Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2011: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archive 1
archive 1
Line 1: Line 1:
==February 2011==
==February 2011==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Bowling Alley/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tintin in the Land of the Soviets/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tintin in the Land of the Soviets/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/KMFDM/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/KMFDM/archive1}}

Revision as of 19:40, 12 February 2011

February 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:40, 12 February 2011 [1].

Battle of the Bowling Alley

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 03:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article. It has passed GAN and a MILHIST ACR. —Ed!(talk) 03:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 21:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images:
  1. File:Tank Action in the Bowling Alley.jpg, File:Maj. Gen. Paik Sun Yup.jpg and File:The Bowling Alley.jpg are not found at the given source (so far as I can see) and have no evidence to attribute them to an Army photographer as opposed to, say, a journalist.Fixed. Kelly hi! 00:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. File:Lewis L. Millett.jpg - the source contains no attribution for the photo or evidence it was taken by an Army photographer.
  3. File:T3427inf.jpg No attribution or evidence of authorship at given source.
  • I noticed that US Forces Korea has labeled their Flickr site as "non-commercial use only" but I don't believe they can legally do that, so I'm not objecting to images sourced from there. Kelly hi! 21:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
South to Naktong North to Yalu is a US government publication, and on page xxiv it specifically states "Illustrations are from Department of Defense files". Specifically:
I'm not sure about File:Lewis L. Millett.jpg and File:T3427inf.jpg through. Jim101 (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the heads-up on the sourcing. I'll spend some time fixing up the images. Kelly hi! 00:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut the two images in question. There is plenty of other illustration for the article. —Ed!(talk) 15:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comments the article would benefit with a more detailed map especially one thats focused on the bowling alley, like the map Lieutenant Colonel Chong Pong Uk appears to be an interesting subject the articles hint at this but theres no link(not even a red one). Both of these points are enhancements but they arent necessary for me to support it. There is one issue with Battle_of_the_Bowling_Alley#NK_flanking_moves specifically the ending of the third para with; An intense artillery barrage began falling on the headquarters area of the 8th Field Artillery Battalion at 16:05, and 25 minutes later two direct hits destroyed the fire direction center, killing four officers and two non-commissioned officers. The individual batteries quickly took over control of the battalion fires and continued to support the infantry, while the battalion Headquarters and Headquarters Company displaced under fire.[52] I think theres either a was missing or some other point thats needed to finish the statement as it leaves the reader looking for what the HQ company did. Having read the article, noting the image issues already raised and besides this point I'm happy to be tagged as supporting the article. Gnangarra 15:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Comment I only had a chance to copyedit the first part of this article before our 28-day A-class deadline ran. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Earwig's and Coren's tools found no copyvio. Doing some spotchecking, I saw a few problems with page numbers ("9,500" and "5,000", for example, appears on pages 259 and 263 of the Appleman source but not, as far as I can see, on page 255), but no close paraphrasing; however, I could not access all of the sources to check
  • Per WP:LEAD lead should be 3-4 paragraphs
  • A minor issue, but I'm a bit confused by your wikilinking in Sources: why is University of Nebraska linked but not University of Kansas? Why is Mason City linked both times but Washington only the first?
  • "Their attacks, which usually occurred at night and were supported by armor and artillery, advanced with infantry and tanks in close support of one another" - seems repetitive and awkward as written. There are a few other instances of awkward wording throughout the article
  • "its walled summit" - rock walls or man-made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkimaria (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose per poor sourcing, and potential copyvio It took me three seconds to find copied text that will be copyvio unless it can be established that "South to the Naktong, north to the Yalu: (June-November 1950) by Roy Edgar Appleman" is public domain. Do we need to search more books as well? Has this article been methodically scanned for copyvio? MILHIST A-class reviews have a very poor track record in this regard... Locke'sGhost 03:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked it using our two main automated tools, but those tend to miss books/journal articles. I also did some quick spotchecking, but encountered problems in accessing the source you're referring to and don't have access to several of the other sources. Can you be more specific on what you consider to be copyvio from that source, as well as the extent of the problem? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book is available online in two different formats: fulltext, and Amazon Google Books searches. Here's one direct quote: " 13:35, Michaelis reported from the Bowling Alley to Eighth Army that the NK 13th Division had blown the road to his front, had mined it, and was withdrawing" and another: "Upon receiving this information, Eighth Army immediately prepared to destroy the North Korean weapons. Fighter-bombers attacked the orchard site with napalm, and US artillery took the location under fire." If that book is not public domain (which it may be), then this nom should be withdrawn immediately. Locke'sGhost 04:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile, quotes are misattributed: footnote 38 at "neither of the ROK regiments" is a lengthy and direct quote from Appleman, but attributed to Alexander. Do MILHIST A-class reviewers check these things...? Locke'sGhost 05:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for note 55, attributed to Millet 2000 p. 469, but not appearing on that page of that text, but instead a lengthy direct quote from Appleman p. 362. This is highly creative sourcing. This nom should be withdrawn, and someone should track down the various MILHIST reviewers and upbraid them. Locke'sGhost 05:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roy E. Appleman is a US Army Historian. The book is written by the US Army, for the US Army and is fully published on the Army website here. It is 100 percent public domain. As for the footnotes, the information on them is available in the books I cited them in as well as Appleman's source material. I wouldn't consider it necessary to source every sentence to Appleman though all of this info can be found in the book, in fact past reviews have seen this sort of over-citing criticized. I suppose the {{ACMH}} template could be added to the source area if necessary but there is no copyvio for a book of this nature. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu is listed as publication from Center of Military History with the serial number CMH Pub 20-2-1. I quote page 156 in Millett, Allan R. (2007), The Korean War: The Essential Bibliography, Dulles, VA: Potomac Books, ISBN 9781574889765: "The US Army's Office of the Chief of Military History's three operational-chronological volumes are: Roy Appleman, South to Naktong, North to Yalu [sic] Walter Hermes Jr., Truce Tent and Fighting Front [sic] Billy Mossman, Ebb and Flow". Although in disputes like this, it maybe more prudent to either to list {{ACMH}} or cite everything taken from South to Naktong, North to Yalu so that it would be easier for reviewers to fact check the materials for the review process. I added {{ACMH}} template in the article as stop gap measure. Jim101 (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need a "stop gap measure"; if these are PD sources, why aren't the exact quotes in quotations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing check

Background section: no problem I can see

Prelude section:

  • At 12:00 the next day, August 17, Eighth Army ordered the 27th Infantry to move its headquarters and a reinforced battalion "without delay" to a point across the Kumho River 3 miles (4.8 km) north of Taegu on the road from Tabu-dong to Sangju "to secure Taegu from enemy penetration" from that direction.[25] Although Millett 2000, p. 464 stated the same idea, this quote is directly taken from Appleman 1998 p. 353
  • The 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry, a platoon of the Heavy Mortar Company, and most of the 8th Field Artillery Battalion moved north to Ch'ilgok where the ROK 1st Division command post was located.[25] Same problem as above, except this time Millett 2000, p. 464 did not identified 27th Infantry's sub units nor mentioning locations such as Ch'ilgok and the ROK 1st Division command post.
  • the North Korean 13th Division, with 9,500 men,[1] Wrong page number, it should be Appleman 1998 p. 265, not 255
  • had forced South Korean troops into the Tabu-dong corridor and started advancing on Taegu.[27] This sentence is a combination of ideas taken from Appleman 1998 p. 354 and Paik 1992 p. 36, although only Paik 1992 p. 36 was cited
  • NK 15th Division with 5,000 men[1] Wrong page number, it should be Appleman 1998 p. 265, not 255
  • To the west of the NK 13th Division, the NK 15th Division with 5,000 men[1] was also deployed on Yuhak-san.[29] It, too, had begun battling the ROK 1st Division, but thus far only in minor engagements. The North Korean High Command then ordered the NK 15th Division to move from its position northwest of Tabu-dong eastward, to the Yongch'on front, where the NK 8th Division had tried and failed to advance to the Taegu lateral corridor. The NK 15th Division left the Yuhak-san area on August 20. Meanwhile, the NK 1st Division, to the east of the 13th, advanced to the Kunwi area, 25 miles (40 km) north of Taegu. The North Korean command ordered it to proceed to the Tabu-dong area and maneuver astride the 13th Division for the attack on Taegu down the Tabu-dong corridor. At the same time, the North Koreans received their only substantial tank reinforcements during the Pusan Perimeter fighting.[25] On August 15, the NK 105th Armored Division received 21 new T-34 tanks and 200 troop replacements, which it distributed to the divisions attacking Taegu. The tank regiment with the NK 13th Division reportedly had 14 T-34 tanks.[2][26] Most of the paragraph is lifted from Appleman 1998 p. 354, but there is only one citation for it. Furthermore, Millett 2000, p. 464 (citation 25) did not talk about the issue of reinforcements
  • On August 18, the NK 13th Division was astride the Sangju–Taegu road just above Tabu-dong and only 13 miles (21 km) from Taegu. The Eighth Army ordered the 27th Infantry Regiment to attack north along the road to counter the threat.[2] Although Millett 2010, p. 221 supported this fact, this sentence is lifted from Appleman 1998, p. 354
  • In front of the 27th Infantry position, the poplar-lined Taegu–Sangju road ran northward in the narrow mountain valley. A stream on the west closely paralleled the road, which was nearly straight on a north-south axis through the 27th Infantry position and for some distance northward. This stretch of the road later became known as the "Bowling Alley."[31] Citation should be changed from Appleman 1998, p. 356 to Appleman 1998, pp. 355–356 given that this passage is lifted from both page 355 and 356.

Battle Section

  • The ROK 1st Infantry Division, with 7,500 men[32] I can't exactly found the source for that number. The citation provided (Paik 1992, p. 28) states "about seven thousand soldiers". But in Appleman 1998, p. 191 it states 7,601.
  • had held the line around the Bowling Alley since August 12.[28] I cannot find the August 12 date in Paik 1992, p. 34, although in Millett 2000, p. 438 it states that the ROK Army Headquarter adjusted the entire ROKA line on August 11.
  • with ROK 1st Division's 11th, 12th, and 13th regiments committed against the NK 13th Division's 19th, 21st and 23rd regiments.[35] I cannot find a source that explicitly identify 19th, 21st and 23rd regiments. Also, the citation should be change from Paik 1992, p. 39 to Paik 1992, pp. 37–38, since only those two pages described how 11th, 12th, and 13th regiments were committed.
  • The fight became a battle of attrition.[36] I may be nitpicky here but none of the sources used the word "attrition". Are there sources that explicitly stated that North Koreans intended to bleed the entire ROK 1st Division to death in this battle, or did the North Koreans concentrated their forces in a specific point for penetrations? If it is the first case, then it is a battle of attrition, if it is the second, then it is not exactly clear since the attack will be carried out with flanking and encirclements in mind.
  • US infantry advance section: it maybe less confusing to reviewers about where you get the material for the section if you remove citation 38 and 39, since those two citation only indirectly support the statements and the entire material is lifted from Appleman 1998, p. 355
  • The first of seven successive North Korean night attacks struck against the 27th Infantry defensive perimeter shortly after dark that night, August 18.[2][40] Although Millett 2010, p. 221 and Paik 1992, p. 41 implied that the first attack occurred on August 18, only in Appleman 1998, p. 356 used the exact sentence.
  • On the morning of August 19, the ROK 11th and 13th Regiments launched counterattacks along the ridges with some gains, however the fight continued to produce heavy casualties for both sides.[40] Half of the sentence is lifted from Appleman 1998, p. 357, half of the sentence is a summery on Paik 1992, p. 41, but only Paik was cited.
  • Walker ordered another reserve unit, a battalion of the ROK 10th Regiment, to the Taegu front to close a gap between the ROK 1st and 6th Divisions.[43] Inaccurate page number, it should be Appleman 1998, pp. 357–358, not just 358
  • Then the NK 13th Division launched a major attack against the entire UN front in and around the valley.[48] This sentence appears to be a close paraphrase to the sentence "Then the N.K. 13th Division launched a major attack against the ROK units on the high ground and the Americans in the valley." in Appleman 1998, p. 359. The Millett 2000, p. 467 citation only states "a large scale attack directed against the US 27th Regiment"
  • During the night battle, North Korean forces infiltrated along the high ridge line around the east flank of the 27th Infantry and appeared the next day at about 12:00 6 miles (9.7 km) in the rear of that regiment and only 9 miles (14 km) from Taegu. This force was a regiment of the NK 1st Division, and was 1,500 men strong. The regiment had just arrived from the Kunwi area to join in the battle for Taegu.[49] Alexander 2003, p. 147 cited here only stated there was an infiltration, and only in Appleman 1998, p. 360 did it state the details of the infiltration such as unit, approximate time and strength. Furthermore in Appleman 1998, p. 360 it states only 1,000 infiltrators and I cannot find any reference to the time 12:00.
  • and in the argument, Eighth Army Korean Military Advisory Group advisers visited each ROK unit to ensure they were remaining in position.[50] Inaccurate page number, it should be Appleman 1998, pp. 360–361, not just 360
  • Later, Michaelis apologized to Paik though their relationship for the remainder of the battle remained strained.[2] Millett 2010, p. 221 states the relationship got off in a bad start, but he did not state that the relationship remained strained after Michaelis apologized to Paik.
  • The afternoon of August 22, US 2nd Battalion, 23rd Infantry, guarding the support artillery behind the 27th Infantry, came under attack by the NK 1st Division troops that had passed around the forward positions.[49] Although Alexander 2003, p. 147 confirms the fact that an unspecified US battalion was attack by an unspecified North Korean unit, it may be a good idea to remove the citation here in order reduce confusion on the source of this statement, since most of the sentence is lifted Appleman 1998, p. 361
  • Chong, the highest ranking North Korean prisoner of war thus far in the war, gave precise information on the location of his artillery.[48] The fact that he is is the highest ranking NK POW is only found in Appleman 1998, p. 361. IMO it need to be cited at the end of the sentence.
  • With the North Koreans turned back north of Taegu, Walker issued orders for the 27th Infantry to leave the Bowling Alley and return to the 25th Division in the Masan area.[55] The citation (Millett 2000, p. 469) did not mention any facts from this sentence. This sentence is lifted from Appleman 1998, pp. 362–363.

