Anderson-Tawil Syndrome)?Can the history of this disease, known for a century, really be covered adequately in two sentences?- you mention above "No, the sources don't mention studies looking into heritability." Please check Ryan et al (2010) PMID 20074522, which does not fully agree with your assessment. Sasata (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Signs and symptoms:
- Most of the sources you cite are fairly old (e.g. PMID 4260573 from 1972). If a recent review does not mention the findings of older sources, I am acting on the presumption that their findings have been disproven or superseded. This is all stuff that medical contributors have agreed upon in WP:MEDRS. This is a general encyclopedia article and not a summary of all theories that have once been uttered and have now been disproven.
- Actually, all the points I brought up are from a recent (2010) review, one that was not used in the article, see PMID 20581656; I assume it wasn't looked at because it's "disguised as a case study". All references to primary literature I used above were from this review. Sasata (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Signs and symptoms: some of the points can be covered from the sources that are currently in place, and I am prepared to expand on these points. Others are not even discussed, and it would be NOR to state these negatives explicitly.
- All were from the above review. Sasata (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mechanism: The calcium theory is not discussed in much detail in recent reviews and seems to have lost currency. The 7 pt case series from 1992 does not shed light on the general question of male predominance, and it is not a MEDRS that would enhance the article.
- It's mentioned in the review. Sasata (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Treatment: Will clarify why beta blockers work. Will expand on risk of hyperkalaemia, as already discussed in current sources.
- Epidemiology: The question of differential diagnosis doesn't belong in this article but in the parent article periodic paralysis. We are already discussing the fact that this diagnostic entity is diagnosed with thyroid hormone determination. The difference in rates per ethnicities is discussed one paragraph below.
- History: There are no other real historical landmarks immediately worth discussing, unless you have any suggestions from your reading. JFW | T@lk 12:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like you found some, thanks for adding. Sasata (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you noted, I disregarded PMID 20581656 as a source because it is a case report and a case-based discussion, rather than a review of TPP. You will note that many its observations (e.g. about sphincter function) are not sourced. I would therefore have great difficulty treating this as a reliable medical source. I have taken on board a number of your suggestions, but I can understand if you are not prepared to change your vote to "support". JFW | T@lk 21:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like you found some, thanks for adding. Sasata (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I did not claim that all recent reviews should be cited. However, they certainly should have been read as part of the literature review for this article. As for specifics, I'm not a medical doctor, but I'll try:
- Would you suggest that every single one of these are used? Is there a particular detail that I have omitted? I really wish you were more specific. JFW | T@lk 22:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 20:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from RexxSSupport:- Accessibilty: images have good alt text.
The only criticism is that File:Scheme sodium-potassium pump-en.svg is rendered so small that I have difficulty reading the text. You may want to consider using a larger size, as is allowed in the exception "Images containing important detail", documented at MOS:IMAGES. A size of 300+px eliminates the problem for me. In Epidemiology, the phrase "17–70-fold" reads awkwardly. Perhaps "17- to 70-fold" might work better, or even "17-fold to 70-fold"?In History, is there a source for "The link between hyperthyroidism and periodic paralysis was first reported in the early 1900s in Japanese medical journals"? I can only see the abstract for the following cites, but neither of them seem to mention previous Japanese reports. The article would benefit from some expansion to this section: do we have any sources specifying dates when particular treatments became available, for example? If possible, dates such as "mid-20th century" might benefit from changing to a decade or year, if known.- Generally, I'd agree that MEDRS has been followed in selecting the most recent reviews as sources, and the abstracts of the other suggested sources seem to imply that they are primarily case studies, rather than systematic reviews.
The only extra point of interest that I could see was in PMID 15646156 where it is stated that TPP can sometimes precede hyperthyroidism, although that is a 2004 report. Is that assertion confirmed or refuted in the current literature?--RexxS (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I will set the image size bigger to allow the ion pump process to be displayed correctly. I will rephrase the 17-70 bit to de-awkwardise.
- It is surprisingly hard to write "history" sections for some diseases without falling foul of WP:NOR, and I have generally made an effort in my article work to write useful history sections. Thankfully I found some (relatively vague) historical notes in Fontaine's and Lin's papers. Even so, the Japanese reports are not cited in Lin's paper, and Fontaine bypasses them completely. None of the reviews actually cite reliably any of the major discoveries in treatment. JFW | T@lk 20:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have make some interesting discoveries while rising to your challenge to expand the historical content. I found a 1926 report from a Japanese professor in a German journal, and in fact his report is cited in the Mayo report. I also managed to dig up the first report of the use of propranolol (1974). James Black would be pleased.
- With regards to TPP preceding "hyperthyroidism", I suspect that the authors mean "clinical hyperthyroidism". In other words, the attacks of weakness start before other symptoms develop. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, JFW, the image is very clear now, and I think you've made a useful expansion to the History section.
One minor point: I think it should be "17- to" (hyphen), rather than "17– to" (en dash), since the hyphen means "17-fold" rather than a range (which the "to" now takes the place of).You've met all my suggestions and I'm happy to support. --RexxS (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, JFW, the image is very clear now, and I think you've made a useful expansion to the History section.
- Accessibilty: images have good alt text.
- Support. Fulfills all fac criteria. Most of the references suggested above do not add any new information. There is still a little room for improvement in the symptoms section: it is quite full of terms such as 'may', 'usually', 'tend to' and 'potentially' although I wouldn't directly know how to improve the prose. --WS (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to delegate Sasata (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I have acted improperly, can I mention here that Wouterstomp had already stated that the article was in a good state before I asked for feedback here (diff)? JFW | T@lk 20:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although a request for comments rather than support would have been more appropriate, this has in no way influenced my decision whether to support the promotion of this article.--WS (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I have acted improperly, can I mention here that Wouterstomp had already stated that the article was in a good state before I asked for feedback here (diff)? JFW | T@lk 20:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to delegate Sasata (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Usually the ambivalence has been the result of the way the sources deal with it. For instance, Kung states that the deep tendon reflexes are usually depressed but in some instances may be exaggerated. I could therefore not be any more definite than the sources. I will give the section another good scrub. JFW | T@lk 20:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also a bit vague: "Once this cause is removed, the phenomenon resolves." (in the mechanism section). What do this cause and the phenomenon refer to, the more general mechanism or the specific example given? --WS (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This referred specifically to Na+/K+-ATPase activity. I have rephrased to remove ambiguity. JFW | T@lk 22:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict with nominator) Comment – There are several issues that have made me feel concerned with this FAC. First, the article seems to be being held to a higher standard than other FACs, mainly with regard to the extent of sources used and cited. Perhaps for medical articles this is important and should be encouraged. But it does seem a little unfair. If a few recent, review papers cover all the salient points, then I see no value in digging back into the literature to be seen as being "comprehensive". Second, and in no particular order, this is a FAC, and although an article can be a very valuable contribution, and is generally well-written and reliably sourced, this is not de facto grounds for promotion. (I acknowledge the contradiction with my first point.) Third, this is not a subject in which I have expertise, but it is worrying to see so few citations, (again I acknowledge the contradiction).
Third, I am concerned by the lack of input from the editors from the WP:Med.I have great respect for the nominator's long-term commitment to the project,but I think this nomination has been a little rushed. (Which I have been equally guilty of.)Last, the request for support on an editor's Talk Page was a grave mistake, which I think the nominator probably regrets now. I suggest that this nomination be withdrawn to allow time for the issues to be fully resolved.Both Brian and Sasata have raised valid concerns, which, in my very humble opinion, have been too quickly dismissed. Perhaps, the article is perfectly sourced and is complete, but now I have doubts.I know I am in danger of losing a wiki friend by writing this, but please don't shoot the messenger. Graham Colm (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I am not in the business of shooting messengers and prefer a frank opinion. If this FAC indeed fails I shall have to locate other sources (probably textbooks, as all reviews of decent quality are already cited). It is difficult to say whether that will actually enhance the article, as all recent reviews make very similar points based on very similar primary source material. JFW | T@lk 22:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Graham: There was no request for support on any editor's talk page that I can find. If there was, please supply the diff, or if not, please refactor your comment. The request alluded to by Sasata was made on the article talk page in the section immediately following Working towards FA, in a response to Wouterstomp's remark that "The current version looks good to me". Requesting that WS's opinion (made on the article talk page) be reflected in the FAC surely cannot be seen as improper?
- Note to delegate: FAC is meant to be a collaborative process, and I am concerned at the combative attitude being expressed here. It is important that articles be thoroughly reviewed, but no nominator should have to "expect the Spanish Inquisition". --RexxS (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing out my mistake for which I sincerely apologise. I have withdrawn the comment. Graham Colm (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep returning to this defence ("all reviews of decent quality are already cited"; "all recent reviews make very similar points"), but I still maintain that over-reliance on a small subset of reviews will lead to important or interesting information being left out. So, let's try again: I hope we can agree that UpToDate is a reliable resource that produces scholarly reviews worthy of the WP:MEDRS qualification. Their review on TPP was updated on May 28, 2010, with the last literature review on Sept 2010. I carefully read through their article and compared it to the Wiki article, and found several things there that could be included here. Apologies in advance if I've included something in the list here that actually is in the article, due to my misunderstanding of the medical terminology:
- Wiki article does not mention higher incidence in Polynesians
- Wiki article does not mention 95% (i.e., specific %) of TPP cases occur in men
- does not mention incidence is 8.7-13% among Asian men with thyrotoxicosis
- does not mention insulin resistance with compensatory hyperinsulinemia is suspected to have a role in the pathogenesis of TPP
- The Wiki article says: "Of people with TPP, 33% from various populations were demonstrated to have mutations in KCNJ18, the gene coding for Kir2.6" What is "various populations"? The Uptodate review elaborates more about this, noting that one study showed 26/26 of TPP patients from Singapore to have the mutation, compared with 1/114 from Hong Kong or Thailand.
- does not mention that there is a possible association of TPP patients with a single nucleotide polymorphism in intron 3 of the alpha3 subunit of the GABA receptor.
- no mention of the possible role of testosterone in the pathogenesis of TPP
- Wiki article: "The average age of onset is 20–40." For what percentage of patients? And can a 20-year range be considered an "average"?
- "Decreased muscle tone with hyporeflexia or areflexia is typical" areflexia is not mentioned in the Wiki article
- no mention of sinus arrest, second degree atrioventricular [AV] block, ventricular fibrillation as possible clinical outcomes
- regarding the potassium levels, the Wiki article says "levels below 3.0 mmol/l are typically encountered"; this is true, but the UpToDate review gives better detail, and mentions the incidence of extremely low (>1.5 mM) potassium levels
- Wiki article doesn't mention that some patients have the combination of elevated T3 and normal T4
- doesn't mention that mild hypophosphatemia and hypomagnesemia are "common laboratory findings", and these can help distinguish TPP from familial hypokalemic PP
- "a urine calcium to phosphate ratio of higher than 1.7 was a sensitive and specific test to distinguishing thyrotoxic PP from familial hypokalemic PP" not mentioned
- the brief discussion on ECG changes in TPP does not mention ST depression, sinus tachycardia, higher QRS voltage, or first degree AV block
- the article makes no specific mention of several other forms of periodic paralysis which must be ruled out in acute attacks: acute quadriparesis, such as myasthenic crisis, acute myelopathy (eg, transverse myelitis), tick paralysis, and botulism.
- other minor things I noticed: adrenaline should be wikilinked, not everyone knows it's the same as epinephrine; is heartbeat one word or two? (both versions are in the article) Sasata (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- UpToDate is very comprehensive, but it places emphasis on single case reports and small studies, something I wish to avoid. For this reason I have never regarded it as a particularly useful source when writing an encyclopedia article. We are not attempting a full academic review of the subject in this article. You are mentioning a number of things from UpToDate that are already mentioned (e.g. male predominance of 17-70 to one translates roughly to the figure you have given, the role of testosterone is mentioned in the "mechanism" section, decrease in phosphate and magnesium). I am deliberately not mentioning a differential diagnosis, because that is the role of a medical textbook. The urine Ca/PO4 ratio is not important if hyperthyroidism is easily confirmed by biochemical analysis, it makes familial hypokalaemic paralysis less likely than TPP; I think the reviews still mention it out of academic interest. T3 toxicosis is a form of hyperthyroidism, and not really something that needs elaborating here. Different sources mention different ECG abnormalities; I have mentioned the ones mentioned in one source.JFW | T@lk 07:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "UpToDate is very comprehensive, but it places emphasis on single case reports and small studies, something I wish to avoid."
- Of the 69 references cited in the review article used most frequently as a source for the Wiki article, about 75% of them are single case reports or case studies. Does this then render this review invalid as a reliable source?
- "We are not attempting a full academic review of the subject in this article."
- No, if we were, we wouldn't be limiting ourself to using reviews as sources. We are, however, attempting to "neglect no major facts or details" and we are also providing a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", according to the FA criteria.
- "You are mentioning a number of things from UpToDate that are already mentioned (e.g. male predominance of 17-70 to one translates roughly to the figure you have given"
- 17- to 70-fold is the same as 95%?
- "… the role of testosterone is mentioned in the "mechanism" section, decrease in phosphate and magnesium)."
- Ok. I was misled by the later statement in the Wiki article "It is unknown why males are predominantly affected".
- "I am deliberately not mentioning a differential diagnosis, because that is the role of a medical textbook."
- From WP:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)
- "Diagnosis: Includes characteristic biopsy findings and differential diagnosis."
- "The urine Ca/PO4 ratio is not important if hyperthyroidism is easily confirmed by biochemical analysis, it makes familial hypokalaemic paralysis less likely than TPP; I think the reviews still mention it out of academic interest."
- Yes, several reviews mention it, but the wiki article does not.
- "Different sources mention different ECG abnormalities; I have mentioned the ones mentioned in one source."
… and therefore missed abnormalities mentioned in other sources ("neglect no major facts or details")
- what about the other things I mentioned above? Sasata (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have applied editorial judgement in a number of situations, e.g. whether to delve into the urinary Ca/PO4 ratio or every single ECG abnormality described in people with TPP, which will make minimal contribution to the diagnosis or management. A large number of other facts could be added about the condition, which would turn the Wikipedia article into UpToDate. I grant you that Kung's article also uses case reports; I was referrring more generally to the approach taken by UpToDate. Again, which medical articles actually provide a differential diagnosis?
- I'm not sure whether a prolonged discussion about our views here is going to be helpful, given that we have opposing perspectives on the level of detail required. JFW | T@lk 17:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On that we agree :) I'll stop talking now. Sasata (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's any help on one of the points, 17:1 => 94.4% and 70:1 => 98.6%. So yes, the range of ratios quoted translates roughly to 95%. --RexxS (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the points raised so far, I've reviewed UpToDate in the area I'm most familiar with (Tourette's), and its summary had one issue that was lacking, and while it was written by a good TS researcher, it wasn't written by the best, so I understand the reluctance to rely on it too much. I also know that in medical articles, we have to use consensus about which reviews are best and most accurate, and sometimes that's a function of us knowing who the top people in the field are, and who is controversial or promoting their own research, so some judgment applies here. On the talk page request for support, it was on article talk as part of an FA drive, and I work with and know these guys, so it doesn't concern me too much. Still reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - beginning a look-over now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis (TPP) is the occurrence of attacks of muscle weakness in the presence of hyperthyroidism (an overactive thyroid gland)... - first sentence. This one is tricky as I wonder whether it is worth rewording as "Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis (TPP) is a condition' typified by attacks of muscle weakness in the presence of hyperthyroidism (an overactive thyroid gland)." - i.e I am musing on whether we have to note in the first sentence that it is a "syndrome" or "condition" (and we can link syndrome). I do concede it makes the first sentence more unwieldy though. Casliber (talk ·'contribs) 21:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Agree and fixed. I have used "featuring" rather than "typified by". JFW | T@lk 22:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, better way of saying it. "featuring" was a more accessible way of saying it which eluded my memory momentarily. I mused upon syndrome as it can be wikilinked whereas "condition" can't, but the former is slightly more jargony. Anyway, its not a dealbreaker. more later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree and fixed. I have used "featuring" rather than "typified by". JFW | T@lk 22:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with a minor question about whether the Sternberg source actually needs a "retrieved on" date, and whether the first sentence under ==Epidemiology== could have both of its inline citations presented (only) at the end of the sentence, rather than scattered about.
I am particularly happy to see a FAC that has so few primary sources (and most of those few historical documents rather than references that the article was built on). Half a dozen top-quality reviews are IMO better than half a hundred primary sources of the sort that infest Schizophrenia, and it represents the ideal of "based largely upon reliable secondary sources".
As for Sasata's issues above, I think the correct choices generally were made here, e.g., to omit the information on how to work up a patient presenting with these symptoms. Even FAs are supposed to be encyclopedia articles, and that means leaving out trivial details and how-to information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for pointing out the Sternberg source. I added a retrieval date reflexively as it uses the {{cite web}} citation template, but it has enough unique identifiers already. JFW | T@lk 08:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have kept reading; WhatamIdoing says what I was trying to say, and case reports disguised as reviews are avoided by most good medical editors, in favor of the broadest possible reviews, published by the highest quality journals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Nice job, JFW! Mattopaedia Say G'Day! 03:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with one tiny comment: is "(Cav1.1)" needed in the Lead? Note to delegate: I have struck some of the comments I made earlier. Graham Colm (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that this technical stuff can be offputting to the casual reader. Roger Penrose wrote (in his introduction to The Emperor's New Mind) that every mathematical formula in a book cuts its potential readership by half. I will slash the technical names from the intro and reserve them for the "genetics" paragraph. JFW | T@lk 23:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And in Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, quote "each equation... would halve the sales" (of his book) :-) Graham Colm (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that this technical stuff can be offputting to the casual reader. Roger Penrose wrote (in his introduction to The Emperor's New Mind) that every mathematical formula in a book cuts its potential readership by half. I will slash the technical names from the intro and reserve them for the "genetics" paragraph. JFW | T@lk 23:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: No problems understanding it, and I am not a physician. Good work. --Garrondo (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, and very digestible. I see a statement about prognosis in the Lead:
- Treatment of the hypokalemia, followed by correction of the hyperthyroidism, leads to complete resolution of the attacks.
which is covered under treatment. I assume that means we don't have any additional information on prognosis to warrant a "Prognosis" section, per WP:MEDMOS, since treatment commonly resolves the condition? If that's not the case, the article would need a Prognosis section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 4 January 2011 (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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:35, 4 January 2011 [2].
- Nominator(s): Ucucha 16:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This animal was described this year; it is a mongoose-like member of a family of carnivoran mammals unique to Madagascar. The article became a GA (thanks to reviewer Visionholder) and an ITN item on the Main Page before most news organizations even picked it up, and was read and commented on by many. As always, I'm looking forward to all reviews. Ucucha 16:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Madagascar is brilliant, as too is the image use in this article WP:FA Criteria 3 met in full Fasach Nua (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links, one redirect which I fixed. --PresN 22:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Have you tried contacting the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust for an image? They seem to be the source of all the images online. If not, I'd be happy to give it a bash. J Milburn (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I haven't. If you'd like to try, that'd be great. Ucucha 22:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've sent out an email- fingers crossed! J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Got one! I've added it to the article. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work! Ucucha 23:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Got one! I've added it to the article. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've sent out an email- fingers crossed! J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I haven't. If you'd like to try, that'd be great. Ucucha 22:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support by Cryptic C62. After a brief review, I am satisfied with the accessibility of the prose.
After an animal was observed in 2004, .." Somewhat vague phrasing, though I can't think of a better word for "animal". Perhaps this would be better: "First observed in nature in 2004, ..."
- It was certainly not first observed in nature in 2004; there had been rumors before that were based on people actually seeing the animal, and the locals would quite certainly have seen it from time to time. I'm open to other improved wordings, though. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If this was not the first observation, then it isn't clear what the significance of 2004 is. Perhaps the clause should just be dropped? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2004 observation led to the study that described it as a new species; this is hopefully clearer now. Ucucha 22:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It is found only in the Lac Alaotra area." Why is the name of this lake given in French rather than in English?
- Durrell et al. (2010) consistently call it "Lac Alaotra" in English. I'd also be happy with "Lake", though. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, I was just wondering if there was a reason. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In two weighed specimens, body mass was 600 g and 675 g (21 and 24 oz)." Are these the only complete specimens that have been weighed? If so, I suggest specifying that information. If not, I suggest given the average weight, not just these.
"The Lac Alaotra area is a threatened habitat, and..." What does "threatened habitat" mean in this context? If it means the area suffers from habitat destruction and introduced species, then I don't understand why the second clause starts with "and".
- Reworded. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"An individual Salanoia durrelli was observed swimming in 2004 during a survey of bamboo lemurs (Hapalemur) in the Lac Alaotra area, the largest wetlands of Madagascar, by the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust (DWCT)." Because of the length of this sentence, it is unclear if "by" means "next to" or that members of the organization observed the individual.
- Reworded; it was a DWCT expedition, and they saw the vontsira. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the head and body length is 310 mm (12.2 in)" I think this would be a tad clearer if it included "combined" before "head and body", yes?
- I'd rather not; "head and body length" is a fixed phrase. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"S. durrelli has a more robust dentition than the mostly insectivorous..." The start of this sentence is redundant with the previous section. My attempt at a rewrite: "S. durrelli may use its robust dentition to feed on prey with hard parts, such as..."
- Reworded; also kept in the point that S. concolor is insectivorous. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The animals were captured using traps baited with fish and meat." It is not clear how this is relevant to this section. I suggest either explaining the connection (if there is one) or moving this piece of information to the Taxonomy section.
- Why, it suggests that that is what they eat. Durrell et al. (2010) also mention the fact in this context. I've put in an "indeed" to make it a little clearer. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, but now it is unclear what "the animals" refers to--it could be S. durrelli or it could be the brown-tailed mongoose. Perhaps "the animals" could be replaced by "the two specimens of S. durrelli". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Used your wording. Ucucha 22:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"S. durrelli is similar in many respects to the larger mainland African marsh mongoose (Atilax paludinosa), a carnivorous wetland-dweller that also uses mats of vegetation." Uses mats of vegetation in what way?
- Added. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*"over five years before 2001." Very odd phrasing. Why not just specify the date range? Perhaps something like "from 1995 to 2000".- It's 1994–1999; had to look up the original source. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review! Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comment: Sources and citations look OK. It should be noted that Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire is a French language source. No veification due to lack of non-subscription English language sources. Brianboulton (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; added the French bit. Ucucha 02:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a read through; I enjoy your articles.
- "in 2005 by DWCT" the DWTC?
- Either sounds good to me, but I used the article on the other occasions where the Trust is mentioned, so added it here. Ucucha 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "and it has been speculated" This implies that the speculation is still going on; presumably you mean that before the discovery that there was a separate species, it was speculated?
- Yes, now 'was speculated'. Ucucha 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "S. durrelli shows" Something Sasata told me- I gather you shouldn't start a sentence with the abbreviated genus name?
- I think that only goes for paragraphs; sentences are fine. Ucucha 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "gracile" Link?
- I'd prefer not, since it's a fairly common word, but don't feel strongly about it. Ucucha 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't the details on the second specimen be in the past tense?