Aftermath Section

  • The division withdrew to rebuild.[2] Although I understood the fact that this division came back to the fight after China intervened, I still think it need a citation that support the fact that it immediately went to rebuilt phase as the result of this battle. So far all of the sources cited here merely say that the unit got knocked-out without ruling out the possibility that it could be temporary disbanded or became inactive.
  • US losses during the battle were extremely light; unusual for fighting at a time in which other UN offensive forces were paying a heavy price when making similar pushes against the North Korean troops.[58] Wrong page number, it should be Ecker 2004, p. 30, not page 29.

I hope this summery can shine some light on the "creative sourcing" issue.

Jim101 (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Striking Oppose. The whole damn article – literally entire sections – is simply copy/pasted from a PD source, then other sources are used to supply cites that corroborate the copy/paste job.... It is a shame there is no rule that says that such work is ineligible for FA. Good luck with your nom; I wouldn't tout this one on my user page though. No work involved. Locke'sGhost 12:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Great story. Prose needs tweaking.

  • What's happening with the comment above? Hard to believe.
    • Nothing is happening with the comment above. The reason the prose has some sweet spots and rougher patches is because the former are wholesale copy/pasted sections. However, I am unaware of any language in WP:WIAFA which precludes this practice. PD is PD and thus is fair game. Locke'sGhost 08:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Republic of Korea Army's (ROK) 1st Division along the latter's last defensible line"—will you consider "and the Republic of Korea Army's (ROK) 1st Division along the ROK's last defensible line"?
  • Close repetition of "one another" in the lead.
  • "pushed back ... pushing back".
  • I enlarged, righted, and relocated the first b/w image. I do think images are best with (all) syntaxes jammed up at the top of each section: remember to test window widths to see how readers see it via their appallingly disparate range of widths. I don't suppose that image could be reloaded a bit brighter, could it? ... oh, maybe not. Undecided.
  • "The US formations were subsequently able to defeat the North Koreans"—why not "The US formations subsequently defeated the North Koreans", since there's no particular theme about the capacity/challenges/weakness of the US forces in that paragraph.
  • "This granted both sides a reprieve to prepare for the attack on the Pusan Perimeter."—Query "granted" rather than the plainer "gave".
  • "Taegu" first para: a little disorganised thematically. Could we know that Taegu was "a transportation hub and the last major South Korean city aside from Pusan itself to remain in UN hands" when it's first mentioned, and "defended by the US 1st ...."? Then perhaps the topographical/geographical information. Then "The 1st c d was spread out ...". Could that be made to work?
  • I enlarged the map: you really need to refer to its tiny details when reading parts of the text. I centred and enlarged the Bowling Alley double image. I do wish editors would use the large centering option. Tony (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Locke'sGhost: While there is not policy against having PD text in featured articles, the text still has to meet criterion 1a. So, opposition based on the PD text not meeting 1a would be valid and actionable. --Andy Walsh (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per criteria 1a, 1b and 1c ... or rather, per the impossibility of evaluating 1a, 1b and 1c when the footnotes (still) don't accurately represent where the material came from. For all I know, I'm partly to blame that the nominator prefers copying public domain text, if I wasn't patient enough regarding this nominator's prose in several A-class reviews. I also can't blame the nominator's judgment if "past reviews have seen this sort of over-citing criticized"; the process doesn't work if you can't trust the consensus of reviewers (and I really need to know who said that and have a talk with them). - Dank (push to talk) 14:52, 10 February 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:38, 12 February 2011 [2].

Tintin in the Land of the Soviets

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has recently been heavily added to with referenced information, using the main texts on the subject, and was thus upgraded to B quality. A peer review followed, with most of the suggestions being implemented. I believe that it is now ready to become a featured article, and could not be further improved. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There's a problem with non-free use rationales here. The images feature a generic rationale saying that the use of the image is "To illustrate an article discussing this very comic book." Rationales are there to explain specifically what the image is showing and why that needs to be shown in the article- there really is no automatic entitlement for use of images of this sort. J Milburn (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've sorted this problem out with proper rationales now. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Comments
  • Too many of the sentences begin with continuous verbs; looking at the second paragraph of the plot summary alone: "Subsequently meeting... Defeating... Being... Falling... Stealing... Being". It makes for repetitive reading, so please audit throughout the article.
I think I've sorted this problem now. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Infobox: was there really a creative team when only one person created the comic? I understand that this is coded into the template, so you might need to ask WP:COMICS about what to do.
  • I wonder if the plot is not too long and detailed. The Watchmen FA, for instance, has a five-paragraph plot summary for a series of 12 comic books. Every single adventure Tintin experiences needn't be described here...
I've sorted this problem out now, cut it down to three paragraphs. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • A lot of overlinking—banana skin (!), boy scout, patriotism, comic strip, cinema, and the names of major cities and countries. Please audit throughout.
I've sorted this particular problem out. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Are you sure Harry Thompson is a Tintinologist? Nothing in his Wiki article suggests so.
Absolutely, after all he wrote one of the defining English-language books on the subject, and was interviewed on the documentary Tintin et Moi. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • The last sentence of the article is uneferenced.
  • Could you uploader bigger versions of the latter 3 images, they are difficult to appreciate at this tiny size. File:TintinSoviets.jpg, on the other hand, probably needs to reduced per WP:NFCC #3b.
They latter three that you mentioned were originally larger, and had to be reduced down to size to fit in with Wikipedia regulations.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • I know there's no set standard for formatting references, but using smallcaps for the authors' names looks weird...

Once this is done, I'll try to find time for a copy-edit and detailed content review.—indopug (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dead external links. 2 dabs- Snowy and The General (film). --PresN 01:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both Snowy (character) and The General (1926 film) are now correctly linked. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Sources review

  • Refs 1 and 22: Did Hergé publish these words in a book or article? If so, they should be cited directly to this source. If not, they can be quoted direct to the Thompson source.
  • Ref 28: I imagine this source is in French; this should be noted.
  • Capitalisation of names in the bibliography is a stylistic oddity; why do this?

Otherwise sources and citations look OK. Spotchecking not possible. Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your first point, the Hergé quotes would have been originally published in French (where and when I don't know, unfortunately I only speak/read English), and Thompson has translated them into English. So in that case I have directed straight to the Thompson source as per your suggestion. I have also noted that reference 28 is in French, and the capitalisation was simply a preference of mine, I thought that it made the names of the authors stand out, and just felt that it was aesthetically pleasing. Others may disagree with that of course. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comments

  • Shouldn't use contractions except in quotes
  • French title in lead and infobox are slightly different, should be consistent
Sorted. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Make sure you consistently include the accent on "Vingtième"
Sorted. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Needs some copy-editing for grammar, flow and clarity
  • Check for consistent and correct hyphen use
  • Check the accuracy of your quotes - for example, you have the same quote about the election scene from Moscou sans voiles twice, but one version has a spelling error that the other lacks
Sorted. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Sorted; it's 1989. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose Comment. I propose to put detailed comments on the FAC talk page instead of this page, per this thread. If you'd prefer me to leave the comments here, just say so and I'll move them back. Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comments (not yet complete) are now on the nomination talk page. Mike Christie (talk – library) 05:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed my review and am leaning oppose based on prose, overuse of quotations, and some unnecessary fair use images. I am also concerned by Ruhrfisch's oppose below but have not made any attempt to look through sources myself yet. Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Oppose by Ruhrfisch I am opposing on the basis of FA criteria 1a (it does not seem that well-written) and more importantly 1b and 1d (comprehensiveness and neutrality). The article does not have a separate section on Reception or Critical responses, and the little critical material that is there is pretty pro-Tintin. Just looking up the title on Google Books I found several books that were much more critical of Tintin in the Land of the Soviets. For example "The metamorphoses of Tintin, or, Tintin for adults" by Jean-Marie Apostolidès, Jocelyn Hoy says (pp. 33 and 34) that the evolution of Tintin is often missed because of changes in the reprints of the later works and that Tintin in the Land of the Soviets "would beconsidered irredeemable from the postwar standpoint. The adventure was simply eliminated from the 'Complete Works' and for a long time was out of print." The book goes on to show how Herge' recycled scenes and gags from this book in other, later Tintin adventures. Or this book "The media and the making of history" By John Theobald spends at least 8 pages analyzing the book in the context of its time, the post-WWII era, and the Cold War, and looks in detail at how it fits with five main themes found in Western anti-Soviet propaganda. These are not only comprehensiveness issues (or lack thereof), but to me seem to be WP:NPOV issues too. Even the one external link given lists translations into 13 other languages (in additon to the French and English which are the only two versions discussed here - the Theobald book mentions some of these too). If I can find this much missing stuff in a few minutes with Google, it does not speak well of the article's comprehensiveness, and it seems that sources more negatively critical of the work could also be included. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:41, 12 February 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:23, 12 February 2011 [3].

KMFDM

Nominator(s): —Torchiest talkedits 06:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have been working hard on it for more than a year now. I already brought it from B-class to GA status in April 2010, and I think I've made enough additions to it since then to take it to the next level. —Torchiest talkedits 06:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - bare URLs and dead links in references, multiple formatting inconsistencies, some information lacking necessary references (example: "one popular account having Raymond Watts originating the initialism to avoid the difficulties he had in pronouncing the German" - whose account?). Sorry, but it's not ready yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, I hadn't realized someone had added a bare url, or that some links had been tagged as dead. I fixed all the issues you mentioned. Thanks for the comments! —Torchiest talkedits 14:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - Can you clarify what you mean by the formatting inconsistencies? Are you talking about the references themselves, or the article layout in general? Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 14:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • References - I generally look there first, and stop if I see obvious problems. In this case, we see doubled periods, inconsistencies in names/publishers (for example, KMFDM.net or just KMFDM?), missing information (like the Gammon ref - I can't actually tell what kind of publication that is from what you've provided), incomplete dates (when in February 2010 was ref 73 retrieved?)...Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, thanks. I found a few more dead links (that tool is quite handy!) and fixed the rest of them. I'll look at the formatting a little later today. —Torchiest talkedits 15:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fixed the KMFDM work/publisher/title etc. reference inconsistencies and added the missing url for the Justin Gammon reference. As for the double periods, I found one that was a problem, but the rest are cases where their is an abbreviated Inc. at the end of, for example, the publisher's name. The templates add a second period. Is that incorrect? —Torchiest talkedits 23:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Torchiest, but there are still quite a few problems with referencing. Some important statements remain unreferenced, and there are still multiple inconsistencies/problems in referencing format (for example, current ref 59 is just "KMFDM Records"). I'm not familiar enough with sourcing standards for this type of article to comment extensively on the reliability of the current sources, but I would also question the number of self-published or anonymously-published sources used in the article, and there are a couple of sites where I might ask you to justify their use per WP:RS. Going beyond sourcing concerns, I also see image issues (the fair-use rationale for File:What_do_you_know_deutschland.jpg, for example, is at least partially inaccurate, and File:Kmfdm_jules_starlite.jpg seems to be lacking evidence of author permission), and some prose and MoS issues (sandwiching of text between images, lead is too long, some very short paragraphs and very long sentences, etc). I'd welcome the opinions of other reviewers, but for me I still oppose the article's promotion at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the additional comments. I found a link to the original Billboard article about Jim Nash. As for the reliability of Vampire Freaks, I'd thought it was okay, but I'll get some input over at WP:RSN. I'll work on fixing the image issues later today. Thanks again for looking things over. —Torchiest talkedits 14:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed all the VF references, and corrected the WDYK,D? image FUR. I also trimmed and merged a lot of paragraphs. However, I'm not sure I understand the problem with the starlite image. It says it is released into the public domain; what is missing? —Torchiest talkedits 22:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not clear whether the user who uploaded the image and the person listed as the author are one and the same. If they're not (which seems to be implied by the wording of the description), then we need evidence that the author has released the image into the public domain or has granted permission for the photo to be used. Given that the only source listed is "English Wikipedia", that evidence is not currently present. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot - see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 02:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Nikkimaria hasn't revisited, I had a look and still see numerous problems-- citation formatting, uncited text, WP:MOSDATE#Precise language just on a quick scan. A peer review might help better prepare this article for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 12 February 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:10, 12 February 2011 [4].

Manila Purple Line

Nominator(s): Jeromesandilanico (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because based on my judgment, this article has been rigorously edited from the original article as per request by the Wikipedia Community. Aiming to make the article a good article, the article was patterned to a featured article which was the Manila Metro Rail Transit System. Hope you find the article competent to be a featured article. Jeromesandilanico (talk) 12:00, 12 February 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 not promoted by Laser brain 23:24, 8 February 2011 [5].

Sanctuary (season 1)

Nominator(s): Matthew RD 18:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is up to FA standards. It has been peer reveiwed so hopefully there won't be as many problems that would need to be sorted out. This is my first FAN so, be nice :) -- Matthew RD 18:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From a glance it looks good. I like the level of detail given to the season page. Quick question, but has a request from the League of Copy Editors been placed? Just doing a glance at the article I noticed some grammar issues and just poor choice of words/wordiness. A thorough copy edit could tighten the prose up. The League can sometimes be really quick with those requests, so I would put in a request as soon as possible to see about getting a neutral eye to review the page for readability enhancements.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that just slipped my mind completely, but yes, I have just put up a request to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. -- Matthew RD
Series creator and head writer Damian Kindler hired Sam Egan, and together wrote all the episodes as well as establish a season-long storyline. - something is wrong with the grammar in this sentence. How about " Series creator and head writer Damian Kindler hired Sam Egan, and the two wrote all the episodes as well as established the season-long storyline." maybe replace "established" with "composed"
Done. -- Matthew RD 19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
they reacted strongly towards - eeww, you mean...erm, they liked them?
Done. -- Matthew RD 19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really think the Episodes section would benefit from one or a few sentences describing the overall story arc - how many are stand-alone and how many arc episodes, which episode cabal introduced etc.
I don't understand, I thought I was pretty clear (the episode that mention "cabal" indicates their cabal-centred episodes, while those that don't mention cabal means they're not involved). -- Matthew RD 19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The producers cast Robbins, and were receptive towards his performance - huh? If they cast him, how can they be "receptive" here? Why not just say they were pleased?
Done. -- Matthew RD 19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When Adrien Dorval auditioned for his part on "Kush", Kindler did not like his performance, but Wood did, as he believed Dorval's performance was perfect for a character who was stranded on a plane. - shouldn't need to use 'Dorval' twice in the one sentence - disjointed. needs rewording
Reworded to "the actor". -- Matthew RD 19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Principle photography started in May 2008.. -I assume you mean "Principal" (but I think "Initial" is a better adjective here anyway)
Done. -- Matthew RD 19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.. the props department had in their possession and put holes in the forehead, and were easier to use than actors - you've changed the subject here. Needs rewording. I'd do it myself but am tired and am going to bed now.
Reworded. -- Matthew RD 19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are there no other comments from critics on especially strong or weak performances from cast, or episodes which stood out or stunk? I feel this article could do with some more flesh on its bones, if it can be sourced. Did anyone note the nubbins takeoff of tribbles or gremlins? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can find. There is a statement where some did not like the first six episodes as much as the rest, but you already knew that and probably wanted it elaborated, but no.