- Changed both into past tense; either is defensible in general for museum specimens, but because this one is presumably no longer around, past tense makes more sense, and it's better to have the two consistent. Ucucha 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's well written and researched, but I worry that not enough is known about this species yet. There is a fair amount of speculation in the article; guesses about what it eats, for instance. Futher, there is limited research on the species at this time; the descriptions come from only two specimens. There is a mention of the fact the locals knew about the species; perhaps there's a story to tell there? Precisely where is it found? Reproduction is not mentioned- presumably because nothing is known. I guess I'm not criticising the article, I'm saying that perhaps there has not yet been enough research on the topic to justify a FA. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your point—I'd hardly want for something like Veratalpa to become an FA—but I don't think this one has insufficient information. (If consensus is otherwise, I'm fine with that.) Virtually all species are poorly known (more poorly than this one, quite likely). If more is published about S. durrelli in the future, it can (and will) be incorporated into the article. I've written several FAs on animals that we know less about, not only fossils like Ambondro mahabo, but also living species like Eremoryzomys. Ucucha 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, any short article is eligible for FA so long as the most basic questions about the subject can be answered and sourced. In the case of critters, those questions might be "What does it eat?" "Where does it live?" "What does it look like?" "Is it endangered?" "When was it discovered?", all of which have been answered. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, but it could be argued that those questions perhaps aren't answered. Its diet is only speculated, its habitat and range is not fully known (being judged from only a few collections), the same is true of the appearance. I would agree with what you're saying if you were talking about GAs; while a GA has to be "broad", a FAC has to be "comprehensive". There remain questions unanswered- reproduction? Lifespan? Behaviour? Relation to humans? And there remain questions that could be expanded upon, and perhaps will be with further research. I'm not opposing as such, I guess this FAC just raises questions about the nature of FAs. This seems to me to be a fantastic GA, but perhaps not a great FA. I believe I am right in saying that the GA project started out with just this issue in mind; articles can be excellent, but on subjects on which there is not enough material to warrant a featured article. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would interpret "comprehensive" as meaning "covering everything we know", not "covering everything we could know". The article on the marsh rice rat, for example, does not say how many genes the animal has, a fairly basic biological fact which is not known of this species (as of most others), and I hope you agree that it is comprehensive. Ucucha 21:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble with that definition would be that there are subjects on which very little is known- some historical figures, mythological figures, distant stars, obscure species (especially those which are extinct- you know more about that than me!) and so on. I expect we would not be promoting 2,500 byte articles on those subjects to FA status. The line needs be drawn somewhere. J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Miniopterus zapfei? The line must needs be drawn somewhere, I agree, but I think we've recently promoted on subjects that we know about as little about, or perhaps less: Miniopterus aelleni, for example, and Eremoryzomys (which I mentioned already), Euryoryzomys emmonsae, Miss Meyers, Cryptoprocta spelea. Ucucha 23:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble with that definition would be that there are subjects on which very little is known- some historical figures, mythological figures, distant stars, obscure species (especially those which are extinct- you know more about that than me!) and so on. I expect we would not be promoting 2,500 byte articles on those subjects to FA status. The line needs be drawn somewhere. J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would interpret "comprehensive" as meaning "covering everything we know", not "covering everything we could know". The article on the marsh rice rat, for example, does not say how many genes the animal has, a fairly basic biological fact which is not known of this species (as of most others), and I hope you agree that it is comprehensive. Ucucha 21:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, but it could be argued that those questions perhaps aren't answered. Its diet is only speculated, its habitat and range is not fully known (being judged from only a few collections), the same is true of the appearance. I would agree with what you're saying if you were talking about GAs; while a GA has to be "broad", a FAC has to be "comprehensive". There remain questions unanswered- reproduction? Lifespan? Behaviour? Relation to humans? And there remain questions that could be expanded upon, and perhaps will be with further research. I'm not opposing as such, I guess this FAC just raises questions about the nature of FAs. This seems to me to be a fantastic GA, but perhaps not a great FA. I believe I am right in saying that the GA project started out with just this issue in mind; articles can be excellent, but on subjects on which there is not enough material to warrant a featured article. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, any short article is eligible for FA so long as the most basic questions about the subject can be answered and sourced. In the case of critters, those questions might be "What does it eat?" "Where does it live?" "What does it look like?" "Is it endangered?" "When was it discovered?", all of which have been answered. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- <-- Interesting discussion. I think if we go strictly on the FAC criteria, Ucucha's short articles, sometimes based largely on a single major publication, meet all the criteria (and I have said this several times in my previous supports). But theoretically, this opens the door to a flood of very short FAC candidates on subjects that are inherently notable (like species) but do not have a lot written about them. I think if we consider the examples of short FACs that Ucucha has given, the FAC-reviewing community has generally approved of the idea that short articles can be eligible for FA status (and I recall talk page discussions about this as well). But there does need to be a line drawn somewhere, right? Perhaps broader talk page discussion is warranted (so as to not overwhelm this FAC)? Sasata (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A sound plan. I've gone ahead and summarized the discussion here. I attempted to be as neutral as possible; feel free to tweak my wording as you see fit. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've joined the discussion there. I do not oppose this article, and I have no objection to this vaguely off-topic discussion being collapsed. J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Extensive discussion at WT:FAC has yielded no consensus, or perhaps better stated, no reason not to allow short FAs. If we can have short hurricane and road articles, we can have short bio articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've joined the discussion there. I do not oppose this article, and I have no objection to this vaguely off-topic discussion being collapsed. J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A sound plan. I've gone ahead and summarized the discussion here. I attempted to be as neutral as possible; feel free to tweak my wording as you see fit. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and nitpicks No real problems, but two niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Ucucha 08:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- gracile — an uncommon word, needs replacing or a wiktionary link
- You're the second one saying this, so I've added a wikt link. Ucucha 08:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The grebe ref (17 at present) doesn't follow punctuation contra MoS. I'd add a comma or move the ref to the end of the sentence
- The requirement is only that refs should not be placed before punctuation, not that they should necessarily come after a piece of punctuation. See WP:REFPUNC. Ucucha 08:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've had a think about the above discussion and the discussion on the talk page, and I am now happy to support this article. J Milburn (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Prose is engaging, and very "clean". Meets FA criteria. I do not have access to the 2010 Durbin et al. paper, so was not able to compare the text to the main source. I am reduced to the most minor of nitpicks: Sasata (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! Ucucha 13:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "reddish buff" (2x), and later "reddish brown" seem like they need hyphens
- Sure.
- "The animal was captured, photographed, and then released, but examination of the photograph showed ..." photographs, as I assume they took more than one?
- No, they also use the singular in the source: "Comparison of the photograph with skins of all the previously known Madagascan carnivorans..." Ucucha 13:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "are broad and short, the region of the palate is broad." needs "and" after comma?
- Yes.
- source Mutschler et al. 2001 should indicate that it's issue 2
- Added.
- 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:44, 4 January 2011 [3].
- Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Henry J. Wood (he always used the middle initial) was a major figure in British musical life in the first half of the last century, and his influence continues in London's annual series of The Proms which he conducted for nearly fifty years. He introduced modern classical music to Britain on a scale unparalleled before or since. This article has received a thorough peer review – my warmest thanks to all the contributors – and I believe it now meets all the FA criteria. Tim riley (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments: The sourcing and citations are exemplary. I could only find one nitpick: Ref 119 requires "pp." not "p." - a grave error. Spotchecks for verification were of necessity limited, but I did what I was able and found no problems. More general review comment follows. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I gave this a lengthy peer review and raised numerous points there, all of which were answered or adopted. I have no further issues to raise; the article is excellent in all respects. My one observation is a mild concern about the bizarre figures which Measuringworth.com. continues to serve up. This is not a matter for this FAC, though. I am pleased to give my support and to express pleasure in the way that Tim's series on major British musical figures is developing. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much for these very kind words! Your support is greatly valued. Tim riley (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 06:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Disclaimer: I have proofread this article twice over the past few months and believe that the text, references and images comply with the FA guidelines. This is a very comprehensive and readable article about an important conductor and innovator in orchestral conducting, and a worthy addition to our growing list of classical music FAs. The piece is well illustrated, well written and well-structured. Tim riley's careful research and extensive knowledge of British music, musicians and recordings is evident. I heartily support this nomination. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Greatly appreciated - thank you! Tim riley (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images Two thirds of these images originate in the UK, yet they are all tagged with US copyright tags, please tag the images with their copyright status in their country of origin Fasach Nua (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Query - Fasach Nua's image concern is several days old—Tim? --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So sorry. I was waiting to see if anyone agreed with that comment. I thought I had selected the recommended tag. Happy for any guidance anyone can give on this. Tim riley (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added UK copyright tags Jack1956 (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So sorry. I was waiting to see if anyone agreed with that comment. I thought I had selected the recommended tag. Happy for any guidance anyone can give on this. Tim riley (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - article is well-written, well-researched and fully sourced and is a credit to Wikipedia. It clearly meets all the criteria for FA status. Jack1956 (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Warmest thanks to Jack1956 both for the support and the very kind help with the copyright tagging. Tim riley (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I made some observations at the peer review all of which were dealt with to my satisfaction, and on reading through this article again I find that it has improved even since then. Meets all of the FA criteria in trumps. Malleus Fatuorum 17:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - and PR - most gratefully acknowledged. Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review Despite Fasach Nua's assertion, the source country copyright status is irrelevant for images hosted by enwiki, as long as they were published pre-1923 and are marked properly with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} (the image sourcing is very well done). The response by another user to tag with {{PD-UK}} is imo mostly correct, though not finally cleared up to me yet in its rationale in two cases. This has no bearing on the correct licensing for enwiki, however, and is only relevant for the Commons. All images are fine. Hekerui (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks to Hekerui for this; it really is invaluable to have this expert input on images. Tim riley (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Extremely comprehensive and very well written. Just one comment:
- I'm not very happy with the article title. OK, apparently he always used the "J.", but everybody who knows about him thinks of him as just Henry Wood. The Proms article refers to him almost throughout as Henry Wood, except for one link to the redirect Henry Joseph Wood. I'd much prefer Henry Wood (conductor) as a title, in the same vein as John Adams (composer), which replaced the unintuitive John Coolidge Adams. I see that there was a short discussion on the Talk page which resulted in a move to the current title, but not many editors were involved. --GuillaumeTell 22:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to GuillaumeTell for the support. I am wholly biddable about the title (and indeed rather inclined to Guillaume's view) and will happily go along with any consensus on the matter. Tim riley (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support such a move if Tim riley wishes to make it, although it is not related to whether this article is promoted to FA-class. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is my view also, but I would wait until this FAC is resolved before making the change. Brianboulton (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support such a move if Tim riley wishes to make it, although it is not related to whether this article is promoted to FA-class. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to GuillaumeTell for the support. I am wholly biddable about the title (and indeed rather inclined to Guillaume's view) and will happily go along with any consensus on the matter. Tim riley (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning towards support. Just a few issues:
Lede:
- "Born in modest circumstances, to parents who encouraged his musical talent, Wood started his career as an organist." Possibly lose the first comma.
- Done
- "After similar work for Richard D'Oyly Carte " He was Carte's accompanist? I think a little rephrasing is in order here.
- Done
- " The high point of his operatic career was conducting the British premiere of Tchaikovsky's Eugene Onegin in 1892." Is this not a matter of opinion? And I don't see where it is supported in the body.
- Redrawn – it was, in truth the only interesting thing about Wood's operatic conducting career.
Biography: Early:
- "half-a-crown" Even with the note, I would express this as "a [[half crown (British coin)}|half crown]]"
- Done.
- " to give recitals there" Where? I gather it was held in a specific building, it might be wise to name it.
- Done – sort of: it was a temporary exhibition building with no name other than that
- " Ebenezer Prout" I would very briefly describe him inline. Say "composer Ebenezer Prout", although it seems he did other things too.
- Musicologist is his greatest claim to fame. I've used that. (Actually, his greatest claim is being commemorated in the words long ago fitted to Bach's fugue in G minor BWV 542 - "Old Ebenezer Prout's a very silly man; he plays Bach's fugues as quickly as he can", but I don't think that is quite appropriate for the article.)
Opera:
- "later insisted on programming it" It might be wise to mention that what is being talked about is Sir Arthur's "serious" music, that is, without Gilbert.
- Done
- "ad hoc". I'm uncertain if this really needs to be capitalized, it is a bit jarring as is.
- Done. This is borderline naturalised, I always think.
- "but such conducting jobs were far removed from the revered status given to British conductor-composers such as Sullivan, Charles Villiers Stanford and Alexander Mackenzie, or the rising generation of German star conductors led by Hans Richter and Arthur Nikisch" Rephrasing needed here, I think as you are comparing jobs to people.
- Redrawn
Early years of the Proms
- " where he became acquainted with". Where he met.
- Done
- "newly built" Should there be a hyphen there?
- Possibly. I notice that hyphenating such compound attributive adjectives is less common in UK than in U.S. prose. Done, anyway.
- I would avoid using the term "promenade concerts" in consecutive sentences. Perhaps "such concerts" for the second use?
- Done
- " the miscellaneous light music customarily offered." Well, that phrase is worth half a guinea! Why not just say "the usual light music"?
- Not absolutely persuaded, but done.
- "the promenade" As this word is being used alone for the first time, i would say a link or explanation is called for.
- Yes - done
- "Wagner opera" And yet the first work was the overture from Rienzi written by ... written by ... well, maybe a little rephrasing's in order, though this is a tough one.
- Redrawn – "further" rather than "extensive" Wagner excerpts makes the point, I think
- " a layout that has become common" Perhaps insert "since" or "now" before "become".
- Done.
- "affinity with Russian composers." This may be a Britlish usage I'm not familiar with, but I had to think about this to ensure that I understood that it meant that he favoured presenting their works. It might be good to rephrase it.
- Interesting. I think you must be right, as none of the British reviewers have commented on it. Redrawn anyway.
Early twentieth century
- "their project of improving the public's taste" Hmm. Maybe a bit of highbrow POV there?
- Except that Newman has been quoted earlier in the article to the effect that this was his plan.
- "In the early years" Of the Proms?
- Yes – done.
- "Forty players resigned en bloc and formed their own orchestra: the London Symphony Orchestra. Wood bore no grudge and attended their first concert, although it was 12 years before he agreed to conduct the orchestra." Purely editorial preference, but this could do just fine in the previous paragraph.
- Done.
- " and it became a fixture at the lively concert celebrating the end of each season, the "Last Night of the Proms"." Hm, I would reverse this, say: "and it became a fixture at "The Last Night of the Proms", the livly concert celebrating ..."