Overall, I've read down to Broadcast and reception and find the prose needs alot of tightening. I'll be back later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article looks decent enough, though I am a little concerned that it comes to FAC while the nominator is still seeking help from the League of Copyeditors, and where a reviewer finds the prose needs "a lot of tightening". We don't expect candidates to be perfect, but it is a requirement that within reason nominators should ensure that FA criterion 1a on prose is met before nominating. Thus the nom looks a little premature (though I have seen much worse here). Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 29 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 not promoted by Laser brain 14:54, 7 February 2011 [6].

Economy of Iran

Nominator(s): SSZ (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is up to FA standards. It has been peer reviewed already and GA approved. SSZ (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose - I'm impressed by your willingness to tackle an article of this scope, but I disagree with your assertion that it's up to FA standards at this time. There are a lot of images, including several galleries, which is advised against by the Manual of Style (not to mention the gallery format makes many of the charts too small to be useful). Prose needs some attention for tone (the "imposed war"?) and general grammar and fluency ("One of the prime investment targets of well off Iranians as tangible."?). Several important factual/statistical points are unreferenced ("Construction is one of the most important sectors in Iran accounting for 20–50% of the total private investment"; "Estimates of service sector spending in Iran are regularly more than two-fifths of the GDP"). There are also problems with reference formatting - a couple of bare URLs, multiple inconsistencies, a couple of dead links. Sorry, but it's not ready yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: - Thanks for your very quick input. I used the gallery format because it is convenient in this context, and since there are so many statistics to be shown. It should not be difficult to change this, if there is a consensus. The rest can be addressed as easily in a short period of time (within a week). I vouch to do it myself if need be. SSZ (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The galleries have now gone, but this has not inproved the article, imo. Galleries are not "advised against by the Manual of Style" in general terms. Of course the graphs cannot be read at gallery size, but now (even with a 300px image setting) they are still too small to read easily, but large enough to clutter the article up badly. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the MOS has no blanket prohibition on galleries. SSZ, sorry for not being clear - my objection is to the sheer number of images, not to the fact that some of those images were in galleries. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for you very quick input. I did the changes to the point many graphs are gone. SSZ (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me what you think after seeing Economy of India as a point of comparison.SSZ (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Economy of India probably isn't the best goal, as it's currently undergoing review of its featured status. In any case, I'm still seeing problems with prose and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - 1 dab (Saipa), 3 dead external links (this, this, this). Quite a few external redirects which may lead to link rot, see them with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. SSZ (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I'm afraid. But well done: given the need for English-speakers to engage with the problematic Iran, this is an extremely important topic that is not generally accessible. It does need assistance from prose nerds: micro-glitches and lack of flow in places. Here are a few random points from the top:

  • "Iran will be among the leading economies of the world.[41]"—This sentence sticks out in the lead: flow problems both to and from it.
  • US$ 100 billion -> $100 billion. Even the first time, $ is by default US$ in an international context in which the local currency is not called "dollar"; not usually linked; no gap.
  • "Iran's population more than doubled in a 20-year period"—what, from 1959 to 1979? Or do you mean "over the two decades up to 2010"?
  • "By the late 1990s, Iran was a major food importer, and economic hardship in the countryside had driven vast numbers of people to migrate to cities." Do these points belong in the one sentence? I'm searching for a connection between them—causal or otherwise.
  • "the country's economic future economy faces many obstacles"
  • "In the early 21st century the service sector contributed the largest percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP)"—to contribute a percentage is not idiomatic. What about "comprised the largest proportion of"?
  • "In 2009 the ratio of research to GDP reached 0.87% and the set target is 2.5%." In 2009 the target is? Was. Or "0.87%, against the goverment's long-term (medium-term?) target of 2.5%." I'm surprised research funding is right up the top of Macro-economic trends.
  • "energy-inefficient". Comma audit throughout is required. The and a are a problem. Tony (talk) 06:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks to Hurricanehink and Tony for your feedback. Tony, to answer your question regarding migration to cities: In my understanding, it is implied that most of the these people were farmers. Please see the previous sentence for the context. I can clarify the sentence but it may be too much. What do you think? I would also appreciate greatly if other editors can opine about the gallery format, so we can reach a decision (whatever it is). For the rest I am almost done with all the recommendations above and change proposals by various editors.. If others can help address the critics as well as the copy-editing part, that would be greatly appreciated also! SSZ (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Referencing remains uneven. There are still paragraphs not terminating with a citation, while others have what look like unnecessary reference strings. A check through the first 30 or so of the citations leads me to think that the article is still not fully ready for FAC, given the numerous style inconsistencies. Thus:-

  • Ref 1: The IMF data should be dated (2009) and should be properly titled ("Report for Selected Countries and Subjects")
  • Ref 4: This too should be dated 2009. Dates should always be given for sources, if available. Many of your sources are undated when the date is available.
  • Use a single format for retrieval dates. For example, 4, 5 and 6 etc are different from 1, 2, 10, 11 etc
  • You should also format citations consistently. In some cases (e.g. 5, 6, 7, 8 and others) publisher precedes title. The normal practice, as in 2, 3, 4, 10 and others, is to show title before publisher.
  • Ref 16: needs proper titling and date
  • Ref 18: Needs article title, author and page refs if possible.
  • Ref 22: Needs publisher details and ISBN
  • Ref 23 (this applies also to numerous others): Author's name, where available, should be provided.

I have not gone beyond this point, but some of these issues look recurrent. So far as I can see, the references all appear to be reliable and good quality, but for FAC purposes the citation style must be simililarly high quality and above all, consistent. You need to go through and weed out the inconsistencies indicated above; tiresome, I know, but necessary. Beyond these stylistic issues I must say the article looks impressively informative, though I have not read it properly. Brianboulton (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for your feedback and for clarifying the inconsistencies in the reference section. I hope to be done with it by tomorrow, according to schedule. For info, I know this topic well (working on it - and many other related sub-articles such as the Tehran Stock Exchange - for 4 years now) and vouch for the accuracy of the data throughout the article. SSZ (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting by request

  • "Iran has a high potential of becoming one of the world's largest economies in the 21st century." The grammar is awkward. "has the potential to become one of". But more important, I question the neutrality of the first ref (41) (Goldman Sachs, well, don't they have their fingers in pies?) and (42), which is "Iran Daily" ... doesn't look authoritative to me, and it's a big claim. I'd want it to come out of a very reputable and neutral economic source.
  • Macro-economic table: the columns seem skewed WRT the headings. Same for anyone else? I'm on FF for the Mac.
  • "Iran's long-term objectives since the 1979 revolution have been economic independence, full employment, and a comfortable standard of living for citizens, but at the end of the 20th century, the country's economic faces many obstacles." ... "economy faces". Is that the Iranian government's objectives? Hard to know what the people's objectives are.
  • "The "imposed" war with Iraq"—is this "imposed" epithet explained anywhere? Or do we need to read the linked article to find out?
  • "GDP figure is projected to double in the next five years."—Start with "The".

It's not hard to find glitches. Tony (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any. 67.85.17.129 (talk) 12:45, 7 February 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 not promoted by Laser brain 14:54, 7 February 2011 [7].

A Journey

Nominator(s): wackywace, TheRetroGuy, 21:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

In September last year, British newspapers were filled with the scandal and gossip of a new book—the memoirs of arguably one of the most contraversial people to have lived in the past few years. It was initially thought the book would be an apology, or at least an explanation for the decisions he made during his time in power. But although he offered some reasoning for Iraq—which he describes as a "nightmare"—Tony Blair discusses how Gordon Brown, his successor as Prime Minister, tried to blackmail him; how Elizabeth II wore rubber gloves to wash up at a garden party; and how he predicted his predecessor would die less than a month before he did so. I myself have an opinion of Blair—after all, who doesn't—but I have put them completely aside in writing this article, which, undoubtedly, details a disputed and contraversial topic. Myself and TheRetroGuy have spent several months writing and then rounding this article, and after a GA review from MartinPoulter and a copyedit from Diannaa, we believe it is ready. Have at it! wackywace 21:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images File:A_Journey.jpg contains no new information, it shows what the author looks like, and we have many images of the author which are available under a free license, as for the text on the cover this is already included in the article, so the images fails wp:nfcc and this the article fails FA criterion 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe the image is needed in the article because of how recognisable it is. The front cover was shown on television and printed in national newspapers around Britain on the day the book was launched, and therefore it is an incredibly important image and is required to show what the book looks like. wackywace 12:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested to see the opinions of other editors regarding the use of non-free cover images in this RFC. - hahnchen 14:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media review: The use of the book's cover in the infobox is proper and standard for an article on the book. Fasach Nua is simply wrong, as the RfC mentioned by Hahnchen—of which Fasach Nua is well aware, as he participated in it—has reaffirmed beyond a shadow of doubt. The sort of baseless "image review" Fasach Nua keeps pushing here is nothing but tendentious and disruptive at this point.

The rationale is good. The book cover is the only item of non-free media in the article. There are five Commons images in the article, all of good quality. In four cases, the free-use license is well supported. In the fifth case, the image of Princess Diana, I find the claim very dubious. There are several good pictures of Princess Diana on the Commons with much better supported free-use licenses.—DCGeist (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've changed the Diana image to File:Princess diana bristol 1987 01.jpg, for which the licence is much better. wackywace 15:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on sourcing/WP:V - No problems with formatting, sources seem reliable. The Bookseller links redirect to the site's main page - is there a non-redirecting link available?
  • Earwig's and Coren's tools found no plagiarism. However, a spot-check found a few instances of close paraphrasing: "in what publishing experts believed was an attempt to make the book appear less self-important" vs "in what publishing experts believe is an attempt to make the long-planned book appear less self-important";
  • "Roger Bacon, whose son was killed by a roadside bomb while serving in Iraq in 2005, said he found it difficult to believe that Blair, who was "unable to say sorry" at the Chilcot Inquiry, was donating the funds "with a good heart."" vs "Roger Bacon, whose 34-year-old son Matthew was killed by a roadside bomb in 2005, said he found it hard to believe a man who was "unable to say sorry" at the Chilcot Inquiry was donating the funds "with a good heart";
    • Changed to "The father of a soldier killed by an improvised explosive device in Iraq said he did not think Blair made the donation "with a good heart," but because he had a "guilty conscience."" wackywace 18:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blair was heckled and jeered at by anti-war protesters" vs "the former prime minister was heckled and jeered by anti-war protesters".
    • Changed to "On 4 September, when Blair arrived for his first book signing at a leading bookshop on O'Connell Street, Dublin, demonstrators opposed to the Iraq War heckled, jeered and threw eggs and shoes at him; none of the objects hit him." wackywace 18:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also noticed problem with misattribution and misinterpretation of the sources: "best recipient" is purportedly a quote from the BBC article (ref 9), but those words do not appear in that article;
  • you mention that Blair was in DC for peace talks and a dinner, but the source only supports him being at the dinner;
  • the article claims that "it became the fastest-selling autobiography of all time", but the source specifies for a specific bookstore chain; the article claims more than 10,000 members in the Facebook group, but the source says only "over 3,000".

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further instances of problems:

  • "The families of soldiers killed under his leadership and activists opposed to the war called it "blood money"." - your source only supports the former, and only in a specific case
  • "where it sold more copies in one day than Peter Mandelson's The Third Man: Life at the Heart of New Labour had done in its first three weeks after publication in July" - that can't be determined using only the source provided, as it doesn't provide sales figures for Blair's book
  • "92,000 copies of A Journey had been sold in the United Kingdom in less than a week, the best opening week for an autobiography since the company began keeping figures in 1998" vs "92,000 copies in hardcover in less than a week — the company’s best opening week for an autobiography since it began keeping figures in 1998."; "Blair's visit to the United States was a coincidence, and not an attempt to be out of the United Kingdom when the book was published" vs "His visit to the US was a coincidence, not an attempt to be out of Britain when the book went on sale"; "he concedes that the aftermath of the invasion was a "nightmare"" vs "Mr Blair concedes that the aftermath of the war was a "nightmare""
  • "Protestors clashed with Irish police and tried to push over a security barrier outside the shop" should be ref 20, not 19
  • Facebook numbers should be ref 28, not 27
  • "[h]ad not abandoned the strategy of WMD [weapons of mass destruction], merely made a tactical decision to put it into abeyance" - this quote is not present in the cited source
  • "Of the situation in Iraq, he writes that some problems require a "resolution" and fester if left unattended" - not supported by source, and "resolution" is used only in regards to Kosovo, not Iraq

You need to go through your referencing again and check for both close paraphrasing and that the source actually supports the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:50, 1 February 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 not promoted by Laser brain 14:54, 7 February 2011 [8].