- Done (and now I look at it "celebrating" is hardly the word – I've changed to "marking".)
- "In 1906," I might lead off this paragraph with something that tells the reader it will be about his wife, just so the reader doesn't think you are going out of chronological order.
- Good – done.
- "his skill in that art was greatly missed." By whom?
- Done
- "Throughout this period" I might say "Throughout the pre-war years"
- Done
- "Wood was leading a change in the habits of concertgoers." Well, I don't know if I would say "leading" because he wasn't a concertgoer in the ordinary sense. Perhaps "advocating"? I'll give it some thought.
- Redrawn
- " in the years around 1911" delete, especially if you adopt my pre-war suggestion.
- Done
- "The balance of his programming" Doesn't look balanced to me, looks like Bayreuth West. Is this another Britishism?
- I laughed aloud at this. Yes – in UK usage "balance" in this sense does not imply equality, but I've redrawn.
- "Chappell's were also less keen". I would not start consecutive sentences with "Chappell's". The word "keen" may be slightly too informal in tone.
- Both done
- "Wood was invited back the following year." Did he go?
- He did; I've redrawn
BBC
- "In his memoirs, Wood mentioned neither his second marriage nor his subsequent relationship." You'll need a cite, you know.
- Done.
- "Boult, who was" Sentence needs dividing.
- Redrawn. It was a horrible sentence, now I revisit it. Very glad you mentioned it.
Honours
- ". His library of 2,800 orchestral scores" Double use of word "library".
- Malleus Fatuorum has beaten me to it and kindly changed the first "library" to "collection"
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of excellent stuff in these points. I'll attend to them over the next day or two and report back. Meanwhile, thank you. Tim riley (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Later - I have incorporated all your suggestions with the exception of the first one under "Early twentieth century", above, for the reason I have given. I am indebted for some really good points, which have improved the article. Tim riley (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I removed the hyphen in "newly-built" for two reasons. First, adverbs clearly modify their verb, so there is no need of a hyphen to avoid ambiguity. Secondly it was inconsistent with the "newly rebuilt" earlier in the article. Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 2 January 2011 (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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:44, 4 January 2011 [4].
- Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peveril Castle isn't particularly well known, but standing over the Hope Valley it's an impressive site. It's just a little castle, and most of the history revolves around ownership, passing in and out of royal control. This article covers the history of Peveril, from its construction in the wake of the Norman Conquest to its decline from the 14th century onwards, to it featuring in Sir Walter Scott's novel Peveril of the Peak. There's not an awful lot on the architecture because not a lot remains of the castle; the keep is the best surviving part and even that is quite damaged. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the trouble to review the article. Nev1 (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Commenting on categories 1b, 1c, 1d.
- It covers the topic well. I'd be quite keen for it to make explicit reference between the castle and the Forest of High Peak though; the article mentions the administrative role of the castle and the local lead mining, but Creighton's work on the castle landscapes brings out a bit more of the explicit detail in a useful way (Peveril has some similarities to St Briavels Castle in this respect).
- Really minor point: " Its design was simple, 7 m (23 ft) with a gatepassage 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) wide." Unclear if the 7m was tall or wide.
Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've not gone into much detail, but I've added a note about the link between the forest and the castle. Do you think more is required? I've also tweaked the bit about the gatehouse. [5] Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me. It gives the nod towards the whole regional landscapes school of analysis, and draws out the link. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments:
- Ref 20a: Source says: "The castle forms the backdrop to Sir Walter Scott's novel 'Peveril of the Peak'." Your text: "Sir Walter Scott's 1823 novel Peveril of the Peak sparked renewed interest in Peveril Castle." Not quite the same thing.
- Ref 20b: I can't find, in this source, where the castle'd Grade I listing is confirmed.
- Ref 21: The source described what a scheduled monument is, but does not confirm your statement that Peveril Castle is one.
- Ref 22: The source is a general information site that has no specific mention of Peveril Castle
- Ref 23: The source refers to Bodiam Castle; what is its relevance to this article?
It is a little disconcerting to find problems with each of the article's online sources. I am not able to extend verification to the book sources as I don't have these. The sources all look reliable, and the citations are all properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I used the Bodiam Castle article as a model for describing the site as a Scheduled Monument and a listed building and went a bit overboard so that's why source 23 didn't make any sense. What is now source 23 is used to explain the significance of Grade I listed buildings, so where it now says "It is also a Grade I listed building,[22] and recognised as an internationally important structure.[23]" source 22 confirms the castle is listed, source 23 demonstrates that Grade I listed buildings, and therefore including Peveril Castle, are considered of international importance. I think when I added the pastscape source years ago it mentioned the castle's listed status and has since changed, but a new source stating the same has now been found [6]. Nev1 (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The bit about Scott's book is now closer to the source. Nev1 (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirect, which I've fixed. --PresN 05:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a few tweaks: A good piece of work. I'm no expert on castles, but it seems as comprehensive as possible. It is easy to understand and well written. I have been unable to check most of the sources. A few comments:
- "It was first recorded in the Domesday Survey of 1086, and was built sometime between then and the Norman Conquest in 1066." The order seems a little odd as this effectively says "between 1086 and 1066". Would it be better to have "It was built sometime between the Norman Conquest in 1066 and its first recorded mention in 1086, in the Domesday Survey."
- Link "lordship"?
- "...to a force led by 20 knights shared with the castles of Bolsover and Nottingham": A little vague: were there three knights prior to this (this is covered in the main text), or just three men? And how many others were there apart from the knights, as I'd imagine it was not easy to share 20 knights like this.
- "There is a story that Peveril was William's illegitimate son but is unsubstantiated.": Something missing here. "...it is unsubstantiated"?
- "Water storage would have been a concern form the garrison of the castle,": Is from the correct word, or should it be for?
- "It has not been excavated and so the exact form the enclosure took, and whether it was an elaborate outer bailey for defence or was used for storage or stabling is uncertain." A little clumsy, too many "and"s and "or"s to flow.
- "Finally, the keep occupies the southern corner of Peveril Castle." Is finally necessary?
- Is it worth adding a little about how the castle featured in Scott's novel?
- Is there anything that could be said about the architectural style of the castle? And maybe a few more comparisons to contemporary castles? However, I understand that this may be impossible. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point about the foundation date, so I've swapped the sentence round.
- The closest I could get to a link for lordship was manorialism.
- I've clarified in the lead who the three men were, ie: two watchmen and a porter. The thing about 20 knights is tricky. Garrisons were often provided by castle-guards, relying on feudal ties. While the king had 20 knights in the area in his service and had to pay them, the knights would have had their own soldiers and retinue, swelling the fighting force. However, these records were not of royal concern and unfortunately do not survive. It's an annoying situation.
- Sorry about the missing word, I thought it worked without "it". Now sorted. Nev1 (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was meant to be for rather than form.
- I've had a go at splitting the sentence. What do you think?
- "Finally" was there in an attempt to round things off. I think readers are more interested in the history of castles rather than the layout and architecture, especially as not much survives of Peveril. As a result, the usual approach I take is to put the history section first and architecture last (when the layout or architecture is essential to the understanding of a site's history, as at the Tower of London, then it comes first). The problem is the natural point at which to wrap up the article is the end of this history section and the architecture just seems to leave things hanging slightly. I thought "finally" might help ease the end of the article, but it's not major.
- The sources were milked as much as possible as far as Scott's novel is concerned, and to be honest I had to tone things down a little. I've been able to add a little more, but it seems that the castle wasn't really significant. I was surprised that the English Heritage guidebook didn't mention Scott's novel.
- Again the problem with Peveril's architecture is that so little survives. There's only the keep, which is unusually small, and the curtain walls. The rest of the buildings survive as foundations. Nev1 (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem on architecture, I thought there would be little to say (I've seen the castle!).
- If you wish to keep the "finally", that's fine. It wasn't a big issue.
- Everything else fine. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is a well written, nicely illustrated and comprehensive article. My only suggestion is that the castle's coordinates should be added using template:coord so it can be easily located using Google maps and equivalent (the use of a 'grid reference' alone will be unfamiliar to many readers). Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sceptical if most readers actually realise you can access Google maps and so on by clicking on the co-ordinates, but they are now included at the top of the article. Nev1 (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, there's an issue with File:007-Peak-Castle,Derbyshire-q75-404x500.jpg. It's listed as PD in the US, but there's no evidence it is PD in the UK, the source country, which it would need to be to be hosted on Commons. Also, ideally, the provenance of the map belongs in the caption on the article. File:Model reconstruction of Peveril Castle.jpg also needs clarification of the copyright of the pictured reconstruction; it's probably copyrighted, but if on display in a museum, it could be tagged with {{FoP-UK}}. The other images are fine. J Milburn (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The model is on display in a museum, so I've tagged it as freedom of panorama. The plan was published in 1909 but the author, John Alfred Gotch, died in 1942 so I don't think his work is free in the UK as the UK has a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years. Is that correct? On that assumption, I've removed the image. Nev1 (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please ping my talk when this is settled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That works, but an easier solution would be to upload it locally- here, the image needs only to be free in the US, so its copyright status in the UK is not important. You could upload it here with the same information as on Commons and tag it with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}; either way, I'm gonna nominate it for deletion at Commons. J Milburn (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Image restored and moved, image page updated, image readded to the article, caption expanded to include the date of the map. I'm now happy with the copyright status of the images in the article. J Milburn (talk) 00:37, 27 December 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:44, 4 January 2011 [7].
- Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The inventor of the googly, Bernard Bosanquet was a fairly mediocre cricketer who just happened to discover a completely revolutionary style of bowling. Although he went to Eton, he was not a typical amateur cricketer and while trying to get an advantage in a table top ball game, discovered a way to throw a ball so that it spun in the opposite direction to normal without looking different. He began using it in cricket and was transformed from a very average batsman who bowled a bit into an international, match-winning all-rounder. He won two matches with his bowling before he lost his ability to bowl. Even at his best, he was always erratic and was in effect a very bad "good bowler" whose best delivery was unplayable to batsmen at the time. This article is a GA and has been peer reviewed by Brianboulton. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Images all free, properly licensed and sourced, I would suggest File:Pelham_Warner_Vanity_Fair_3_September_1903.jpg should look into the text per WP:MOSIMAGES, regardless if you follow this suggestion of not WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, and done anyway. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments
- A note about ISBNs: these should be given for all or none applicable books, rather than some & not others. Thus ref 58: the Wisden Anthology should have an ISBN (and an editor, Benny Green). And, on the same basis, ISBNs should be given for individual Wisden almanacks, if they are post-1970.
- Done, I think, including editor. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have carried out several spotchecks for verification and found no issues here.
- The sources are reliable and of appropriate quality. However I would like to have seen wider use made of book sources; there is rather a lot of dependence on Warner's 1903–04 tour account. Bosanquet is discussed in many cricket histories (including by modern writers), especially those dealing with the "Golden Age".
- All the book sources I have seen do not give much detail about him and are fairly generic and based on what is already in the article. I will see what else is available but I'm not too confident! --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at David Frith's The Golden Age of Cricket, or one or other of the various Middlesex CCC histories (David Lemmon the most recent, but also from Anton Rippon and E M Wellings)? Perhaps the "character" writers (Cardus, Arlott, Robertson-Glasgow) may have had something interesting to say? Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing in Cardus or Crusoe. I've put in a request at WP:Cric for anyone who might have access to anything. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some info from Frith's book added, but not too enlightening. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing in Cardus or Crusoe. I've put in a request at WP:Cric for anyone who might have access to anything. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at David Frith's The Golden Age of Cricket, or one or other of the various Middlesex CCC histories (David Lemmon the most recent, but also from Anton Rippon and E M Wellings)? Perhaps the "character" writers (Cardus, Arlott, Robertson-Glasgow) may have had something interesting to say? Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All the book sources I have seen do not give much detail about him and are fairly generic and based on what is already in the article. I will see what else is available but I'm not too confident! --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I peer-reviewed this, found it interesting and informative, and will add a more general review a little later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -
The prose feel quite underwhelming, with many sentences not explaining the information well. Additional issues exist. Here are a few to sample just from the lead.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)I am comfortable supporting this article as my issues were fixed.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from --CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC) |content=[reply]
- and achieved a regular place in the county side -> what does this mean?
- It means that he played regularly in the county team. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- method, method
- Thanks, done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- method of bowling the ball later christened the "googly" which he steadily practised during his time at Oxford -> what? perhaps you are missing proper punctuation
- Not too sure what you mean here. What punctuation is missing? --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bosanquet developed a method of bowling the ball later christened the "googly" which he steadily practised during his time at Oxford -> there needs to be certain stops in the sentence, it needs commas.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite sure I agree, but added commas. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- but it was not until 1903 his new method -> that
- Not necessary. "That" can be omitted quite a lot of the time and the sentence flows better. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- was selected in 1903 for the fully representative -> poorly written
- Could you please clarify what is poorly written? --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- for the fully representative Marylebone Cricket Club (M.C.C.) tour of Australia -> doesn't make sense. Perhaps you mean "the sole representative"?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In cricket at that time, there were several types of representative cricket: some involved fairly poor players and so was not "fully representative", i.e. the best players had not all been chosen. So a fully representative side is one containing the best available players. It is fairly common cricket terminology, but if it is a problem I can either switch to "representative" or add a note (although I'd prefer not to). To be honest, my prefered option is to leave it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- wickets -> whats a wicket?
- Linked. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He died in 1936 -> if your going to tell us the year he died, you should detail his age as well.
- Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bosanquet developed a method of bowling"—I prefer this to technique. Aaroncrick TALK 09:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed synonymns around to return to "method of bowling". --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter, hopefully the above oppose is in good faith and not in retaliation to Sarastro's opposition to your article, All I Want for Christmas Is You. Aaroncrick TALK 09:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is in the utmost good faith. I would not act childish and simply retaliate with an oppose. I see various prose issues that I readily pointed out from the lead alone.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I believe this oppose is in retaliation for my oppose here, based mainly on the similarity of comments here to those in the other FAC and also on these [8] [9] comments. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If your going to attempt at accusing me revenge, them I will most certainly maintain my oppose. Your logic is flawed as my 2 comments have absolutely nothing to do with you or your opposition. As I recall, the first link you posted is me ranting at how Sandy is unfair etc. Next, I discuss someone opposing for the use of her official website. As I recall here, that wasn't you, it was Guerillero. The second link is me discussing opposes about, yes the nature of your oppose. As you can see by the post, I was very calm and understood the nature of your oppose, except the written sources part. If you can't accept the fact that your nomination is flawed an not perfect, and keep trying to make up excuses for your lack of understanding, then you are quite frankly, missing the point.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]
- Support and some slight comments, another well written cricket article by Sarastro.
- "They improved his play to the point where he played for the cricket first eleven in 1896". How did they improve his play (if you can't find out why I understand), and what does the first eleven means?
- No idea what they did (surprise, surprise) but added a note explaining eleven. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bosanquet scored 120" 120 what? I'll presume runs, but it's confusing for the non-cricket reader.
- Correct and done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Despite a top-score of 17" That's poor right?
- Yes, tweaked to "top-score of just 17". --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "did not distinguish himself" Any stats given as why?
- Didn't really want too many more stats, as per peer review, but added a little which hopefully doesn't drag too much. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "However, both umpires were unsighted" Does that mean they couldn't see the play?
- Yes, I think it's a fairly common expression. I think adding any more here would drag the prose down a little. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only covered about half the article so far, but it looks good. Thanks Secret account 17:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments, much appreciated. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No opinion yet. I'm doing a thorough copyedit. Likely to finish it tomorrow. I've reworked the Lead (sorry about that), making tweaks to body copy and am leaving some questions at the article talk, to keep this page tidy. --Dweller (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replied there, and will continue to do so. Just to note I've tweaked one or two of your changes if that's OK. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. cricinfo.com is now espncricinfo.com, but I fixed that. --PresN 05:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Sorry for the wait, but I wanted to see a lull in the copy-editing before dropping on by.
In the lead, a comma would be useful after Reginald Bosanquet. There's a similar issue in the Personal life section, in regards to his first name.Early life: "and became a partner in a hide, leather, and fur brokers in London". Should "broker" be singular? If there was more than one broker, the second "a" shouldn't be here."Developing the googly: If I remember correctly, starting a sentence with "But" is not great form. Would "However" get the same idea across?1904 season: "in a match in which Middlesex held the advangtage." Typo at the end.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- All done. I'm fairly sure it should be brokers here (i.e. more than one broker at the firm), so I altered it to a "firm of brokers". Altered "but" to "instead", which I hope works. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Another nice article from the cricket people. I didn't find too much to be concerned about prose-wise while reading it, and the few issues I saw were quickly taken care of. The sourcing looks sound as well. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. I'm fairly sure it should be brokers here (i.e. more than one broker at the firm), so I altered it to a "firm of brokers". Altered "but" to "instead", which I hope works. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to supportSupport: I, too, have been waiting for the copyedits to abate before adding a few relatively minor points:-
- You could mention, per this, that Bosanquet's father B.T. Bosanquet was High Sherrif of the County of Middlesx in 1897
- Done: it was also covered by ODNB which I used to ref. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What was Bosanquet's relationship to the philosopher namesake?
- Almost impossible to find out. Looking at the ODNB it appears they would be some sort of cousin but it's quite vague and there are lots of Bosanquets to plough through. My best effort is second cousin once removed, but I would rather leave it out as I'm not sure and there is no direct ref that I can find. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a couple of mentions in the text of Bosanquet's "business interests", but no indication of the nature of these. Was he in the family hide and fur brokerage, or banking? The small value of his estate does not suggest wealth.
- Again, no ref says what he did! I suspect it was nothing grand, or the Times would have carried it, but just says "business interests". Nor does Who's Who say anything. I get the impression he was quite well to do, and maybe got by on the family's wealth and did little bits on the side. It is very hard to find the business interests of many amateur cricketers from the period, unfortunately. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain who the "Eton Ramblers" are. You could use this source
- I actually took Eton Ramblers out of this altogether as another reviewer suggested they may be too obscure. I'm inclined to agree, and they did not have much relevance for his career. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The qualifier "just" is overused - there are around a dozen instances in the article. Apart from its being repetitive, it sometimes carries POVish overtones, in the form of a personal comment on Bosanquet's performances. So my recommendation is to lose most of them.
- Removed all of these. Hopefully, the article is clear enough for a non-cricketer to know when scores are "good" or "bad" (see comment above!). --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to supporting after these are addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy with your responses and am now pleased to support. Fine article on an interesting cricketer. Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, and thank you for all your help with the article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A small point - surely his son is best described as a television "newsreader" rather than presenter. I am not sure he has any significant credits as a presenter.KD Tries Again (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
- Done, thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A small point - surely his son is best described as a television "newsreader" rather than presenter. I am not sure he has any significant credits as a presenter.KD Tries Again (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
- Thanks, and thank you for all your help with the article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left two inlines on jargon; resolve as you wish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 4 January 2011 (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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:44, 4 January 2011 [10].
This article was recently nominated for FA, but failed due to opposition to the use of the DVD cover as an infobox image (previous fair use rationale archived here). While I strongly disagree with that outcome, the image has since been removed, and since this was the only real problem voiced with the article, I've brought it back here. I have permission from the FA delegate to renominate the article so soon. As for South Park (season 13), this article has passed GA, gone through PR, and is the anchor article for a GT, and I believe it's ready for FA. — Hunter Kahn 14:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Request to reviewers: since last time there was a problem with the consensus about the fair use of File:South Park season 13.jpg, it would be really nice if all the reviewers explicitly express their opinion about the use (in hope of reaching a broad consensus). Nergaal (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The cover's back. No opinion at this time on its use. J Milburn (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The article lacks stability 1(e) [11] Fasach Nua (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated on your talk page, I've reached out to the user who readded it with the hopes of stopping the adding and readding of the image and stopping any stability issues. As you yourself know from past experience with this article, there are no stability issues with it except for about the image. Hopefully, the next few days will reveal that any potential stability problems have stopped altogether. — Hunter Kahn 18:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The image has been re-added and removed again 21st December Fasach Nua (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The image has been re-added again 28th December
- Speedy close it is impossible to review this article while the content is in a constant state of flux, this is the fifth time in twelve days this image has either been added or removed, it is impossible to have valid reviews when the current state of the article may not reflect the state of the article at the time the original review was written Fasach Nua (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I would suggest that it's perfectly simple to give those reviews, since the only thing that is in a "constant state of flux" is the image. Everything else in the article has been consistent for months and months; the only problem is, most people are focused on the image, not the content of the article, including yourself. (I mean no disrespect; I too am frustrated with that particular situation.) I have taken the advice of the FA delegate and asked multiple people to review the entire FA content of this article, rather than just the image. I'd appreciate it very much if you, Fasach, would consider doing the same. — Hunter Kahn 20:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note, Fasach Nua, your vote (as below, I use that term advisedly) will be ignored, since it's not an FA review, it's an idiosyncratic, irrelevant, and (frankly) disruptive dispute about image copyright, and is irrelevant for the purposes of this FAC. And I must say, its rather disingenuous to claim "it is impossible to review this article while the content is in a constant state of flux". The only thing in "flux" is one image, and that's pretty much your doing; everything else is completely stable. Also, you haven't attempted to "review this article", you've just voted on what you believe to be the copyright status of one image. Please strike your vote, and take your issue to the appropriate forum. Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 20:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I personally think the article fails to be comprehensive without a visual depiction of the characters involved in the show. I agree completely with the rationale provided in File:South Park season 13.jpg, and think the article can't stand on its own without it.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Although I share your opinion about the specific rationale language provided last time around, I should point out I don't think this is a valid reason to oppose. A similar oppose vote was given in the last FA nom, and it was pointed out that the absence of an image is not a valid reason to oppose, as WP:WIAFA has specifically rejected the argument that articles require images. — Hunter Kahn 16:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reiterate from last nomination Take the image to a separate process, because we won't get consensus either way here. Handle the nomination independent of the one image. The one image does not affect "stability" which applies to the fundamental stability of the article. —Noisalt (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's due to the lack of consensus on the image that I've now removed it. I considered taking it to the NFCR as I had proposed last time around, but the FA delegate suggested against it, as standards for just about everything are stricter at FAC, so getting a consensus there might not necessarily translate to here. I agreed with him, and as far as I'm concerned, the removal of the image resolves the image issue altogether. — Hunter Kahn 16:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If consensus would be reached at NFCR to include the cover, then FAC couldn't simply ignore that. FAC can't have rules which goes against the general consensus on wikipedia. P. S. Burton (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's due to the lack of consensus on the image that I've now removed it. I considered taking it to the NFCR as I had proposed last time around, but the FA delegate suggested against it, as standards for just about everything are stricter at FAC, so getting a consensus there might not necessarily translate to here. I agreed with him, and as far as I'm concerned, the removal of the image resolves the image issue altogether. — Hunter Kahn 16:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I have to say that I resent the way this nomination was handled, while I support the inclusion of the image, I believe the consensus on the previous FAR was to include the image, to use the words of co-nominator Nergaal "until now I can only see only two oppose votes based only on the image, while there is a clear majority of users supporting the use of the image" or co-nominator Hunter Kahn "Weighing all this, I truly believe there is a consensus that the fair use rationale for this image is appropriate, so I am restoring the image as suggested, and will accept whatever judgment the FA delegate decides" and now yet another user (Gyrobo) has shown support for the image. I have to say that I understand the actions of the nominators to get this article to FA status and regret it previously failed. But the image issue was not the only reason it failed, from FA delegate Laser brain "I don't feel there was consensus to promote due to unresolved opposition over fair use media and list status", I disagree with it being a list rather than an article but feel this nomination is handled inappropriate with no regard for consensus in favor of just passing FA. On that note, I still support this FAC. Xeworlebi (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like to point out the bad precedent the exclusion of this image would create. My understanding of a DVD, film or TV show is harmed without seeing the cover art. If cover art isn't acceptable in this instance (to illustrate the characters and the show being critically discussed), when is it ever acceptable fair use?
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is acceptable fair use when it meets in full the requirements of WP:NFCC, it should be noted that this in not an article about the show, it is about the 13th season of the show, if you want to read about the show there is an article dedicated to South Park which does include non-free content showing characters and drawing styles. (I wouldn't worry too much about precedent the default case is to use only free content, however we sometimes use non-free content in exceptional circumstances and this usage is considered on a case by case basis). Fasach Nua (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "however we sometimes use non-free content in exceptional circumstances" that is complete nonsense, have you ever looked at any of the other FA seasonal pages, literally any of the FA film articles, FA episode articles, etc.? If you did, (here are the media FA's are if you didn't) you would see that they pretty much all have a non-free-fair-use image, with pretty much the only exception being those were copyright has expired. And yes this is about season 13, which the DVD is also about and the creators chose that image on the DVD to identify it. If you want to see precedent, take a look at the other seasonal FA articles: Parks and Recreation (season 1), Supernatural (season 1), Supernatural (season 2) and Smallville (season 1). Xeworlebi (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like to point out the bad precedent the exclusion of this image would create. My understanding of a DVD, film or TV show is harmed without seeing the cover art. If cover art isn't acceptable in this instance (to illustrate the characters and the show being critically discussed), when is it ever acceptable fair use?