Cocker Spaniel

Nominator(s):   Miyagawa    talk   17:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it may meet the criteria for a FA. It has been through a Peer Review, and I've finally gone through the points raised, however I haven't added the points that I did not agree with (the missing sections mentioned at the bottom of the peer review such as diet). This is meant to be a dog type article, rather than a dog breed article and therefore I haven't included sections such as temperament as these would be covered on the individual breed articles.   Miyagawa    talk   17:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose With a quick-look I noticed that it is incomplet. It leaks of some information. Comparing it with the only FA about a dog itself, Beagle, it does not mention its popularity, how it looks, its behaivor, how it is used nowadays, etc., and the most important: the reason of why this article is called "Cocker Spaniel", or in other words, why the dog is called "Cocker Spaniel". On the other hand you talk about its health, why do not talk about the previous points? If you feel that issues are irrelevant, they are not irrelevant for the reader who want to know about this dog. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 22:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try looking more slowly.--Dodo bird (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a breed article - it's a breed type article. The main pages for the two breeds are the English Cocker Spaniel and American Cocker Spaniel. I realise now the paragraph on popularity had somehow ended up in the section on the American Cocker, so I've moved it now to the Modern breeds section. The meaning of Cocker is on the third line, and points such as the individual temperaments are covered in the breed articles, as I felt it was irrelevant for them to be in an article regarding the two breeds joint history and comparisons.   Miyagawa    talk   23:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said was a quick-look changing to neutral for now. Here are some issues:
The article is overlinked
"Kennel Club" and "American/English Cocker Spaniel" are overused, if synoyms exist, use them.
Remove the "" from ALT text because those are not quotes
Fixed.   Miyagawa    talk   10:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I read it correctly, the cocker is an European subject, since they were hunting dogs in the United Kingdom. Shouldn't the article be written in British English?
I was rather torn between International English and British English on this article. Being a Brit myself, it's easier for me to write in British English, but I felt that due to the modern breeds being split between the United States and the United Kingdom that it was more international than British-centric. However, happy to change if the consensus says to do so.   Miyagawa    talk   10:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox
ALT needed for consistency.
Done.   Miyagawa    talk   11:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
Spaniels were... -> Overlinked
In America -> the continent or the US, if it's the second, consider specify it.
Ch. Obo II -> Link it
Both breeds share similar coat colors and health issues with a few exceptions. -> too short for an independent paragraph
Changed American to United States, linked Obo II (article was only created last night!), brought the last line into the end of the second paragraph. Also fixed the wikilink to "Ch. Obo", as it was a link to Championship (dog), which should have been on the Ch. only and not the name of the dog too.   Miyagawa    talk   10:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • History
aka -> make it encyclopedic
liver than that of the Sussex Spaniel -> Overliked
Ch. Obo is considered -> [by whom?]
Ch. Obo II is considered -> [by whom?]
He was the son of a Sussex Spaniel and a Field Spaniel. -> overlinked
Fixed the image caption, and removed the overlinking. Wasn't sure how specific the considered had to be so I've put down "dog enthusiasts", if needed I can find additional citations from a range of authors to support this.   Miyagawa    talk   11:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modern breeds
Modern breedssometimes liver and tan as well as a variety -> Modern breedssometimes liver and tan, as well as a variety
the American Cocker Spaniel was ranked 23rd in 2009, -> ranked in what
was originally recognized by The Kennel Club in 1892 -> overlinked
registrations by the American Kennel Club, -> the link must go before
recognized by the American Kennel Club in 1878 -> overlinked
Fixed as suggested.   Miyagawa    talk   11:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common health issues
10 years and four months -> WP:ORDINAL ten years and four months
11 years and 2 months -> As above and consistency.
Otitis externa -> Otitis externa
Malassezia pachydermatitis -> Shouldn't be italized and why it is linked?
between the ages of 3 and 5 -> WP:NUMBERS
Fixed - the link should have been to Malassezia and I'm surprised that it's gone this long before someone's noticed it (past both myself, and through a GA review!)   Miyagawa    talk   11:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • References
Both books need thier location.
Added locations to books. Thanks for your comments. :)   Miyagawa    talk   11:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enthusiastic support, but...there's just one thing. The lead says implies that all cockers are either English Cocker Spaniels or American Cocker Spaniels, that the term means one of the two modern breeds, only. And that's pretty much true, today, but what about cocker spaniels that existed at Obo II's time or earlier? They were neither breed, but they were cocker spaniels. Back then, when there were just cocker spaniels, and the two breed had not yet been developed, there were many cocker spaniels, undifferentiated into the two breeds. The article explains this very well; there have historically existed many cocker spaniels that were not American Cocker Spaniels or English Cocker Spaniels, or even Welsh Cocker Spaniels, which refers to a small Welsh Spaniel better suited for going under the bush than springing up because they're smaller. So the lead sentence should be brought into alignment with the concept explained in the article, any small spaniel adapted to that kind of hunting companion work described there. In sum, if the first sentence is true, what was Obo I? Chrisrus (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Made an edit to the lead - let me know what you think.   Miyagawa    talk   11:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the capitalisation in the article title? WP:CAPS and WP:Fauna name would have it 'Cocker spaniel' and then in the prose use 'cocker spaniel'. The same would apply for all other dogs/breeds in the article with only capitals on proper names. I cannot see there are any exception for pets and domestic animals. The New York Times calls it 'cocker spaniel' so if we are here to write a high quality encyclopedia why aren't we? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really need to get around to writing a MOS for the Dog WikiProject. The two existing canine FA's, Beagle and Island Fox capitalise all the words in breed names. In addition, if you have a look around the various dog breed articles I think you'll find that the consensus among those editors is that dog breeds names are fully capitalised (in the absence of a project MOS as needed in Wikipedia:Fauna name#Capitalisation of common names of species). However, nicknames such as "cockers" should be lower-case, and I need to go through the article to check/fix that.   Miyagawa    talk   12:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gone through the article and changed all "cockers" to lower-case. Breed names remain uppercase except for a single instance of "cocker spaniel" where it specifically mentions that it is being used as a term rather than a breed name.   Miyagawa    talk   22:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken this article is about the breed that includes the American Cocker Spaniel and the English Cocker Spaniel. That would make it a group so even if there was Dog WikiProject agreement to use upper case for dogs Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Capitalisation_of_common_names_of_groups still applies and makes it lower case. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where it refers to both of the modern breeds, cocker spaniel is now lowercase. Where it refers to the breed known as Cocker Spaniel before it was split into American/English, it is uppercase. Miyagawa (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not lowercase in the article title nor in the first sentence. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed in the first sentence (spaniel too), I've left the article uppercase because of the multi-use and I think the uppercase overrides the lowercase usage. Miyagawa (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FA criterion 3 check all images have appropriate licenses. No images used in the article are non-free. All captions are succinct, but there is one issue with caption formatting. As sentence fragments, the captions should not have terminal periods. The links should be removed from the captions as well in a case of WP:OVERLINKing since the terms are linked in the body of the article. Breed names should be dropped to lower case in the captions per the comment above. Imzadi 1979 → 07:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB/EL check: No dab links present. One link came up with an error in the link checker tool, but it was fine in my browser. [9]. Imzadi 1979 → 07:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the terminal periods problem, and removed the links.   Miyagawa    talk   12:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Comments:-

  • "London, England" - the "England" is superfluous
  • Normally books are given a publication year, not a specific date. Where did the dates for the Sucher and Palika books come from?
  • Ref 2: "Archive.org" is not the publisher. The source is a 1909 transcription of the book as published by Chatto and Windus in 1909
  • Ref 3: This can be cited to the Introduction to the Chatto and Windus book rather than to the National Library of Australia website.
  • Don't know why I did that to these two references - I've fixed now with both references going directly to the book itself. I wasn't sure what to abbreviate "Edward, 2nd Duke of York" to, I've put down York for now, but would be happy to hear any further guidance.   Miyagawa    talk   21:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 4: The link you give is to a 2008 edition of the book, published by Brewster Press. The "Related books" show a 1936 edition of the title (with only 114 pages), published by Seeley Service. I can't find any mention of a 1932 Scribners edition
  • I'd used this book in the readers room at the British Library, and all I can think of is that I'd written down the wrong thing as the publisher. I think force of habit had me put the google books link in at the time, which I've now removed. Found the Seeley edition for 1932 here.   Miyagawa    talk   22:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 4 and 5 (and others): You should give publisher locations for all books, not just those listed under "References". Ref 5 does not require a retrieval date
  • Ref 7: Retrieval date not necessary for a printed source. Dog & Kennel should be italicised per MOS. The date (or year, 2000) of the article should be given
  • Ref 9: Is "Spaniel Journal" available in printed form? If so the points re 7 above apply.
  • Ref 13: What is the nature of this source? How do you access the article mentioned
  • It's a scan made of a piece of period advertising in the American Spaniel Club's collection. I've just edited the article to state that it was "advertised as..." rather than "stated as..." as it was reaching a bit previously imo upon reading it now.   Miyagawa    talk   21:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 14: Again, date precision. Publisher location missing, retrieval date redundant
  • Ref 19: Life should be italicised
  • Ref 27: What is the nature of this source - article? book?
  • It's a rather unusual book that I read at the British Library while researching this article, however it didn't have an ISBN number. Also fixed Ref 28 - for some reason I had the publisher down as American Cocker Spaniel, rather than American Kennel Club.   Miyagawa    talk   21:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 30: See 14
  • Done - I think I managed to cover all your points, which I have to thank you for, I should have been more thorough in checking the references before nominating here; although at least I'm glad that I don't seem to be making quite so many errors on my more recent articles. :)   Miyagawa    talk   22:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. The punctuation of the first sentence is awkward: a colon, then a semi-colon, then "and". The bit after the semi-colon can probably go as you make the same point further down in the lead.
  • There's another odd sentence in the lead: "When the breed was brought to the United States, it was bred to a different standard were made which enabled it to specialize in hunting the American Woodcock, creating size and physical shape differences in the breed compared to its English cousin." I tried to edit it, but was worried about changing the meaning.
  • Punctuation needs fixing: "Two dogs are considered to be the foundation sires of both modern breeds, the English variety ..." A colon would work instead of a comma. Not clear what "follows in the footsteps" means in that sentence. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sorry, I'm going to oppose this time round, for a number of reasons. First, the writing and punctuation could use some improvement. Just a few examples:
  • "When the breed was brought to the United States it was bred to a different standard which enabled it to specialize in hunting the American Woodcock, and caused physical differences compared to its English cousin." Presumably it was the physical differences that did the enabling, and were the point of the different breeding, so it's not clear what "and" would mean in this sentence. It would also help to explain why different characteristics were needed to hunt the American woodcock. Just because a bird is a little smaller, why would that require a smaller dog to hunt it?
  • "While its initial origins are unknown ...": origin or origins is enough.
  • "In 1801, Sydenham Edwards wrote in Cynographia Britannica that the 'Land Spaniel' is divided into two types; the hawking, springing/springer and the cocking/cocker spaniel." That should be a colon, not semi-colon.
I'm also wondering about the relationship between this article, English Cocker Spaniel and American Cocker Spaniel. This one doesn't seem comprehensive (just over 2,000 words), but when another reviewer mentioned this, they were referred to one of the sub-articles, so it's not clear what the purpose of this page is. That makes it hard to know what's expected of it to get it to FA. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess the easiest way to explain it (and I'm not a biologist by any means, so apologies if I'm using the wrong terms) but you can think of a Cocker Spaniel to be effectively a genus, where English Cocker Spaniel and American Cocker Spaniel are considered the species, and Spaniel is the Family (with Dog as the Order). I know that's not how it's actually set out (Dog is a species), but I thought explaining it like that might make it easier to compare to other FAs. For instance, Delichon is a genus, with Common House Martin, Asian House Martin and Nepal House Martin as the species. So effectively this article is trying to be the Delichon article in this instance - although you'll have to take into account the differences between whats normally in a domestic animal article and a wild animal article.   Miyagawa    talk   12:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Is there a standard used here for when to capitalize Cocker and Spaniel, and when not to? I see a lot of variation in this regard throughout.
  • When referring to a breed, it should be capitalised. When used as a common group term, it's not. You've also got to take into account that prior to the English/American split, it was simply Cocker Spaniel as a breed name, becoming the group name after the split. Miyagawa (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for two standard links in the lead.
  • History: Woodcock should be plural, I believe.
  • "as being deeper a shade of liver than that of the Sussex Spaniel." Move "a" to before "deeper"?
  • Add a comma directly after the first mention of Obo II in this section.
  • Modern breeds: Add "the" before "23rd most popular breed"?
  • Another case of overlinking is seen in English Cocker Spaniel with show and dog show, both of which go to the same article.
  • Common health issues: There's some inconsistent number usage in the first sentence. If the first three numbers are spelled out, the 2 should be as well.

Images all are properly licensed, although the WP:MOS would suggest that images with faces should look into the text Fasach Nua (talk) 17:30, 29 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 not promoted by Laser brain 14:54, 7 February 2011 [10].

Benet Academy

Nominator(s): Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated unsuccessfully in May 2010. Since then it has been revised extensively by Edge3, with particular attention to more robust sourcing, and generally copyedited by Nasty Housecat. The issues identified previously have been addressed, good new material has been included, and it is ready for another review with thanks in advance to all reviewers. The primary contributor to this article, Benny the mascot, has not edited since the previous FAC and has not responded to several messages on their talk page. Benny should by all means be included as a co-nominator. Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: At the last FAC the overreliance on primary sources was a major issue. There is much more use of secondary sources now. A few queries, however:-

  • Ref 47 has no publisher details
    • I have added "Chicago Tribune" as the publisher for this ref: [11]
  • Ref 78 (and others): what is Lisle Patch?
    • It's a local news organization for the Village of Lisle.
  • Ref 79: Wheaton Patch?
    • It's a local news organization for the City of Wheaton.
  • Ref 83: What is Benet Connections? (This and ref 115 should presumably be formatted the same).
    • It's a quarterly magazine sent out to the families of all of the students. If I remember correctly, it might also be sent to faculty and alumni, but I could be mistaken! And I hope I've addressed your formatting concerns!!! [12]
  • Ref 99: Publisher details missing
    • I've added the "Daily Herald" as the publisher for this ref: [13]
  • Ref 111: Can you clarify what information this ref is supporting?
    • With all due respect, I have absolutely no idea what you're confused about. Reference 111 serves as a citation for the entire sentence. Do you think that reference 112 should be removed?
  • Ref 113: no publisher details
    • The citation template used here was a "cite web" and not "cite news" template; thus the lack of publisher details showing up: [14]
  • Refs 117 and 118 seem a bit overcomplicated - why do Johnson and LeFevour need two citations to confirm they were at Benet? In any event, the second LeFevour cite is a dead link.
    • I've removed the citations that I didn't have access to for Johnson and LeFevour. [15] As for the complexity of the citation, there is a discussion on Talk:Benet_Academy#Alumni list proposal that might be able to aid your understanding of how we arrived at the current layout of the "Notable alumni" section.

Otherwise, refs and citations look Ok. A few spotchecks carried out revealed no problems. Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments... they are much appreciated! :) I have responded above. Edge3 (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs- The three external links to the Chicogo Tribune are timing out, so make sure that those are fine and that it's just their website being temporarily down. There's also a few redirecting links, which you might want to correct- see the box in the upper right corner of this page for the tool to identify them. --PresN 22:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the Tribune's website being down for maintenance the other day with a notice that it would be down until Sunday. Imzadi 1979 → 08:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is an image copyright review by Stifle.
  • Oppose pending the resolution of the above.

The following is not a copyright concern, but a captioning question. File:Benet students 3.jpg describes the image as students in class, but I am not aware of any schools where students in normal class wear suits with ties (gentlemen) or dresses (ladies). Can we get confirmation that the caption is accurate? Stifle (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there is no copyright notice printed anywhere on that book. Furthermore, File:Proco construction.jpg was published not before 1923, but rather 1985, per the guidelines presented on WP:PD#Publication. As for the picture of the students, the students are indeed in class; the picture just happened to be taken on a day in which those students were required to wear formal wear. Edge3 (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you own or otherwise have access to a copy of the book, or are you just guessing? Stifle (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The book is available online, so you can check it yourself if you'd like. Edge3 (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose on prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the comments. I have addressed most of them below but will need to consult the sources on several of the other points. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As do I... I should be able to retrieve the required books from the library tomorrow. Edge3 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rev. John Nepomucene Jaeger, the first Bohemian abbot in the United States, was urged to establish a Bohemian monastic community to teach at Bohemian parochial schools in their native language as well as English" - repetitive and awkward phrasing; this type of error is repeated in several other sentences
I've simplified it.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lay students were trained to take their place in the business world" - given the wording of this and the previous sentence, it's not clear whether "their" refers to the lay students or the monastic students. If the former, suggest rewording for tone
I changed it to "for employment".--Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The abbey established St. Procopius College and Academy in 1887 as an all-boys high school that taught students of Czech and Slovak descent.[9][18] It became the first Czech institution of higher learning in the nation,[19] and in 1920 it remained the only Czech college" - first sentence implies that it's only a high school, second that it includes a college; which is correct?
  • In 1893 the college published its first catalog, which urged Czech parents to enroll their 13-year-old boys and described the academic curriculum, which included a preparatory year to teach elementary school subjects to remedial students" - length and repetitive phrasing; check for other overly long sentences
I broke it into two. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which charged more for non-Polish orphans" - the orphanage charged money for having orphans? You might need to explain this
  • "Ever increasing applications for admission proved the even the new addition inadequate"; "A girls' dormitory building was built in 1923 (later converted into classrooms and is now known as Benet Hall)"; "Between 1917 and 1930, enrollment fell from 205 college and high school students had fallen to 140" - grammar; re-read article for other grammar issues
I've made the corrections. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ghosts of orphans still haunt the building's fourth floor" - which building? The previous sentence only mentions the cemetery
I've specified Benet Hall. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing it to St. Joseph Hall. Edge3 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "college-preparatory programs" or "college preparatory programs"? Be consistent
They are consistent now. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the difference between "accredited" and "certified"?
Accreditation required meeting the standards of a private organization that evaluates schools. Certification means legal recognition by state as an acceptable school. It may need to be clarified in the article. I am struggling for the right way to do that at the moment. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The $5 million building plan, included a new 1,800-seat gymnasium" - grammar
Corrected.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crowded rehearsal rooms on the top floor" - which building?
  • What's a "combination classroom"? What's the difference between a chemistry classroom and a chemistry lab, or between a chemistry and biology classroom?
I changed "combination" to "general purpose." --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Combination" means that the classroom includes both desks and lab tables; the other classrooms at Benet do not include lab facilities. Edge3 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "22 Carnegie units of a college preparatory curriculum to graduate, including 4 units of English, 2 units of foreign language, 3 units of math, 1 unit of world history, 1 unit of US history, 3 units of lab science, 2.5 units of religion, 1.5 units of physical education, and 5 five units of electives" - check your math on that one
Ah. Indeed. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "102-home game winning streak" or "102 home-game winning streak"? Check hyphen use throughout
Corrected.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"fund raiser" or "fundraiser"?

I went with the latter.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Academy of the Sacred Heart or Sacred Heart Academy?
You see both in the sources. I went with the latter for consistency. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 6 February 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 not promoted by Laser brain 14:54, 7 February 2011 [16].

CSI effect

Nominator(s): Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is completely outside of my normal comfort zone, and the unusual merger of several topics (law, sociology, media) left me with no idea what article I could use as a model. Still, I feel I've done a decent job explaining the subject and summarizing the available literature. I look forward to your comments! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Interesting article (I hadn't heard of it before). Initial thoughts (I haven't read this thoroughly yet):
  • The lead need some work to tidy up exactly what the CSI Effect really refers to - at the moment it says one thing in the first paragraph, and then the next paragraph seems to correct itself to expand the meaning - which comes across as a bit jarring. I'd be tempted to start with "the CSI effect refers to the notion that crime shows affect the public's perception of forensic science" and then say something like "It is normally used in relation to increased expectation of forensic science among jurors..." (although with better phrasing than that).
    I've attempted to rearrange the content in the lead. Better? Worse? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image doesn't add anything IMO, this could be one of the rare articles where images are not appropriate. (If any of the studies have nice graphs/charts then that might be good, although I don't know about copyright etc.)
    I must admit that the only reason I added the image was a feeble attempt to satisfy criterion 3, but how exactly would one illustrate a sociological effect such as this...? I'll leave it in for now (because science is cool), but if someone else wants to remove, that's fine too. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "see also" section is also of dubious value - I'm not sure any of the links are necessary but don't want to remove it unilaterally.
    It's quite unnecessary. I've gone ahead and removed it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the refs seem to be missing accessdates.
    I was under the impression that journals do not require accessdates, but I've added them anyway. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You were correct, neither journals nor Google books links require access dates. Links to Jstor or other paywall/subscription sites should have a (subscription required) template or similar to warn the reader. Sasata (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, yes, I was only referring to a couple of newspaper articles which seemed to be lacking them (or at least I thought I saw a couple). Trebor (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trebor (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and made some minor tweaks, and am now reasonably happy with the prose. The final section on forensic science seems a little "bitty" at the moment - switching quite quickly between several different ideas. Could it be expanded a little? I'm pretty happy with the article, although I still need to check the sourcing (and don't know enough about the topic to comment on comprehensiveness). I'm fairly indifferent towards the image at the moment (although would lean towards removing it) so will let other people decide. Trebor (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I spot checked a few of the sources and found no real problems. Source 7 is a Wall Street Journal article but the link goes to [17], a different site which reproduces the article. Do we have a policy on whether we should do that or just reference the article without a link? I'm sure it must have come up before. Apart from my minor quibbles, I'm happy to Support. Trebor (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the policy on mirror sources is. Regarding the "bitty" forensic science section, I've rearranged the material and added a couple of sentences to try to make it more cohesive. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: The sources all look reliable and are properly cited. Other points:-