Sources comment: I gave the OK to sources on the previous nomination and I don't think anything has changed. However, it is not usual to find an article renominated here only a couple of days after its archiving. Was some special dispensation given by delegates? Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dispensation here Fasach Nua (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support both Image and nomination - I supported you a few days ago, and I still feel comfortable supporting. As for the cover, I think it definitely should be included.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right now, the consensus of the community for images like this DVD cover is documented in WP:NFCI#1. There is discussion at WT:NFC to try to see if there's a reason to change it (and that includes understanding the history of where NFCI#1 came from, and why there's been more recent at-odds issues with it due to how NFCC#8 should be taken). But an FAC discussion page is not the place to try to effect change without causing larger problems. There is no reason to exclude this image per standard consensus now, though I strongly suggest if you have an opinion either way on how NFCI#1 is taken, to take that discussion to WT:NFC. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop this, please! This discussion, much like the last one, is no longer about the quality of the article and about the conflict between those users who prefer the image and those who don't. I had thought the discussion in the previous FAC would be over once Masem, an often contributor to WP:NFCC talk page discussions, pointed out very clearly the reasons why the image should be kept and why it didn't violate NFCC #8. However, none of that matters. The inclusion or the removal of the image has little to nothing to do with the promotion of this article. I find this debate between FAC users discouraging, considering that it is highlighting the failures of the entire FAC process as it is currently. The discussions here have gotten just as bad as RFAs do. SilverserenC 18:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Thanks for edit conflicting me, Masem. :P SilverserenC 18:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I fully support this page as a Featured Article. I would prefer to have the DVD image in the article, as this would be the first FA season article that did not have an image in the infobox. Other than that, my original support for this article was because it met the criteria (whether with the image or not). It was comprehensive, it was well written, it was well sourced. It's a spitting image of what a featured ARTICLE on a TV show's season should be. It's said that there is such a huge debate about this image, and shame on those that are holding up this article's FAC with isolated debates about whether it should be here or not. Go to the NFC page and debate it there, and then make changes across season pages. Until then, you'll see that this page deserves its featured status. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved from User talk:Gyrobo#South Park (season 13)
Hi Gyrobo, it's Hunter Kahn, co-nominator of the South Park (season 13) FAC. I understand why you readded the image, but please do not do it again, as doing so will only fuel arguments at the FAC discussion that the stability of the article is a problem. The last FAC failed specifically because of the presence of that image, so it should be discussed further at the second FAC before it is simply readded. Also, I understand why you are concerned the image could get deleted if it remains off the page, but I have archived the fair use rationale on my talk page, so if there is a decision to readd it in the future, we can easily do so and use the rationale. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. I understand the frustration because I too feel the image should be used, but a lot of people have worked hard on this article, and I'd hate to see the FAC sink solely because of the image and stability problems. — Hunter Kahn 21:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the desire to have hard work validated in some way, but without that image, it would really be a Pyrrhic victory. The article would be significantly less informative, lacking the cover art that culturally identifies the show and season. There's no textual substitute for that, and if it became an FA that way, you'd probably feel that you failed to make the article as good as you possibly could. As pointed out in the FAC, blanket opposition to non-free images (in this particular case) violates WP:NFCI. The quasi-edit war over the image is a direct result of the FAC, and has no bearing on the stability of the article; the dispute is over a policy, not the content.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I'd strongly encourage your comments about the lack of an image being detrimental to reader understanding, the lack of a textual substitute, etc. etc. over to the FAC discussion. There have been many comments there about the image, but few are focusing on the original fair use rationale language, which is at the heart of what you are saying. (Also, it would probably be best not to split these discussions, as I did respond to your oppose vote over at the FAC page.) However, I can assure you that if edit wars continue over the image, editors will vote against the FAC over stability. — Hunter Kahn 01:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although I stil strongly believe the image is necessary, i weas thinking of an alternative. What about free images of the voice actors? Are they availoable? — Legolas (talk2me) 13:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The voice actors aren't a visual part of the show, and aren't promoted in any artwork for the show. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is in very strong shape overall. I read through and copyedited, encountering few major difficulties along the way. Sourcing is good and a quotation/paraphrase spot-check revealed no problems. I have only three substantive queries:
- [Lede:] Missing image.
Without the image of the DVD cover, this is not representative of our best work. It is an essential identifier and mnemonic for the article's specific subject, and its absence detracts significantly from the article's quality. The image's inclusion--and the fair use rationale that supports it--meets the spirit, the letter, and the community standards established for the execution of our NFC policy. Let's look at the three pillars of that policy:
(1) Supporting production of perpetually free content: Given its particular encyclopedic purpose, the image is not replaceable by fair content nor by any content with a reasonable likelihood of being made free. I can imagine other non-free content that might serve a comparable purpose—such as, for instance, a screenshot of a scene described by critics as the season's most important—but the fact is that for purposes of consistency and conceptual reproduction, widespread consensus has developed that a DVD cover, when available, is the most appropriate primary identifier and mnemonic for an article devoted to an individual season of a television series. Turning to our NFC guideline examples, this sort of usage is clearly covered by Acceptable use—images and is clearly not covered by Unacceptable use—images.
(2) Minimizing legal exposure: There is obviously no legal problem here. Indeed, the copyright holder would almost certainly be happy to have the image appear here, because it makes the item they derive profit from easier to identify and more memorable.
(3) Facilitating judicious use of non-free content: It is clear that in the community's wisdom this sort of usage is considered judicious, well within the parameters of our policy, and vital, even necessary, for our best work.
It is distressing to read through this FAC and the previous one and encounter specious claims of "stability" problems and "forum shopping" regarding this matter. In the last FAC, as well, the blatantly false claim was made that "no-one here is arguing that the inclusion of this image meets policy." I hope there will be no such prevarications in this FAC. In my analysis, the image does meet policy, and by a considerable margin.
- I agree with most of your points, particularly the fact that it is false to say nobody was arguing that the image inclusion met policy. I felt that it was clearly articulated in the first FAC why it met policy, and that the merit of those arguments were not disputed. However, the FA delegate made a determination in that FAC that there was not a sufficient consensus that the image met policy and/or that it warranted inclusion in the article. Given the stringency of the FAC process, I don't think there's a better authority to give a determination like that, so I don't feel comfortable restoring the image unless the FA delegate in this FAC specifically determines that there is now a consensus that the image be added. If that happens as a result of this FAC, I will more than gladly put it back. But if not, I won't. — Hunter Kahn 15:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe it is the job or the custom of the FAC delegates to specifically determine consensus pertaining to specific article elements, but rather to determine consensus about the article's overall qualifications for FA status. As a proactive FAC reviewer, I am ready to address any problem with a candidate article—especially with an article close to deserving of FA status—that I feel capable of addressing. I am capable of addressing this problem. I see no good reason not to. So I will.—DCGeist (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed the problem.—DCGeist (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe it is the job or the custom of the FAC delegates to specifically determine consensus pertaining to specific article elements, but rather to determine consensus about the article's overall qualifications for FA status. As a proactive FAC reviewer, I am ready to address any problem with a candidate article—especially with an article close to deserving of FA status—that I feel capable of addressing. I am capable of addressing this problem. I see no good reason not to. So I will.—DCGeist (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with most of your points, particularly the fact that it is false to say nobody was arguing that the image inclusion met policy. I felt that it was clearly articulated in the first FAC why it met policy, and that the merit of those arguments were not disputed. However, the FA delegate made a determination in that FAC that there was not a sufficient consensus that the image met policy and/or that it warranted inclusion in the article. Given the stringency of the FAC process, I don't think there's a better authority to give a determination like that, so I don't feel comfortable restoring the image unless the FA delegate in this FAC specifically determines that there is now a consensus that the image be added. If that happens as a result of this FAC, I will more than gladly put it back. But if not, I won't. — Hunter Kahn 15:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [Writing:] "Parker and Stone wrote [...] the thirteenth season episodes..." [my emphasis]
The section goes on to detail their collaborative writing process. Yet we see in Episodes that Parker received exclusive writing credit for every episode. I should think it would be possible to track down some commentary somewhere on why Parker received sole credit. If that proves impossible, you'll need to figure out some way of acknowledging the disagreement between your description of the writing process and the official credits.
- I have searched for an RS that discusses this for a long time, but simply cannot find one. However, practically every source you could find about the writing or conception of a South Park episode (including the ones I use in this section of the article, like this one and the DVD commentaries) clearly show that the episodes are conceived and written by both Parker and Stone. It's basically the same deal as the Coen brothers, where for many of their films only Joel got director credit and Ethan got writer credit, even though both were involved with both. They basically don't care about what the credits say. All that being said though, in lieu of an RS, I added this bit so that it doesn't go completely unaddressed. I don't feel this needs an RS since (much like the WP:TVPLOT section) the season/episodes themselves serve as a primary source and the accuracy can be verified by watching the episode in question. Let me know if you think this is a sufficient way to deal with this. — Hunter Kahn 15:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have addressed the problem.—DCGeist (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have searched for an RS that discusses this for a long time, but simply cannot find one. However, practically every source you could find about the writing or conception of a South Park episode (including the ones I use in this section of the article, like this one and the DVD commentaries) clearly show that the episodes are conceived and written by both Parker and Stone. It's basically the same deal as the Coen brothers, where for many of their films only Joel got director credit and Ethan got writer credit, even though both were involved with both. They basically don't care about what the credits say. All that being said though, in lieu of an RS, I added this bit so that it doesn't go completely unaddressed. I don't feel this needs an RS since (much like the WP:TVPLOT section) the season/episodes themselves serve as a primary source and the accuracy can be verified by watching the episode in question. Let me know if you think this is a sufficient way to deal with this. — Hunter Kahn 15:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [Writing:] "Viewers able to find and identify the alien in the episode..."
Find and identify? As in these were famous aliens who viewers were required to identify, like E.T., Chewbacca and the like? If that, or something similar, is the case, you need to describe the game in a bit more detail. If not, obviously, you can just cut "and identify".—DCGeist (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- hehe Good points. Removed "and identify". — Hunter Kahn 15:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have addressed the problem.—DCGeist (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The three problems I identified having been addressed, I look forward to supporting this article's elevation to FA status in a few days, provided no new problems are introduced and no old problems are reintroduced. In the interim, you can rest assured, if new problems erupt or old problems erupt again in the article, if I am capable of addressing them—on behalf of this fine example of Wikipedia's work—I most certainly will.—DCGeist (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have addressed the problem.—DCGeist (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- hehe Good points. Removed "and identify". — Hunter Kahn 15:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, there are a few users who are completely and absolutely against the use of the dvd cover image and have voted Oppose for that reason. This is turning out to be the same as the previous FAC and it is really sad that this article is being failed for such a ridiculous reason as a single image. SilverserenC 21:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to your last sentence, I couldn't possibly agree more. :D If you choose not to support due to my position on the image, I understand completely. But if you wouldn't mind striking your comments above when you feel they are specifically addressed, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 15:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per my previous support, and the article has improved since then. The contested image is no longer in the article, which makes moot most of the oppose statements. Jayjg (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for the people that opposed because the image isn't in the article anymore. This whole thing is so stupid. >_> SilverserenC 19:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FA articles are not required to have specific images to meet FA requirements. Any statements that oppose on that basis are also moot. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:FA Criteria mandate images "where appropriate". I can't think of a situation where an image would be more appropriate than cover art used to culturally identify a work.
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Cover art for a set of DVDs? Interesting, but hardly necessary. As has already been explained to you both here and in the previous FAC, "WP:WIAFA has specifically rejected the argument that articles require images". Morever, the work in question here is the season of television show, not a specific set of DVDs used to sell them, or the covers used for that set of DVDs. And DVD season covers are hardly iconic, as opposed to, say, those of many 1960s-80s record albums: we're not talking about Abbey Road or Horses here. Your unique views on this subject are obviously strongly felt, but, I'm sorry to say hardly enough to support taking seriously an oppose on that basis. On the contrary, it's completely inappropriate to oppose an entire FA article on a television show season based on your desire to see the non-notable cover of a specific set of DVDs that they were sold under. Jayjg (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your viewpoint is interesting, but claiming the cover art of a television season is not as notable as the cover art of record albums is quite subjective and doesn't seem to be supported by any official policies I've seen. And on the matter of opposition not being taken seriously, I think we're straying from the cause of this discussion: that an editor has made a claim, debunked by official policy, that cover art in an article that critically discusses the subject does not constitute fair use. Dismissing my objection over the article's promotion sans image tacitly accepts this flawed argument and jeopardizes other articles.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- It's rather odd that you would state that "claiming the cover art of a television season is not as notable as the cover art of record albums is quite subjective and doesn't seem to be supported by any official policies I've seen". Your entire argument here is based on a claim that "doesn't seem to be supported by any official policies I've seen", that DVD cover art is required in order to meet FA requirements for an article on TV show season. And the claim that this particular DVD cover is notable or important in the same way as iconic album covers like Abbey Road or Horses is, quite frankly, just silly; here, for example, is a multi-page study of the Abbey Road album cover, and there are dozens of books that discuss the Robert Mapplethorpe image of Patti Smith on the Horses album cover; "The picture of Smith in an androgynous outfit is widely regarded as the peak of Mapplethorpe's early career". Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Edit conflict) And on a personal level, I want to say I resent your assumption that I'm basing my opposition on a desire to see that particular image used in that particular article. I have not made a single edit to the article or participated in the related Wikiprojects. I have no emotional attachment to the article. My interest is purely in the implications this FAC has on articles with similar non-free content. Xeworlebi listed a slew of featured DVD season articles that contain box cover art and could conceivably be taken to FAR to remove them based on the outcome of this discussion. That is what I find "inappropriate".
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I haven't implied anything of the sort. On the contrary, it's quite obvious you care nothing whatsoever about this article; otherwise you wouldn't be derailing its FAC with an irrelevant fight with Fasach Nua regarding image copyright. Rather than thumbing your nose at all the hard work that has gone into this article, over some irrelevant political battle you wish to fight about images, please work it out on the relevant policy pages, and strike out your opposition to this specific FA, about which you clearly don't care at all. Jayjg (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And as Masem continues to point out (see below), DVD box art is currently acceptable under the current policy. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue here was never whether or not DVD box art is "acceptable", but rather whether or not it is required to meet FA status. And it's clearly not, neither by the FA requirements nor by consensus. Jayjg (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your viewpoint is interesting, but claiming the cover art of a television season is not as notable as the cover art of record albums is quite subjective and doesn't seem to be supported by any official policies I've seen. And on the matter of opposition not being taken seriously, I think we're straying from the cause of this discussion: that an editor has made a claim, debunked by official policy, that cover art in an article that critically discusses the subject does not constitute fair use. Dismissing my objection over the article's promotion sans image tacitly accepts this flawed argument and jeopardizes other articles.
- Cover art for a set of DVDs? Interesting, but hardly necessary. As has already been explained to you both here and in the previous FAC, "WP:WIAFA has specifically rejected the argument that articles require images". Morever, the work in question here is the season of television show, not a specific set of DVDs used to sell them, or the covers used for that set of DVDs. And DVD season covers are hardly iconic, as opposed to, say, those of many 1960s-80s record albums: we're not talking about Abbey Road or Horses here. Your unique views on this subject are obviously strongly felt, but, I'm sorry to say hardly enough to support taking seriously an oppose on that basis. On the contrary, it's completely inappropriate to oppose an entire FA article on a television show season based on your desire to see the non-notable cover of a specific set of DVDs that they were sold under. Jayjg (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:FA Criteria mandate images "where appropriate". I can't think of a situation where an image would be more appropriate than cover art used to culturally identify a work.
- FA articles are not required to have specific images to meet FA requirements. Any statements that oppose on that basis are also moot. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again, I've explained that NFCI#1 is current consensus though certainly that consensus can be challenged - at WT:NFC, not at an FA candidate; this is the wrong venue to take that stand. Change is possible, but please work it at the right places. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that's not relevant here, is it? The questions isn't whether or not the image is permitted, but rather whether or not it is required for FA status. Jayjg (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the problem I'm seeing. Every other FA requirement is moving the status of an article above and beyond what the minimum requirements are for WP - that is, we're looking for outstanding prose, broad use of appropriate sources, all T's crossed, all i's dotted, etc. Images are the exception because they start from the reverse side of the equation; as opposed to making sure it reflects our best work, image review at FAC is more commonly to exclude media content. Now, I'm all fine and dandy that FAC should evaluate the rationales for non-free images used as much as possible to assure that NFCC is met (particular NFCC#8, etc.) But we also have NFCI#1, which predates and has been used side-by-side with the NFCC to allow for cover images. I can argue with those that don't want the image here that it doesn't belong per NFCC#8, but it has been a consistent factor that cover images are acceptable per NFCI#1. Within the next few days, I wil likely start an RFC at WT:NFC to review this situation, but this article's promotion should not suffer because of it. Passing this article with the image is consistent with past FAC for TV seasons, and with NFCI#1. The RFC will show out two results, either validating the NFCI#1, or we will remove or strength NFCI#1's requirement for commentary on the cover image, meaning that every other FA article dealing with a book, album, TV show, movie, TV season, etc. where a cover image is used, will need to be reviewed. That's a daunting task but one that would be approprate if the NFCI#1 case was strengthened. But that would also come back and affect this article too, removing the cover image most likely. Either way we end up with consistency with concensus on NFC. By not having the image because some don't recognize NFCI#1's allowance, we create an inconsistency that should not be in the FAC process. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Masem, is it fair to penalize the authors of this FA because of a fight about image copyright between Fasach Nua and Gyrobo and DCGeist? It's obvious to any rational individual that an article on a TV show season does not meet or fail FA requirements based solely on whether or not an image of the DVD cover is included. Yet, for reasons I cannot fathom, these individuals are claiming just that. Solve your image and FA questions elsewhere; FAC votes (and I use that term advisedly) that an article passes/fails candidacy based solely on this criteria are irrelevant to this FAC and should be ignored. Jayjg (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The requirement for images for FAC rests solely on NFCC appropriateness - compared to all other FAC which start at the various guidelines and MOS and expect more. It is not fair to try to override NFC consensus at a single FAC nominee; again, this leads to a small niche community trying to dictate actions for the rest of the work, the problem that started the date delinking issues. --MASEM (t) 06:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Masem, is it fair to penalize the authors of this FA because of a fight about image copyright between Fasach Nua and Gyrobo and DCGeist? It's obvious to any rational individual that an article on a TV show season does not meet or fail FA requirements based solely on whether or not an image of the DVD cover is included. Yet, for reasons I cannot fathom, these individuals are claiming just that. Solve your image and FA questions elsewhere; FAC votes (and I use that term advisedly) that an article passes/fails candidacy based solely on this criteria are irrelevant to this FAC and should be ignored. Jayjg (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the problem I'm seeing. Every other FA requirement is moving the status of an article above and beyond what the minimum requirements are for WP - that is, we're looking for outstanding prose, broad use of appropriate sources, all T's crossed, all i's dotted, etc. Images are the exception because they start from the reverse side of the equation; as opposed to making sure it reflects our best work, image review at FAC is more commonly to exclude media content. Now, I'm all fine and dandy that FAC should evaluate the rationales for non-free images used as much as possible to assure that NFCC is met (particular NFCC#8, etc.) But we also have NFCI#1, which predates and has been used side-by-side with the NFCC to allow for cover images. I can argue with those that don't want the image here that it doesn't belong per NFCC#8, but it has been a consistent factor that cover images are acceptable per NFCI#1. Within the next few days, I wil likely start an RFC at WT:NFC to review this situation, but this article's promotion should not suffer because of it. Passing this article with the image is consistent with past FAC for TV seasons, and with NFCI#1. The RFC will show out two results, either validating the NFCI#1, or we will remove or strength NFCI#1's requirement for commentary on the cover image, meaning that every other FA article dealing with a book, album, TV show, movie, TV season, etc. where a cover image is used, will need to be reviewed. That's a daunting task but one that would be approprate if the NFCI#1 case was strengthened. But that would also come back and affect this article too, removing the cover image most likely. Either way we end up with consistency with concensus on NFC. By not having the image because some don't recognize NFCI#1's allowance, we create an inconsistency that should not be in the FAC process. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that's not relevant here, is it? The questions isn't whether or not the image is permitted, but rather whether or not it is required for FA status. Jayjg (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up: Masem is quite right. It appears we've seen an attempt in this FAC and the last to alter or simply override the current community understanding of a policy whose proper venue for consideration and reconsideration is elsewhere.
- Despite your odd claim, Jayjg, Gyrobo hardly holds "unique views on this subject". Gyrobo's view reflects the consensus view. Far from unique, that perspective is common and, at present, determinative.
- If this image, whose inclusion is well within our policy and best practices and necessary for the article to be representative of our best work, is excluded due to an argument that defies our existing policy—the case at the moment—I will certainly oppose on that basis.—DCGeist (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is not whether or not the image is permissible, but rather whether or not it is required in order to meet FA standards. And it is the latter view, apparently held by you and Gyrobo, that is clearly not in line with consensus nor actual FA requirements. Jayjg (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current consensus appears to be that it is in line with the current consensus and that the requirements do require it.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Repeating the claim that it's consensus won't make it true; only you and DCGeist appear to support this view. Jayjg (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Masem did a fairly good job of explaining the state of the current consensus, and several other editors in this FAC and the last have expressed support for the image using the same reasoning. Could you please point to an official policy that supports your viewpoint?
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- You keep discussing an irrelevant issue; that many editors support having the image in the article in not in question. I have no objection to it myself. However, the issue is not whether or not the image is permissible, or even desirable, but rather whether or not DVD cover art is required in an article about a TV show season in order to meet FA standards. And it is the latter view, apparently held by you and DCGeist alone, that is clearly not in line with consensus nor actual FA requirements. And since it is you who is opposing the FAC on this ground, it is you who must "point to an official policy that supports your viewpoint". So far you have not. Jayjg (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:FA Criteria, "[Featured articles have] images and other media where appropriate, with ... acceptable copyright status". If the licensing of the image is appropriate, and its use in the article is appropriate, the FA criteria mandate its inclusion.
--Gyrobo (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Yes, you've mentioned that before, but it really didn't make much sense, since
- a) it's rather obvious that not every image that could be used in an FA must be used in an FA - otherwise some FAs might be absurdly forced to have dozens of pictures in them, and
- b) this article already has lots of images where appropriate.
- Nope, you still haven't pointed to any policy that states DVD cover art in particular is required in an article about a TV show season in order to meet FA standards. That's actually just yours (and DCGeist's) personal opinion, and irrelevant to whether or not this article meets FA standards, since it's not about this FAC at all, but rather some disruptive sideshow about fair use policy. Jayjg (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:FA Criteria, "[Featured articles have] images and other media where appropriate, with ... acceptable copyright status". If the licensing of the image is appropriate, and its use in the article is appropriate, the FA criteria mandate its inclusion.
- You keep discussing an irrelevant issue; that many editors support having the image in the article in not in question. I have no objection to it myself. However, the issue is not whether or not the image is permissible, or even desirable, but rather whether or not DVD cover art is required in an article about a TV show season in order to meet FA standards. And it is the latter view, apparently held by you and DCGeist alone, that is clearly not in line with consensus nor actual FA requirements. And since it is you who is opposing the FAC on this ground, it is you who must "point to an official policy that supports your viewpoint". So far you have not. Jayjg (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Masem did a fairly good job of explaining the state of the current consensus, and several other editors in this FAC and the last have expressed support for the image using the same reasoning. Could you please point to an official policy that supports your viewpoint?
- Repeating the claim that it's consensus won't make it true; only you and DCGeist appear to support this view. Jayjg (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current consensus appears to be that it is in line with the current consensus and that the requirements do require it.
- The issue is not whether or not the image is permissible, but rather whether or not it is required in order to meet FA standards. And it is the latter view, apparently held by you and Gyrobo, that is clearly not in line with consensus nor actual FA requirements. Jayjg (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose then it would then be better to take the oppose from Fasach Nua than the two from you guys. This is so silly. :/ SilverserenC 04:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly do you believe should be done, Silver seren?—DCGeist (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been arguing since the beginning that the image should be included in the article. However, I do not believe that the presence or not of the image should change my decision of support for this wonderfully well-written and formulated article. SilverserenC 06:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect that position, and I effectively share your opinion of the article's literary quality. I do not share your position, however, and seen within the broader context of the FAC process, I do not regard this matter as silly at all. Regrettable, yes. Silly, no. And I don't believe you should either.