  • Ref 1: you should give the site's publisher, Turner Broadcasting System Inc.
  • Ref 6: This article is available through JSTOR and needs to be marked (subscription required)
  • Ref 7: Another case of (subscription required), this time via Heinonline
  • In the interests of verification, long on-line articles with full pagination should provide a page number rather than the entire page range (as you have done with ref 10). This applies to 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16.
    Publisher and subscriptions added. I made some of the page numbers more specific, but unfortunately I won't have access to the subscription sources again until January. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I remember having heard about this effect before, and it amazes me how people can be so naive and believe in such ridiculous portrayal of criminalistic work as shown in those TV series. Anyway, I found the article a refreshing read, not too bloated but with good overall information. I wonder if two or three examples of unrealistic portrayal in those series should be cited (this is not too important, though). Regarding the effect in the U.S. juridical system, more recently introduced precautionary measures such as negative evidence witnesses should be mentioned. Potential jury members are also sometimes asked for their TV preferences to sort out affectionate CSI lovers. Regarding reliance on forensics, maybe one of the countless examples of failures or false evidences could be given (see for example [18]). Nageh (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the great feedback! I've added a paragraph to Background to discuss the unrealistic portrayals. I also expanded a paragraph in Jurors to discuss methods that prosecutors use to fight the effect. Happy clams? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Background section, second paragraph, second sentence. You may want to rewrite this slightly as "Real murder cases most often involve a perpetrator and a victim who are poor and from minority groups" ([19]). Next sentence, I'd like to see a bit emphasized that DNA data is often unobtainable, like "In real crime labs, DNA and fingerprint data are often unobtainable, and it can take several weeks to process them, whereas television crime labs get results instantaneously." This is criticized fairly often by forensics (e.g., [20]). The latter reference also points out that too much trust is placed in DNA evidence; this could be mentioned in the Jurors section. Nageh (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I chose to rewrite the demographics sentence by simply removing "most" from "most often". I think this is the simplest solution. Your rewrite for the unobtainable DNA was spot on, so I've used that. I've also added a snippet to the first paragraph of Jurors about overconfidence in DNA. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This covers my objections, thanks! I will vote once you are through Sasata's list. :) Nageh (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - 1 dab (Washtenaw County), no dead external links. --PresN 06:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for the heads-up. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 07:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I don't think File:Punuk.Alaska.skulls.jpg is an appropriate image to illustrate Forensic science. Fasach Nua (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That image is part of the {{Forensic science}} navbox, not something that I chose specifically for this article. I would not be opposed to that image being replaced, but I think it would be more appropriate to discuss such a change at Template talk:Forensic science rather than at this FAC. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editorial decision was made to include this template in this article, and the entire content of the article is subject to this review. The primary role of FAC is to make assessments, not changes Fasach Nua (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, how would you suggest that we deal with this problem? I believe the navbox is helpful, so I would be opposed to removing it altogether. I also believe that neither this FAC nor the article's talk page would be an appropriate venue for discussing a change in the navbox image. It seems to me that the only option would be to discuss the matter on the template talk page. We could try changing the image ourselves, though I suspect doing so would result in an immediate revert, which would inevitably lead to a discussion on the talk page anyway. Your thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your situation and the loss of the links in the template would be undesirable, however the the responsibility of editors is to edit the article and the responsibility of the reviewers is to review them, and I have made my review. In the past issues like this have been brought to wikiproject talk pages were they have been resolved, I would suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine, may be a useful port of call, and it is regrettable that there is no Forensics wikiproject. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What inappropriate about the image? It's been there since the navbox was created 5 years ago, is transcluded onto 43 pages, and yet nobody else seems to have mentioned a problem with it (from checking the template talk). Trebor (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it has anything to do with forensic science, it is a couple of human skulls sitting on the beach unanalysed for forensic information. On a personal point I don't thing it gives much dignity to the individuals who are the subject of the image, I wouldn't be happy if my eventual corpse was put up as a decoration, whether on a Christmas tree or on a Wikipedia. You have mentioned transclusion of the template in 43 page without problem, a useful metric may be to state how many of these articles have met the minimum threshold of acceptability rather than using the template talk page. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In all of our fussing and fretting, it seems none of us noticed that the {{forensic science}} navbox has a built-in feature to specify an image rather than using the default. Fancy that! I've swapped out the skulls for a fingerprint. Do you like that better? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That addresses my concerns, I would assume that the image option was intended to reflect the subject of each of the articles, if you wanted to, you could display a cropped version of File:WP_CSI_image.svg as this would fall below the Threshold of originality and thus be usable on wikipedia Fasach Nua (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FA Criterion 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sorry Cryptic C62, but I did a lit search and the article does not meet the WP:WIAFA standards 1b (comprehensive) and 1c (well-researched). Check out the list of available sources below that weren't used. Of course, I'm not claiming that they should all be used as sources, I haven't read them and some may not even apply... but it seems not enough effort has yet been put into surveying the literature. Sasata (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my oppose, as now I think the article fulfills 1b and 1c. I plan to review the other criteria in the next day or two. Have moved the article list to the archive talk page. Sasata (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your diligence! I will make an effort to investigate each of the sources you've mentioned and either incorporate them into the article or give my thoughts as to why they are not needed. I suspect that some of them will be subscription-only, and I won't have access to my handy-dandy free pass until next week. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Send me a list of the ones you can't get and I'll see if I have access. Sasata (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool of you, Sasata, to provide this list, particularly finding a source about a non-American aspect. --Kleopatra (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I enjoyed the article, and thought it was well-written. Here's some suggestions: Sasata (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • possible relevant links for the lead: link criminal justice, juror, prosecuting attorney, acquit, forensic evidence, jury trial
  • Linked.
  • link crime lab
  • Linked.
  • "whereas television crime labs get results instantaneously." they don't really get results that fast, nor is it implied that they do on the shows (that I've seen); perhaps put quotes around "instantaneously" to show that this is someone else's (exaggerated) word choice, or just reword it yourself
  • Reworded to "very quickly".
  • "The most publicized example of this came when actor Robert Blake" I'd change this to "A highly publicized", as the sources don't indicative the superlative "the most"
  • Reworded to "one highly-publicized"
  • link expert witness
  • Linked.
  • "American legal professionals believed they had had decisions affected by forensic television programs." specify courtroom decisions, or perhaps pipe link to judgment (law)
  • Piped link.
  • "A 2008 survey" by who?
  • Added name.
  • "a jury member complained because the prosecution had not dusted the lawn for fingerprints"
  • Lol!
  • I lol'd too. People r dum.
  • link anecdotal evidence
    Linked.
  • "A 2009 study of conviction statistics in eight states" U.S. states, I assume?
  • You are correct. I wasn't sure how to phrase this, as "eight of the fifty United States" is awkward and "eight U.S. states" is redundant". Any suggestions?
  • Hm, I would have written U.S states without even noticing the redundancy (mentally, I read the letters, not "United States")... no biggie, maybe someone else will have a suggestion. Sasata (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "here has been a decrease in acquittals in the years since the debut of the CSI series." Can we qualify this "decrease"? Is it an absolute or percentage decrease?
  • Percentage decrease; clarified.
  • "As of August 2010, no empirical evidence has demonstrated a correlation between CSI viewership and acquittal rates." This is a pretty broad and sweeping statement, perhaps it should be attributed directly in the text?
  • I'm not sure what you're asking for. The reference gives the page number with which the reader can verify the claim.
  • "Rape victims have reported that they were forced to shower or clean themselves with bleach after the assault." Clarify they were "forced by their assailants"
  • Clarified.
  • National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers -> link
  • Linked.
  • "generally don't take precautions" avoid contractions in quality prose
  • I usually avoid them, I do not know know why I phailed so hard with this article.
  • link undergraduate degree, Master's degree
  • Linked.
  • Support: I'm happy with the article now, but I suggest the lead be given a once-over: it seems to me that paragraphs 3 & 4 discuss the same material and could be combined; and the final sentence should have "in the United States" removed. Also, it's a bit awkward to have a single sentence paragraph in the lead... could it be expanded a bit or integrated elsewhere? Sasata (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't happy with the new layout of the lead, so I went back to an older version and expanded it. What do you think? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Support on prose, MoS, and reference formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Comments: A nice article, though one I don't feel able to comment extensively on. Some comments: "%" should generally be written in words; don't use contractions; link terms like DNA and West Virginia U on first occurrence; "attempts to conceal evidence ends up generating more evidence" and a couple other minor grammar issues; watch for double periods caused by reference templates; be consistent in including or not including retrieval dates for online versions of journal articles; "U.S. News & World Report" should be italicized in references; refs 11 and 12 should have similar formatting, as the original publication is the same (and should have the same name); missing volume number for ref 23; use last name first for ref 24; use a consistent format for refs with multiple authors. Also, I'm not sure that this article really fits in the CSI franchise template; I would suggest the removal of this template from the article and the removal of the link to it from the template, but I'll leave that to your discretion. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bundle for the detailed feedback! I probably won't have time to incorporate your suggestions until Saturday, but rest assured that they will be addressed. You're also welcome to make changes as you see fit. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to address all of your concerns, though there are two points that need some clarification. Some references have been added and moved around since you left this note, so it is no longer clear what you were referring to with "refs 11 and 12". Regarding the formatting for multiple authors, my system is this: Two authors are separated by "and", three or more authors are separated by semicolons. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently refs 14 and 15 - the two Scientific American articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments have mostly been addressed, just a few still unstruck. Also, retrieval date for ref 14 (Mirsky)? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieval date added, percentages spelled out, double period fixed. Is there anywhere in particular that you found grammar issues? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
General wordiness and awkward phrasings in the lead; "data are" (while historically correct, recent grammatical publications tend to treat "data" as a mass noun rather than a plural in terms of verb agreement); "a sense of justice and closure which are not attained" ("sense" and "are" do not agree as written). These are quick examples - there are no major prose problems, but several minor ones. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't happy with the new layout of the lead, so I went back to an older version and expanded it. What do you think? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment. I'm not happy now with the article mentioning impact in Germany but not considering other European countries – this makes the topic look insufficiently researched. Please try generalizing to "...proliferated among youths in Europe", and add examples for UK and probably France and one more country. Nageh (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would be original research to automatically assume the effect is prominent throughout Europe simply based on one German source. That being said, I would be happy to try to find sources which mention other European nations (assuming such sources exist). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was not suggesting you to carry out original research but to do additional research. ;) Nageh (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out it's not just Europe. I added Britain and Australia. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This list is likely not to be complete. I therefore suggesting wording as "...has also proliferated among youths in other [Western] countries, such as Australia, the UK, and Germany." P.S. I don't think Britain is a proper term for the UK. Nageh (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To back up my statement, here is a source (in French), which states that students of criminology are rising in the USA, the UK, and in Continental Europe as a result of the CSI effect (l´effet CSI), and cites student numbers for a university in Lausanne (Switzerland) "exploding" since 2001: [21], paragraph 80. Nageh (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have rephrased the statement in question to avoid implying that the list is complete, and I've changed "Britain" (which is colloquial) to United Kingdom (which is proper). Excellent work finding that source about Europe! Unfortunately, I have no knowledge of the French language, so I would prefer not to add it into the article myself. Still, I think it would be a great addition, so if you (or anyone else) are confident that you're interpreting it correctly, I'd love to see it included. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please check to make sure everything is fine. Btw, above reference seems to be an excellent fit since the University of Lausanne hosted the world's first school of forensic science. Nageh (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks mate! I tweaked the wording and the ref a little bit. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! Nageh (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As a fan of CSI: Las Vegas, I was intrigued to find this article, which is an interesting and enjoyable reading experience. The language is clear and it seems to me the article has focused and explained quite clearly on its intent (real-world effect of the show). Jappalang (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Finally, here comes my vote. I'm happy with the current state of the article, as well as the lead as it stands. Good work! Nageh (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • "The CSI effect (sometimes CSI syndrome[1] or CSI infection[2]) refers to ... "
  • "By 2005, six of the top ten most popular television shows were crime dramas, and in November 2007, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation reached the number one ranking."
  • Presumably, top ten in the United States? Never mentioned ...
  • " ... resulting in two spin-offs: CSI: Miami, which launched in 2003, and CSI: NY in 2004."
  • missing comma ??
  • "By 2005, six of the top ten most popular television shows were crime dramas, and in November 2007, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation reached the number one ranking."
  • Number one ranking under what scheme? I can't find that mentioned anywhere in the cited source-- related to the source having 13 pages?
  • Quote from the second page/chapter "The Effect": "By 2005, according to the Nielsen ratings, six of the ten most popular shows on television were crime dramas, and that trend continues to hold. In November 2007, C.S.I. was the number one show for several weeks running" --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In cases like this, I go to the printed version of the source, expecting it to include all pages-- it seems that in this case it doesn't, and there's no way to view the entire document, so you really should be citing individual pages (rather than always the first page) so readers can find the info. Also, you need to add Nielsen and link it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 2005, some prosecutors had begun altering their trial preparations and procedures in an attempt to counter the CSI effect.[21][22] In particular, prosecutors have begun asking questions about forensic television viewership ... "
  • Had begun, have begun.

I stopped there, but also see WP:OVERLINKing of common English words and terms, and country names.

Don't forget to review the overlinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed links from Australia, United Kingdom, Germany, bleach, and psychological. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kleopatra's comments

Difficult to edit from huge page on my device. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for poorly organized prose. This article is all over the place. You've made it international per the request of a reviewer above, but the international journals I read (biased as personal) indicate the impact is much greater in Germany than the rest of Europe, so I would like to see this developed per the actual impact, rather than just add information about international interest from various sources. Weighted? The article does not flow. I don't read as many FAs as I used to, but I like them to flow. Don't make me work to get my information: that's your job. This article jumps all over the place, contains nice paragraphs of information that could be bullet points, but aren't purposefully related in an organized manner to the topic through the broad body of research readily availably. On the other hand, I think this is working bringing up to FA status, as I think it would get a lot of hits, and I think it would be a fun read for many readers of FAs and wikipedia in general. I would like to see TFA throw candy to the audience every once in a while. But this has to be better organized and researched at a more purposeful level. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a detail-oriented person, the concept of "flow" has little meaning to me. The Trials section is organized chronologically. The other sections, which haven't had enough serious research done to justify a chronological explanation, are broken down into paragraphs with distinct subtopics. This organization seems perfectly logical to me. What can be done to make it flow better? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you make the reader jump back and forth from the very specific to the general from the positive aspects of the CSI effect to the negative aspects of the CSI effect and back to the positive all in 3 sentences you interfere with comprehension. This is part of detail orientation, presenting your data in a logical manner: you start with the general, move into specifics, you structure your presentation in a way that doesn't continually jar the reader back and forth. If you think it is logical to just put out fact after fact in any manner, there is no organization, and there winds up being no flow; you might as well just put the article in randomly organized bullet lists; but that's not what it is: it's an article, meant to be read by a general and diverse audience of encyclopedia readers. I can't say much more on this, because I seem to have reached a roadblock that does not allow for any communication about organization. Detailed information put out without order is not organization, and it interferes with the level of detail by juxtaposing conflicting details making comprehension and reading difficult. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could give a sample of how you would want some of the content to be rewritten? If you rewrote, for example, the Crimes section here or in the actual article, that would give me a much better idea of what kind of changes you're looking for. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did give a sample.[22] --Kleopatra (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say this, mate, but if that unsubstantial shuffling of content is what you mean by improving the article's flow, then I don't intend to do anything to address your concern. Quite frankly, your concerns don't make any sense to me, nor have your edits demonstrated any improvements that I can readily detect. I see no point in blindly moving content around in the hopes of pleasing one editor when numerous other have already given positive feedback for the article's organization and clarity. Nevertheless, I appreciate the time you've put into this review, and I wish you all the best in your future endeavors. Cheers! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not blind. It's organized prose, and FAs require excellent prose. And this article does not have it, because the information is not laid out with any design that well-written prose is organized in a manner that reflects its actual content. --Kleopatra (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the article needs and could be better developed than it is. The CSI effect has been studied extensively since reports of it first started appearing in the press. There are a lot of examples that can be included in the article. I think the article could be organized better, within sections. I've expanded the lead section. I think in featured articles that the lead section is not usually sourced extensively, but the citations are included with the expansion? I am also not sure how to do the references; am I missing something? I have a small library of articles and a couple of books on this topic, and I think it's interesting. I would like to add some sources and examples, and expand the text in some areas. --Kleopatra (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly welcome to expand and adjust as you see fit. The current layout is one that I decided on more or less by myself, so it doesn't really reflect any sort of consensus. Regarding references, there are two things you could add to make them better: page numbers and URLs for Google Books entries. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kleopatra, for your concerns to be actionable, you need to provide some specifics about the issues you see: what could be better developed, what examples are missing (and please provide reliable sources for those), what is a sample organizational problem, and see WP:LEAD regarding citations in the lead. Unless you give nominators specific input about what needs improvement, they can't action your request. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There are several other manifestations of the CSI effect. The number and popularity of forensic science programs at the university level have greatly increased around the world, though some new programs have been criticized for inadequately preparing their students for real forensic work. It is possible that forensic science shows teach criminals how to conceal evidence of their crimes, thereby making it more difficult for investigators to solve cases. The increased public awareness of forensic science has stimulated new interest in solving cold cases, though it has also created significantly larger workloads for crime laboratories."

Is the number of university students taking classes in forensic sciences the greatest secondary Impact? This paragraph is a jumble, a somewhat positive impact, a clearly negative one, then another broader positive one.

"There are several other manifestations of the CSI effect. Some research indicates that increased public awareness of forensic sciences has stimulated new interest in solving cold cases, though it has also created significantly larger workloads for crime laboratories. The increased workload may be reduced by an influx of new forensic scientists being trained at suddenly popular forensic science programs at the university level. Although these programs have greatly increased around the world, some new programs have been criticized for inadequately preparing their students for the often repetitive laboratory work that is common in real forensic work. In addition to the increased awareness of criminal cases among the general public, it is possible that the forensic science shown on television shows educates criminals in means for concealing evidence of their crimes, thereby making it more difficult for investigators to solve cases."