- I've been arguing since the beginning that the image should be included in the article. However, I do not believe that the presence or not of the image should change my decision of support for this wonderfully well-written and formulated article. SilverserenC 06:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly do you believe should be done, Silver seren?—DCGeist (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that anyone who takes seriously (a) our FA criterion 3, (b) the three pillars of our NFC policy, and (c) our mission in this process to identify that which "exemplifies our very best work" should resist this attempt—given the venue, it is fair to call it a backdoor attempt—to subvert our policy, guideline, and norms concerning the use of basic identifying media. Gyrobo observed the "bad precedent the exclusion of this image would create." That's a very important concern, and I'd ask you to keep it in mind. Let's strive to continue to make the precedents we set here good ones.—DCGeist (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The image should be in there. Therefore Support if the image is there; Oppose if it isn't. Jheald (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My only iron in the fire in this is the inclusion of the cover art of the DVD set. I concur with his argument, specifically that this is the season of the television show article, not an article about the DVD set. The title card used for the season would be far more relevant and identifying to readers of the article than the cover art of the DVD set. Further, reality is DVD sales are plummeting, as people are getting their media delivered over networks now. So, I oppose inclusion of the cover art as unnecessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Title cards can vary by episode, or remain consistent throughout the run of a show. Box art is meant to be representative of the season as a standalone work, and networks like Netflix use DVD box art to allow customers to visually identify seasons.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome to your opinion, as I am to mine. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I implied that my statement was anything other than a personal opinion, I apologize. Nobody brought up the point you did, and I was attempting to show specifically where I stand on it.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I implied that my statement was anything other than a personal opinion, I apologize. Nobody brought up the point you did, and I was attempting to show specifically where I stand on it.
- Title cards can vary by episode, or remain consistent throughout the run of a show. Box art is meant to be representative of the season as a standalone work, and networks like Netflix use DVD box art to allow customers to visually identify seasons.
- Comment from delegate I really hope a particular comment by Jayjg resonates, and I'll repeat it lest it get lost in the shuffle: "FAC votes (and I use that term advisedly) that an article passes/fails candidacy based solely on this criteria are irrelevant to this FAC and should be ignored." I encourage those of you who have commented to make sure you are commenting broadly on all the FA criteria. If you are only commenting on the image, your comment will carry little if any weight. Opposition over the exclusion of the image, or support contingent on the inclusion of the image, is not actionable. If delegates cannot determine consensus based on other substantive comments, the nomination will have to be archived (again). --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I happen to be a proactive FAC reviewer. When I see prose problems, I tend to copyedit. When I discover misquoted quotations, I tend to correct them. I trust that, having identified an image problem that I can readily rectify, no one will have a problem with the fact that I am now rectifying it.—DCGeist (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that support over inclusion/exclusion of the image is inactionable; a FAC is the ideal venue to discuss whether an image is so necessary for readers' understanding of the subject matter that it qualifies as one of the media items the FA criteria say should be included. If the current consensus is that the original non-free rationale was valid, then I think that it should be added back to the article, that it's necessary for readers' understanding of the subject matter for the reasons described in the rationale: it would be the only image in the article to show the characters of the show, and it's an image used to publicly identify that particular season. The action I would like taken is for the delegates to weigh in on whether they believe DVD box art is vital to a television season article's completeness. If this action is taken, I will withdraw my objection.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my opposition. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment. I'm leaning toward support, but I have a few prose and style concerns, as follows:
Strings like 3.41 million households and 12 a.m. would be better held together with no-break codes to keep the elements from separating awkwardly on line-break. The article includes many such strings. WP:NBSP is the relevant guideline.- I will try to address this one later today, if not tomorrow. — Hunter Kahn 15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I have addressed this now, although I was not familiar with no-break codes before this, so please let me know if I did it wrong or missed any. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 15:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try to address this one later today, if not tomorrow. — Hunter Kahn 15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better place for the Wikinews link in the "Development" section is in "External links". I see the Wikinews link as parallel to the Wikiquotes link in this article and to the Commons link in many other articles. After readers finish the article, they can watch streaming episodes if they like.
My understanding of the WP:MOSQUOTE guidelines is that fancy quotes are generally to be avoided in Wikipedia articles. Pull quotes are a rare exception, but the box in the "Critics" section is not a pull quote; it's an add-on quote in the same typeface as the main text. I recommend {{quote box}}.
Fix the date formatting in citations 97 and 99.
- Cultural references
"The Ring" featured parodies of not only the pop rock boy band Jonas Brothers... - Too many strung-out modifiers. Maybe "Jonas Brothers, a pop-rock boy band,"? Also, link boy band and Jonas Brothers?
- Music
"Several fake Jonas Brothers songs were written for "The Ring", many of whose lyrics refer to the band members' physically attractiveness." - Awkward. A song is a "which", not a "who", and "physically" is a typo, I think. How about "Several fake Jonas Brothers songs, with lyrics about the band members' physical attractiveness, were written for 'The Ring' "?
In the episode "Whale Wars", Cartman plays the video game Rock Band and performs a rendition of the Lady Gaga song "Poker Face", which was praised by critics. - Does this mean that "Poker Face" was praised or that the rendition was praised? If the latter, move "praised by critics" to appear just after "rendition"; i.e., "rendition, praised by critics, of the... ".
In "W.T.F.", during the audition the boys set up to seek participants for their professional wrestling league, one of those trying out sings a Broadway-style number about why he wants to be a wrestler that parodies the song "Nothing" from A Chorus Line. - Same problem in this sentence. Does the wrestler parody the song or does the number? If the latter, move the modifying phrase snug against the noun modified.
- Critics
"Fishsticks" particularly attracted media attention, with some critics declaring it one of the best episodes of the season." - "With" doesn't make a good conjunction. Maybe, "Fishsticks" particularly attracted media attention, and some critics declared it one of the best episodes of the season."
"A fictionalized version of rapper Kanye West fails to understand the joke, but can not admit that he doesn't get it because he considers himself a genius, a reference to West's perceived ego problem." - A bit too complex. Maybe, "A fictionalized version of rapper Kanye West fails to understand the joke. He cannot admit that hedoesn'tdoes not get it because, in reference to a perceived ego problem on the part of the real West, he considers himself a genius."
- Celebrity reactions
"The blog post drew a significant amount of media attention... " - Tighten to "The blog post drewFinetooth (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]asignificantamount ofmedia attention... ".- Done. Thanks for your, as always, excellent review! — Hunter Kahn 15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome. Thanks for fixing these so quickly. I agree with you about the Jonas Brothers link. I performed slight further tweaks in two places (W.T.F. audition and Kanye West), and I'm striking everything except the nbsps. Finetooth (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All of my concerns have been satisfied. I believe the article meets all of the criteria. Finetooth (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query:
- [Writing:] "The running gag of killing protagonist Kenny McCormick continued, though he was killed only three times during the season: in the episode 'The Ring', when he contracted syphilis after engaging in oral sex; in 'W.T.F.', when he was shot by a rocket launcher during a professional wrestling match; and in 'Pee'."
Odd to describe Kenny's manner of death in two instances, but not the third. Please add a description of his death in "Pee".—DCGeist (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed it. I don't believe Kenny's death happens onscreen in that episode, it's just implied that he died, since he doesn't show up again after the flooding of the park. SilverserenC 19:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, while the death occurs off-screen, his corpse floats by the other boys shortly after the typhoon, showing that he drowned and prompting them to shout "Oh my God, they killed Kenny!", so it's more than implied. But Silverseren's added description is accurate. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed it. I don't believe Kenny's death happens onscreen in that episode, it's just implied that he died, since he doesn't show up again after the flooding of the park. SilverserenC 19:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My take:
"The season was helmed" in the lead, I don't think it's a very common use of the word. Is there a link or better phrase that can be used here?"They were broadcast at 10 p.m. on Wednesdays." in the lead, doesn't describe the time zone or country. Is it really needed? This is touched on again in Development, you should really add time zones and localities."...the band gives them purity rings as a pledge to abstinence." would that read better as for abstinence? It seems kind of awkward."...Mickey Mouse is using the rings scheme..." the concept of rings as a scheme isn't mentioned. Perhaps "using the rings as a scheme"?"...to propitiate the economy's anger." Link to Propitiation seems in order."The men are disgusted and fail to recognize a double standard when they still find farts funny." Reads kind of awkwardly. Would be phrased better as "The disgusted men, still finding fart jokes funny, fail to recognize the double standard." or something to that effect."and begin a vendetta of slaughtering cows and chickens instead." Vendettas are against something; I think it would read better as "...and begin a vendetta against cows and chickens, slaughtering them instead.""...to review the proposal and convince them..." should be convinces, as the thing doing the convincing is the town, singular."...where Cartman is distraught to discover that many minority people are in attendance." This is phrased slightly awkwardly. Is there a way to add a different euphemism and link to Minority group?"The season was distributed by Comedy Central, where the series has aired since its inception in 1997." Does the phrase "the series" need to be mentioned twice like this? How about "...where it has aired since its inception in 1997"?- The word "season" isn't mentioned twice; one is season and one is series. I was trying to show that the show had been around on that network not only from the start of the season, but from the very beginning of the show. I could change it to "where South Park has aired since its inception", but the title was mentioned in the sentence before that, so I thought it would be a bit redundant. I could change it to "where it has aired since its inception" as you suggest, but I feel that would make people think the season had aired there since its inception, not the series. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The new seasons thirteen, fourteen and fifteen were each to consist of fourteen episodes." Should be a comma, "The new seasons, thirteen...""South Park Digital Studios" is not italicized, yet other proper names are. It could be rephrased as "...animation studio, South Park Digital Studios, which would..."- The reason I didn't italicize SPDS is because that was the name of their animation digital studio, not the website SPS, which I did italicize. I thought this was proper, but if you think SPDS should be italicized as well, I'm not opposed. Let me know or feel free to go ahead and do it yourself. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"was a particularly challenging episode to make -- they were up all night Tuesday" uses two hyphens instead of an unspaced mdash (—), which the article uses. And it doesn't mention what day "Tuesday" refers to. And you may want to change those mdashs to spaced ndashes (–), because one of the quotes uses spaced ndashes."Some critics have said this technique and short turnaround process helps South Park stay fresh and address..." If you're talking about both the technique and process, and it's plural, it should be "help South Park stay fresh". If it's singular, it should be "addresses"."characters Katie and Katherine, star of a television show" should be stars plural."The characters served as a female equivalent of long-time characters Terrance and Phillip" would read better as "...as female equivalents to long-time characters...""...found the scene disturbing and inappropriate in the light of recent school shootings..." are there any articles this would be appropriate to link to?"...a reference to the real-life 2009 scandal." I don't think you need "real-life" here, as all the events lampooned actually happened. Perhaps a description of the scandal ("...a reference to a similar 2009 scandal")?"...who have no problem with farting, strongly object to..." should be objecting."...and frivolously spending alien-provided "space cash" on water parks." Was this a parody of a specific incident that should be linked?- I don't believe so; or if it was, the sources don't mention it. They just refer to the episode portraying Feilpe Calderon as "as a leader who wastes funds and irritates the international community."
--Gyrobo (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for this review. It's really good to see people starting to review the entire scope of the article! — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All my points have been addressed, and those that haven't been changed are minor personal preferences (or misreading on my part) that I don't feel strongly about. I find no fault with the prose of this article, and support its promotion.
--Gyrobo (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All my points have been addressed, and those that haven't been changed are minor personal preferences (or misreading on my part) that I don't feel strongly about. I find no fault with the prose of this article, and support its promotion.
- Support. The above copyedits have resolved any minor problems with the article, and it clearly meets the FA criteria as far as I can see. —Noisalt (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I suppose I never said support, did I? Well, I am now. Like I said before, especially with the improvements from the suggestions above, this article definitely fulfills the requirements for FA. It is wonderfully written, the references are perfectly formulated, and it is sectioned in an appropriate and flowing manner for readers to follow easily. SilverserenC 18:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Just gave it one more ce pass. All problems resolved. Looks in great shape.—DCGeist (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
The infobox image should have anOther than that, I've added several categories yesterday that were missing, mostly regarding the episode list contained in the article. This article is well written, in-dept and meets WP:FACR. Xeworlebi (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]|alt=
text. Why is "Ramsley Isler, IGN" as source in the quote box bolded? Also, as done in other quote templates,|salign=
is on the right and has an mdash before the source.- I've added alt text and fixed the quote box. Please let me know if either needs more work. — Hunter Kahn 03:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, I went ahead and fixed the HTML entity myself. I'll reiterate my support, according to Laser brains comment, I believe this article is well written, in-dept and meets all criteria. This article is definitely one of the finer season articles on wikipedia and most definitely deserves FA status. Xeworlebi (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added alt text and fixed the quote box. Please let me know if either needs more work. — Hunter Kahn 03:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why thirteenth, fourteenth, etc are spelled out, instead of 13th, 14th, etc per WP:MOSNUM, but not a big deal. The better part of this FAC was spent debating an image, in an issue that extends beyond FAC. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the promotion of this FAC is not the be-all, end-all answer to whatever image issues are occurring beyond FAC, and use or not in this article isn't a determining factor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.