This moves from a very general, ties together two things that are tied together; increased workload, but also far more interested applicants for what really are tedious lab jobs; in addition this leads naturally to the other side, that criminals also use it to their advantage. It's more structured, not just a list. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that there should logically be a connection between the influx of qualified applicants and the overall workload, the problem is that such a connection is not (as far as I can tell) discussed in the sources. For us to make such a connection ourselves would be WP:Synthesis. Also, it does make a certain amount of sense that more qualified applicants does not necessarily reduce the workload. Crime laboratories presumably make their hiring decisions based on their available budget which, sadly, does not increase with respect to the lab's workload. If however, you have any other ideas for how to tie the paragraph together, I'd be happy to hear them. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: The background opens with a paragraph about the show becoming popular, then gives an alphabetical list of other such shows. The list should be in order of most popular, as the article is about popular TV shows. Alphabetical is a fallback for lack of insight into the list. Please reorder by popularity or mentions in the references.
The problem with ordering by popularity is that, as far as the Nielsen ratings are concerned, viewership data and ratings fluctuate from week to week, meaning that the list would become outdated very quickly. There are definitely some shows that are mentioned in the literature more frequently than others, but for us to make an ordered list would be both synthesis and impractical: we would have to survey all of the publications about the CSI effect to determine the correct order of the list (as if it were even possible to definitively find all of the publications about a particular topic). In a perfect world, I think the best order would be how strong of a CSI effect each show exerts on its viewers, but this is something we'll be able to know. In short, you are right that alphabetical order is a fallback. However, I have fallen back on it because the other options are largely impossible. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then moves from this introduction to a second paragraph about unrealistic aspects of the show. How about developing the impact first, rather than just listing it, then moving on to what wrongs with it, namely the unrealistic aspect. Without developing the impact of the shows in the background section as the second paragraph, you leave this paragraph, and thus the whole section, hanging nowhere. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I know what you're suggesting here. Would you be so kind as to clarify what you mean by "impact"? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the background section to give the reader some background about what the CSI effect is, how it came about, how it earned this topical article. You list the timeline, then other shows in the first paragraph of this section, then move on to what is criticized as unrealistic about the shows. Yet, the introduction of the article is that the CSI effect is about the public perception of forensic science, cold case, university programs in forensic science and criminal's hiding crimes with the help of the crime shows. Nothing about this second paragraph that jumps up about the unrealistic aspects of the show.
There's a lot of information missing about what the criticism of unrealistic aspects of the show has to do with the CSI effect. I train with forensic scientists, so this is the funnest part of the shows for all of us, and the press has had some fun with this, also, but, how is this unrealism tied in to the CSI effect? Please don't make me jump down in the article to find out. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "impact", as you've described it here, is covered in the Manifestations section. The purpose of the Background section is to familiarize the reader with the information that is relevant to all of the different manifestations. Incorporating your suggestions would detract from this purpose and lead to redundancies in the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your background gives the timing of the show then the criticism. Sorry, but there is more to the background than criticism of the show. Even your introduction contradicts your background and doesn't mention criticism of the unrealistic aspects of the show. If the entire background to the CSI effect is that the show presents forensic sciences unrealistically, the focus of the lead section should be on this, or it should at least mention it. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead already does mention it in the very first sentence: "The CSI effect refers to several ways in which the exaggerated portrayal of forensic science on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation..." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exaggerated and unrealistic do not mean the same thing. An exaggerated portrayal is, by definition of the word "exaggerated," based in reality. Unrealistic refers to something not based in reality. These are not the same. And, is all background, and are all articles about the CSI effect deal with it negatively, so the background should include only criticism? --Kleopatra (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Background section should cover the cause, the Manifestations section the (CSI) effects. In this regard, the Background section should discuss what led to the notion of the CSI effect, and that is the unrealistic/exaggerated portrayal of forensic science. Nageh (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the picture relevant? What is it a DNA profile of? Not human. So, how does it tie into the article? Are FBI images copyright free? They have some pictures we might could use in the article, but I would like to see the picture removed if it can't be tied better to the subject matter. --Kleopatra (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, I just thought the picture looked cool. I promised Trebor that I would remove it if anyone else was unhappy with it, so now it's gone. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I do sympathize somewhat with Kleopatra's assessment that the Background section rather abruptly jumps from a listing of crime shows associated with the CSI effect in its first paragraph to criticism of the shows in the second and third paragraphs, forcing a reader who has never seen any of these shows to make its own conclusions about their contents. It would indeed be helpful if a second paragraph were introduced that outlined the common plot structure of these series, highlighting notable aspects that are criticized later on (investigators do crime scene investigation, labs, and even arrests, are elegantly clothed, cases are supposed to be from real life, labs have high-tech equipment, cases are nearly always solved with certainty, criminals are usually white, etc.). Then, the third paragraph may go on with "There are several aspects of these shows that have been criticized as being unrealistic..." Nageh (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, we shouldn't anticipate anything, either. Maybe we can simply insert a few words or lines after the first sentence of the first paragraph. Like, The series follows a team of criminalists as they solve cases of murder using physical evidence. The course of events is reconstructed successively using scientific skills and equipment that are capable of finding valuable clues from the most seemingly unlikely sources. (from CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation) Nageh (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: Even though the CSI effect is shortly described in the lead section, in the Background section it is only described in the third paragraph. Using the term in the first paragraph is unfortunate. You should rather say something like "The series inspired a number of similar crime shows, including American Justice, etc." Nageh (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSI was undoubtedly the spark the ignited the effect, but to claim that CSI inspired all of those shows would be misleading, as some of them have been around since before CSI debuted. If you think this list is poorly placed, perhaps we could try moving it to the fourth paragraph, which also discusses other sources of the CSI effect. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the place is fine since you are referring to the poor portrayal of forensic work in these shows in the next paragraph. Well, I don't have a strong opinion on this so I'll leave it as is unless someone else comments. Nageh (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: First paragraph: "The show quickly became popular, resulting in two spin-offs: CSI: Miami, which launched in 2003, and CSI: NY, in 2004. Its success provoked a number of similar television shows, and by 2005, based on the Nielsen ratings, six of the top ten most popular television shows in the United States were crime dramas. In November 2007, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation reached the number one ranking."
Beginning of second paragraph: "Several aspects of popular crime shows have been criticized...".
End of third paragraph: "In addition to the CSI series, the CSI effect has been associated with crime shows like American Justice, Bones, Cold Case, Cold Case Files, Criminal Minds, Crossing Jordan, Forensic Files, NCIS, Numb3rs, The Secrets of Forensic Science, and Without a Trace.[4][1]:Ch. 2"
Less intrusive change: "The show quickly became popular, resulting in two spin-offs: CSI: Miami, which launched in 2003, and CSI: NY, in 2004. Its success inspired many similar shows,[ref] and by 2008, the number of crime series that have been associated with the CSI effect included..."
If you agree with the basic structure, improve wording as you see fit.
[ref]: [23]
Nageh (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, mate! I've incorporated that source into the first paragraph of Background. What do you think? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but still missing the flow. :) The two parts of the sentence still require a semantic connection. For example: "The success of this franchise resulted in the production of many similar shows; in turn, the CSI effect has also been associated with other crime shows including American Justice, ...". Nageh (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like this wording! I have incorporated it verbatim. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Nageh (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerned about this one. It's been here for over a month, and I still see issues.
    • Lots of clunkiness in the writing and plain grammatical problems. You have a propensity for the wordiness illustrated in that first link, and it makes the prose exhausting to get through.
    • Another example: "there has been a decrease in the acquittal rate in the years since the debut of the CSI series" Much simpler: "the acquittal rate has decreased in the years since the debut of the CSI series". This problem occurs throughout.
      It is true that I have a propensity for wordiness. It is also true, as I'm sure you know, to accurately detect wordiness in one's own writing. Nonetheless, I have attempted to simplify the phrasing as much as I could. Are there any other problematic phrases? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • On randomly checking your sources, I find that "By 2006, the CSI effect had become widely accepted as reality despite the fact that there had not yet been any empirical research to validate or disprove it" is not supported by the source given, at least on the pages you cite. If anything, the source indicates that the CSI effect is widely disputed, not widely accepted. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I had intended to imply that the effect was widely accepted among legal professionals, though not universally accepted, as there are clearly researchers who would disagree. I have reworded accordingly. Thanks for the feedback! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the oppose side. This nomination has been here for a long time, which suggests it was premature. There are good things about this article, but a spot-check in the middle reveals prose issues of the clunky type mentioned by a reviewer above:
  1. "the effect that is most commonly reported is that jurors are"
    Done --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "One highly-publicized example of this came when actor Robert Blake, on trial for murder, was"—see MoS; hyphens. An example came?
    Hyphen removed. "Came" -> "was". Does that help? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "By 2005, some prosecutors had begun altering their trial preparations and procedures in an attempt to counter the CSI effect.[22][23] In particular, some prosecutors are now asking questions about forensic television viewership during voir dire to target biased jurors, using opening statements and closing arguments to minimize the possible impact of the CSI effect, and instructing jurors to adhere to the court's standards of evidence rather than those viewed on television.[2]"—A specific time in the past is given; "in particular" indicates the subsequent statement is a subset of the previous one, but it is tagged "now", contrary to the "since 2005". Possibly use "have been" or "have begun to". The second sentence is too long and winding; consider a semicolon plus "this has involved ...".
    Implemented the semicolon. SandyGeorgia didn't like "have begun" so I changed it to "are now". You don't like "are now" and suggest changing it to "have begun". I prefer "have begun", but I don't want to keep switching back and forth to try to please both of you, unless the two of you happen to be my divorced parents, in which case I'm totally used to it by now. :P Seriously though, what is the best course of action? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "have begun" only if the onset has been very gradual and is still going on as an initial onset, with a steep curve I guess; maybe that's what Sandy was uneasy about; would it work if you keep the current wording minus "now"? Tony (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no problem with dropping "now"; done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "the CSI effect had become widely accepted as reality among legal professionals despite the fact that there had not yet been any empirical research to validate or disprove it"—I think a comma before "despite"; and why not "despite little empirical evidence to ..." (who cares about the research—it's the data we want).
    Done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "crime shows are more likely to increase the rate of convictions rather than acquittals". Tony (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback so far! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General response: If people are concerned that the prose isn't perfect after having been here for a month, then perhaps they should have visited this FAC earlier. I can't read people's minds, I can't predict the future, and I can't time travel. I can, however, deal with prose issues swiftly so long as reviewers actually voice their concerns. At this point, I would be both frustrated and confused if the FAC closed due to unresolved issues considering how many times I've asked for feedback with no response.

Of course, the goal is to improve articles, not to earn stars and stickers; if the consensus is that the article should be sent to peer review or looked over by an uninvolved copyeditor, then so be it. It's clear in my mind that this article is of FAC standards, but if I have to jump through a few more hoops to prove it, then that's what I'll do. My apologies if my words sound harsh. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic C62, when I looked at this a few days ago to see if it could be promoted, I spotted issues, which I mentioned above. Tony has listed some other issues. The reason I mentioned the length of time listed is not to impugn your work—it's to perhaps prod reviewers into looking at my concerns. It would be prudent to perhaps seek an independent copyedit to get these things smoothed out. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I understand what you're saying. The "delegate hat vs. reviewer hat" comment also makes much more sense to me now. Thank you for clarifying. Again, my apologies for the harsh words. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:18, 3 February 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 not promoted by Laser brain 21:57, 3 February 2011 [24].

Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation

Nominator(s): Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A feature-length animated sequel from Canada, released in March 1986. Getting this in before the 25th anniversary, now that it seems I've exhausted almost every possible source at my disposal. Wish me luck, Bears. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images: File:CBMII soundtrack cover.jpg should not be used- album covers are fine in the article about the album, but usually not elsewhere. Both the screenshots use a template rationale which was recently deleted as invalid- the rationales should really be updated with purpose-written rationales, but you need to ask whether they are both needed. The inclusion of the new characters and the fourth-wall scene are important, and worthy of discussion, but are non-free images really needed? J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from contributor: A soundtrack article would be feasible, provided said release was notable enough. Apparently, that won't be the case in the foreseeable future; I don't think it ever charted on the Billboard 200. As for the rationales, I'll try to fix them (just in case the rest of the bunch survive the process). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Clarify what source ref 9 is citing
  • Ref 16: from the link to Take One I learn that the magazine ceased publication in 1979, and that this September 1996 article must therefore come from its successor, Take #1. This should be clarified, and the link piped accordingly.
  • Ref 37: Both links in the citation are to WP articles. What article is being quoted here?
  • To what citation does the apparently detached text above ref 56 relate?
  • Ref 66: What makes http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/carebears2.php a high quality reliable source?
  • Ref 93: What makes http://www.movieretriever.com/faq#7 a high quality reliable source?
  • General point: for well-recognised newspapers (The New York Times, The Times, Toronto Star etc) it is not necessary to include the publisher's name. This should be given for local or lesser-known publications.

Otherwise, sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW. Lacks an adequate analysis. No themes section. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you didn't notice the Allusions section. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:54, 28 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 not promoted by Laser brain 21:57, 3 February 2011 [25].

Mangalorean Catholics

Nominator(s): Joyson Noel (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this for featured article because i think that it satisfies the criteria. Well written! Replete with free images and credible cross-references. This article currently holds GA status. Joyson Noel Holla at me 08:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete it! I have requested the association to release it under "Creative Commons". I should get a response soon. Joyson Noel Holla at me 13:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - Wow. 11 Dabs! - See here for the list- please change your links to the actual article you meant. You also have tons of external link problems- this is showing 6 completely dead links- most of which are tagged in the article. There's also two that've vanished and are redirecting to the home page, 1 that can't even find the server to 404 on me, and a couple of minor redirects. --PresN 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drive-by comments I'm not going to do a proper review, because RL commitments mean I won't have the time, but a quick glance suggests that the prose is very choppy, with lots of short paragraphs. Also see WP:Lead, and note that refs in lead should be kept to a minimum since it summarises what should in any case be referenced in the main text. Any reason why the notable people aren't alphabetical? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the valuable input, guys! I have done almost all the requested changes, with the exception of fixing two external links. See here. While i am able to access them and found no issue regarding credibility, the tool server indicates that these links have issues. I would appreciate if someone could let me know about what the problems are and also as to what can be done to rectify them. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 16:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Mainly minor; no spotchecks carried out, since the article is indergoing revision.

  • Ref 1 needs retrieval date
  • Use bolding in refs 77 and 121 is contrary to MOS
  • Ref 175: Nonstandard format. South Asia Religious News should be italicised
  • Ref 176: Comments on Crasta's book should not be cited to Crasta's personal website.
  • Ref 178: Who is the publisher?
  • Ref 186 needs a retrieval date (there may be others)
  • Ref 218: The link on Ayyappapanicker 1997 does not appear to be working
  • Ref 244: The Hindu should be italicised
  • Ref 245: High-quality, reliable source?
  • Ref 249: This looks like an individual's CV. Although it is cited for factual information only, I don't think it qualifies as a high-quality reliable source. The information can presumably be confirmed elsewhere.
  • Ref 256: This is a private website with no official standing in the Catholic hierarchy. The comments with regard to 249 apply here

Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian! I’ve incorporated the necessary changes into the article. Now, I would really like someone to conduct a proper review, regarding whether this article satisfies the criteria or not, and if the latter’s the case, then what can be done to change that. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 06:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images:
  1. File:Kodialche Katholik.jpg is sourced to an image, File:Viren Rasquinha.jpg, which is a likely copyvio from here.
    Re-uploaded image to include a free image of Blasius D'Souza. However, the old image still appears. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 08:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. File:Mulki Shenoy.jpg and File:Pais Prabhu.JPG - the given sources have no information on authorship, date of publication, etc. Just because a website doesn't include this information doesn't mean the photo was published "anonymously".
    The source for Pais Prabhu.JPG can be found here. I obtained a better version from the site's owner, Walter J. Pais. As for Mulki Shenoy, it is in public domain as it's copyright has expired. My arguments in it's favor can be found here. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 08:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. File:Mangalorean catholic migration.JPG is poor quality. Would it be possible to replace it with something better?
    I don't know how to convert it into SVG format. I would appreciate some help in this regard. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 08:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. Kelly hi! 14:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I have issued a request. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 14:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Image has been converted into SVG format. This is the new version, File:Mangalorean catholic migration.svg. Let me know if you find any problems with this one. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 06:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. File:FranciscusXavier.jpg has no verifiable source or authorship information.
    Replaced image. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 08:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. File:Mangalorean Catholic Sydney.jpg - OTRS still pending.
No response or OTRS permission sent for the five days. I have removed it from the article. Please delete it. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 08:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak supportProse comments (well, mostly)
  • You might consider asking an uninvolved editor to copyedit the article. I'm not sure the prose rises to the level of "brilliant".
  • "and gradually the Portuguese were unable to send the required number of missionaries to Mangalore." - this phrase appears twice in one section
Rewrote the entire para. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These three churches were highlighted by the Italian traveller" - he drew on them with a marker?
Changed sentence to “These three churches were mentioned by the Italian traveller Pietro Della Valle, who visited Mangalore in 1623.” Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sixth paragraph of "Migration era" needs to be rewritten, it has a number of issues.
Rewritten as stated earlier. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The attacks [...] was also a cause of migration."
Changed sentence to “The attacks of the Maratha Empire on Goa, during the mid 16th century, precipitated the third major wave of migrations.” Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tipu Sultan is not spelt consistently. He is also mentioned several times to be Hyder's son; when done in close proximity, this is overly repetitious.
While we're at it, he is linked several times too. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the spelling, plus links. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Christians were alleged to have helped General Mathews with a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/-.[56] He summoned a Portuguese officer and several Christian priests from Mangalore to suggest the punishment for the Mangalorean Catholics for treachery." Presumably "He" is not General Mathews; please clarify. (My money is that it's Hyder, but he's not mentioned in the paragraph yet.)
Changed sentence to “Hyder summoned a Portuguese officer and several Christian priests from Mangalore to suggest the punishment for the Mangalorean Catholics for treachery.” Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tippu decided to banish the Mangalorean Catholic community from his kingdom, and hold them captive at Seringapatam, the capital of his empire." Is he banishing them (i.e. driving them out), or merely rounding them up and imprisoning them?
Changed sentence to “Tipu decided to banish the Mangalorean Catholic community from their lands, and imprison them at Seringapatam, the capital of his empire.” Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You miss my point. I see banishment as a decree that gives at least some time for those affected to leave the area; did Tipu in fact give them any time to leave before he started rounding them up? (Cases of banishment I'm familiar with from colonial America operated this way -- banished persons were given time to leave, and only arrested if they returned.) Magic♪piano 21:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the word "banish" means to forcibly send someone away from his native place as punishment. It does not necessarily mean that some time was alloted to them, for instance, to pack their stuff and sell their lands. Tipu wanted to round up the Catholics and move them to Seringapatam. The whole idea was to teach them a lesson. Giving them a warning in advance would have failed to make a point. It would have alerted the Catholics who would then have time to hide or leave. As such, the roundup was meant to be a unpleasant surprise to the Catholics. It's success depended on them being caught unaware. I noticed that the article had not mentioned this earlier, and so i have mentioned it now.


Joyson Noel Holla at me! 10:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine. Magic♪piano 21:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, not a prose issue: did any Mangalorean Catholics escape Tipu's sweeps? What happened to them?
Yes! In spite of the secrecy and element of surprise surrounding the roundup, an estimated 7,000 Catholics did manage to escape the initial sweeps, and were in hiding in Tipu’s kingdom at the time of the roundup. However, this does not mean that they successfully managed to remain hidden till the captivity’s end on May 4, 1795. Their fate is unknown. One of the books used as a source which is in my possession, “Sarasvati’s Children” by Alan Machado Prabhu, does not shed any light on this matter. My personal opinion is that it would have been virtually impossible for such a large number to successfully remain hidden for so long. So, most were probably caught, while a lucky few managed to escape to Tellicherry, Cannanore and Cochin, or succeeded in remaining hidden within South Canara itself. All this is mentioned in the Captivity of Mangalorean Catholics at Seringapatam article. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A brief mention should be made here: "Some Catholics managed to escape arrest; the fate of many is unknown" or some such. Magic♪piano 21:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i'll decline to do it for the following reasons:
  • Firstly, the source does not state that their fate is unknown. It just doesn't mention their fate.
  • Secondly, there is a likelihood that their fate is known. During my next trip to Mangalore, i plan on purchasing an old book written on the captivity by the Mangalorean historian, S.N. Saldanha. Hopefully, it will shed some light on this matter.
  • Thirdly, mentioning that 7,000 Catholics escaped the initial sweeps is unnecessary, in my opinion. This was a small occurrence and the section is just a summary of the article dedicated to this topic. So, let's just stick to the 60,000 who are known to have been captured and their fate. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 10:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historian Praxy Fernandes [...] stated that 40,000 Christians were not kept manacled" (emphasis added) - this is the first reference to manacles; why is it important to report Fernandes' negative claim?
Changed sentence to “Historian Praxy Fernandes, author of Storm over Seringapatam: the incredible story of Hyder Ali & Tippu Sultan, states that contrary to popular belief, 40,000 Christians were not kept manacled in the dungeons of Seringapatam.” Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a few did take advantage of the siege and escaped to Coorg and Kerala. This is mentioned twice in the article, both in the “Post-migration era and Captivity” section and the “Demographics” section. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1836-7, when the political situation in Portugal was in turmoil" - at least link "in turmoil" to something appropriate, even if you don't elaborate on what the turmoil is.
Linked to this section of the "History of Portugal (1834–1910)" article, as there is no separate article for this turmoil. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historically, the Mangalorean Catholic diet was completely Vegetarian" - Vegetarian is not a proper noun.
Not so sure about that in Indian English. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There a number of other minor issues not mentioned above, like it's/its and missing/extra commas, that require a copyeditor's attention.

--Magic♪piano 17:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opened a request here. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my interjections! Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, dude! Any suggestion is welcome. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good work so far. Magic♪piano 21:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good pending completion of copyedit. Magic♪piano 21:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been copy-edited by User:Pol430. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 21:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the copyedit improved things to some extent; however, considering the number of further issues I found, I can only weakly support; I think the prose would still benefit from a more thorough (and deeper) going over. (I also tagged two things that should be clarified.) Magic♪piano 16:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyedit! I have clarified the para:
Joyson Noel Holla at me! 09:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images This may have some relevance to this article Fasach Nua (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added my Strongly Oppose vote to this ridiculous proposition. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 10:03, 29 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 not promoted by Laser brain 17:14, 3 February 2011 [26].

Butterfly (Mariah Carey album)

Nominator(s): CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to meet FA criteria. This article was copy-edited by my friend Sarastro1, who is unfamiliar with the subject and text. Thanks everyone for participating. CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mcbutterfly.jpg -> May be found at the following website: http://www.amazon.com/Butterfly-Mariah-Carey/dp/B000002BQK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1284400457&sr=8-1 --> Make it encyclopedic
File:Mariah-carey-the-roof.jpg -> Fails WP:NFCC#1 (Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created)) Exist many images of Carey's face; WP:NFCC#8; WP:NFCC#10 (The name of each article ... in which fair use is claimed for the item) it only has the rationale of The Roof (Back in Time).
Read the rest of the article. It has sufficient rational and critique to be there.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox
ALT needed for consistency
Released; September 11, 1997 (UK)/ September 16, 1997 (U.S.) -> Do we need this? put the first release, the information have to be somewhere
(New York City)[1] -> Suggesting (New York City, New York), and remove the source.
  • Lead
Butterfly, the sixth studio album by American singer-songwriter Mariah Carey, was released on September 16, 1997, by Columbia Records. -> Sounds awkward, why not the traditional Butterfly is the sixth studio album by American singer-songwriter Mariah Carey. It was released on September 16, 1997, by Columbia Records.
Butterfly deviated from the formula of Carey's older work -> Which work
the album received positive reviews from music critics -> The article notes: The album received generally positive reviews
."[2] -> No sources in the lead
A quote needs direct attribution and sourcing, even in the lead.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The album pushed her music into a hip-hop and R&B sound, -> already commented
Though released during Carey's conflict with Sony Music, the album became a commercial success How the conflict with her label be related to the album's success?
Five singles -> link single
"Honey", the album's lead single ... The album's fourth single, "My All", -> and the second and the third?
The lead is to give a main picture of the article's main points, not little nit picks. For that read the rest of the article.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are quick-comments only from the lead. I'll take my review later this week. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 07:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Seems like Nathan won't learn how is the FAC process. Also that comment makes me wonder if "this album isn't hip hop" why it says "R&B, hip-hop, pop"?. If its author insist and persist in doing uncooperative actions, I won't waste my time reviewing his articles. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 08:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<Off-topic discussion moved to talk page> --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Let's see if this article is a featured article per WP:FA?:
  • 1a - Maybe
recognised -> American subject
in the air. her left
owing to its heavy hip-hip influences.
  • 1b - Maybe
  • 1c - Maybe
Critics saw Carey's new production team as a form of revenge on Mottola and Sony Music.[2] -> Sony is never mentioned in those pages
Originally, Carey had not planned to tour, after receiving mixed reviews in the US for her Music Box Tour. ->[citation needed]
  • 1d - No, the worst point
Very biased. It contains irrelevant and unneutral information of its singles. It talks alot of "Honey" and "My All", sometimes of "Butterfly" and very few of the other two singles and others songs.
The tour was a critical and commercial success. Both fans and critics praised the quality of the show and Carey's vocals.[31] -> Even it is sourced, is it neutral?
  • 1e - Yes
  • 2a - No
"Honey", the album's lead single, topped the charts in the US and Canada, and reached the top-five in New Zealand, Spain and the United Kingdom -> Irrelevant for the lead of the album, relevant for the lead of the song
  • 2b - Yes
  • 2b - Yes
  • 3 - No
  • 4 - No (also see Indopug comment)
Carey also faced media criticism over her choice of producers and several newspapers linked Carey romantically to several rappers, suggesting these relationships influenced her decisions. -> Off-topic/ Source never state this in pages 99 or 100 / Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (why an unauthorized biography is reliable for those information?)
The remix for "Honey" featured rapping lead vocals from Da Brat and Mase, and some verses were rapped by Combs himself. The track was very different from Carey's previous recordings, and was described by author Chris Nickson as "street Hip-Hop music, with a booming bass."[5] -> Irrelevant for this article
The promotion section talks about how the singles were promoted, not the album
I don't understand what you're saying. That sentence is exactly sourced in the book, I can assure it. Next, that "personal" info can sure be sourced by a biography page as it gets info from various interviews, for example, Nickson and Shapiro interviewed Walter Afanasieff, the man who co-wrote most of Carey's biggest hits. He was around during those turbulent times. Next, it is relevant. We need to know the background information for the album, whatever has to do with it. Talking about Carey's "different" sound, staff and environement that was "directly" crucial to the album's development is precisely needed and relevant. Also, how is the "Honey Remix" info irrelevant? It was part of the album, I don't see how thats irrelevant. Lastly, the promotion needs to discuss the album's promotion as a whole, not songs. This is an album article not a song one. Also, Indopug's comments were so far resolved, letting you know. And That other info is not irrelevant, the song's and their success are a direct extension of the album. Thats all.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mainly because there is far too much information here that is better suited for sub-articles, i.e., the song articles. In particular, the two sections about the music videos have little to do directly with the album. Similarly, the singles section is too detailed; IMO a paragraph in "Chart performance" would suffice. Allmusic's and Slant's reviews are retrospectives, yet you quote them before contemporary reviews by the Times, the Voice and Entertainment Weekly (and don't make a distinction between the two anywhere), what gives?—indopug (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V, those succession boxes need to be cited, especially for the preceding and succeeding albums. Else, they have to be removed.—indopug (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the song info is only one section and it is what composes the album, so its necessary. I think it needs to be there. As for the music video, I didn't just add a synopsis for all five of them, I noted the important or notable ones and their controversies. Do you really think thst because something has a bit too much info for your liking that it deserves an oppose? Please reconsider.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you summarised the influence the music videos released from Butterfly had on the Carey's career, that's fine. The first two sentences of "Reaction to 'Honey' video", for example, are relevant, but the rest has nothing to do with this album as a whole. Ditto for the "Music videos" section. Again, note that music videos are not a part of the album; if you bought the CD in 1997, you wouldn't be getting the videos. Music videos are released to promote individual songs, and need to be discussed only in the context of those songs. Besides all that info is completely redundant to The_Roof_(song)#Music_video and Honey_(Mariah_Carey_song)#Music_video.
I refuse to "reconsider" my oppose, because grounded in WP:FA?, especially #4: "[the article] stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail".—indopug (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I removed both.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will revisit soon with a detailed review.—indopug (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. A few external redirects which may lead to link rot, see them with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—the prose isn't good enough. Everywhere I look there are issues: logic, typography, grammar ... Here are a few at random:
  1. "Five singles were released from Butterfly; some featured as airplay-only singles, while others were released only in certain territories"—I don't understand how these two points are related to each other logically.
  2. "Carey's thirteenth number one single on the"—13th number-one, especially in a space-scarce caption. Don't we normally use numerals for > one-digit numbers? I see 14th, 21 weeks, etc.
  3. "was certified five-times platinum"—unsure of the need for the hyphen.
This is correct, as this they are coherent; but it could be better written as "5× P/platinum"-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Butterfly received generally positive reviews from music critics."
  2. Fair use claims for the audio excerpts: it would help if the caption or the related main text commented explicitly on the sound. For example, "A sample from the song, featuring the heavy hip-hop influence that began incorporating itself into Carey's music." What exactly is the hip-hop influence in aural terms? What does a dummy like me look for when I listen? "A sample from "Butterfly". The song was very personal, and was described by Carey as "her best work, and most heartfelt ballad."" That second one shows no educational value; I'm not sure it complies with NFCC#8 and #3b, if I remember without checking them. Tony (talk) 06:50, 3 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/February_2011&oldid=413539974"