Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 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:
==March 2011==
==March 2011==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyclone Waka/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dragon Quest/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dragon Quest/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Airbus A330/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Airbus A330/archive1}}

Revision as of 00:34, 19 March 2011

March 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 00:34, 19 March 2011 [1].

Cyclone Waka

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is the most comprehensive summary of Cyclone Waka available. This storm was one of the most destructive in Tongan history, leveling hundreds of homes and defoliating forests. All thoughts and comments are welcome and encouraged. Thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • "ReliefWeb is a UN site, either run by or related to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). It might be worth adding this info to the first of the ReliefWeb citations.
Added that bit where it wasn't noted Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 3 and 5 ("Gary Padgett"): I have raised questions about this source before. Of concern is the note at the end which says "This summary should be considered a very preliminary overview of the tropical cyclones that occur in each month", which suggests that the information is liable to change. Doesn't that rather disqualify it from being a high quality reliable source?
  • Ref 12 (and others): The Press is a bit cryptic, without a link. Give location.
Locations given where not implied in the source. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 21: This is a large site with a detailed index. The citation should indicate where the information is to be found.
Page number given Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 24: Meteo France is, I believe, a website. Should this source not have a link?
Meteo France is the French National weather service like NOAA etc - but ive managed to track down a link to it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JR. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-print sources should not be italicised (Ref 31, BBC - check for others)
That appeared to be the only one, fixed it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, all sources and citations look good. A liitle spotchecking did not indicate the presnce of problems. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About Gary Padgett, it is no more or less reliable than the warning centers he gets the data from. In that time period, we don't have access to the advisories from all of the warning centers, so he is all we have to work with. The warning centers do have a reanalysis after the fact, in the form of the best track (which is basically as useful as the track map in the article), so it doesn't have the good advisory data that we like. It's not optimal, but using GP is better than nothing. And I'll note as usual that GP has appeared in several NOAA publications, so he is reliable himself. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Gary Padgett clarification Hink and thanks for the source check Brianboulton Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 circular redirect- Severe Tropical Cyclone Waka (probably in a template somewhere). --PresN 00:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the link, it was in two templates. Thanks for the link check PresN Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • "104.2 million paʻanga ($51.3 million USD) was wrought in damage." - This is kind of awkward wording.
  • "Hundreds of structures [...] were destroyed. Winds [...] destroying hundreds of structures" - "Hundreds of structures" is a vague term, which isn't inherently problematic, but it doesn't need to be mentioned twice. Perhaps something generic along the lines of "The storm destroyed hundreds of structures along its path"?
  • "During December 30, the centre of the storm" - See the linguistic contradiction?
  • "The JTWC assessed the storm to have attained similar one-minute sustained winds upon peaking." - It would be helpful to note that the reason for identical 10- and 1-minute sustained winds is an agency-to-agency discrepancy rather than a meteorological anomaly.
  • "little infrastructural losses" - Self-explanatory.
  • "much of the island was sandblasted" - Since I'm sure "sandblasted" is being used in a figurative sense, it would be good to clarify what it actually means.
  • "Numerous homes were destroyed and those that were left standing lost their roofs. According to the Red Cross, about 200 homes in the city were severely damaged or destroyed." - I feel like these sentences basically say the same thing.

Otherwise it looks good. Juliancolton (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Otherwise images seem fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review Nikkimaria! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Meteorological history: "however, this was due to discrepancies between the two center." Should the last word be plural?
  • Tonga: "of" appears missing from "Vava'u lost roughly 90% its crops".
  • You don't need to have multiple Nuku'alofa links in a section like are present here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed up, thanks for the comments Giants2008 Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:09, 23 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 00:12, 19 March 2011 [4].

Dragon Quest

Nominator(s): 陣内Jinnai 17:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has gone through great expansion and overhaul since the last time including a copyedit. While it failed a wikiproject A-class assement, it seemed to be more due to copyediting. I would like to try and, if possible, get this as a FA for the 25th anniversary of the series this May.陣内Jinnai 17:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • "The Mystery Dungeon and Itadaki Street series use characters and other elements from Dragon Quest games; the Mystery Dungeon series has gone on to spawn its own franchise." - source?
    • The games themselves. I guess I could cite EVERY SINGLE GAME of the multitude from that series which are, for the mystery dungeon, in the dozens. However, I would attest that the links that previously cite some of those games are enough.
    • Alright, I have a source that notes that another non-Dragon Quest game uses the same engine, by the same developer with the same series title, but different characters.陣内Jinnai 20:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beginning in 1989 with three series, the media franchise expanded rapidly" - source?
    • Rephrased. That statement is a now a summary statement supported by the following paragraphs in that section.
  • "Playing the Dragon Warrior III with the name "Erdrick" is impossible as the game does not allow you to continue if the name is used." - source?
    • The game itself. Look at general sources.
  • "Horii's company, Armor Project, is in charge of the Dragon Quest games that were published by Enix and Square Enix." - source?
    • The games themselves. Look at general sources.
  • "The Japanese release of Dragon Quest VIII retains the traditional text menus. However, the Japanese release of Dragon Quest IX uses the menus based on the English release of Dragon Quest VIII." - source?
    • The games themselves. Look at general sources.
  • Square Enix or Square-Enix?
    • Fixed. Square Enix.
  • All web references need publishers and retrieval dates
    • Fixed, i think. I fixed the publishers, but as far as I could tell they all had access dates. If there isn't one, please list it specifically.
  • What does IGN stand for? Also, it's a publisher, not an author
    • IGN stands for IGN as far as I know. The full name, if one exists, is never used by any source, reliable or not.
  • What makes this a reliable source?
    • It was used in a historical enyclopedia for gaming published by a reknowned proffessor in the field. See WP:SE#Sources.
      • Who is the author of the site, and what are his qualifications in this field?
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when. Also check existing wikilinks - 1up is linked to a gaming term, not a publisher/publication
    • Fixed 1up
  • What makes this a reliable source? This? This?
    • All of those meet the qualifications of a WP:SPS. If you want more details, WP:VG/S has had a history which can tell you more of who are more familar with them. However, its pretty easy to others generally considered RSes using them.
      • Looked at VG/S and linked discussions. I'm ambivalent on Square Enix Music, but the discussions don't seem to support the use of RPGamer or RPGFan in FA-level articles. Can you justify their use?
  • ref 71: title?
  • Book sources usually need page numbers
    • Source #? A lot of those books are being used in a way to "show they exist" not to cite a specific passage or anything. As such they do not need page numbers.
  • Can you rationalize your use of amazon.com and other commercial/promotional sites here?
    • They are used to meet WP:V that items exist or for interviews on them, such as the Dragon Quest website. That is a perfectly acceptable use for those sites.
  • In general, citation formatting should be more consistent.
    • Please elaborate.
      • Name things consistently (for example, squareenixmusic.com has two different names); be more consistent in what is italicized when; be more consistent in what is wikilinked when; use a consistent date formatting; like citations should be formatted the same; etc
        • Should now be fixed as far as date formatting, wikilinking and formating style (as much as can be with different types of refs). As for italics, I need some clearer indication where stuff is improperly italicized and its not part of the template.
          • For example, 1up is sometimes italicized and sometimes not.
        • {{cite video game}} has not been updated to conform with core due to outstanding issues that no one at core seems willing to help with. I've posted there some time ago and its resulted in no action. So some of the Japanese games have italicized kana/kanji, but there is nothing I can do about this.陣内Jinnai 19:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I didn't state this before because I thought it would be apparant with a series that would be citing from every one of their 9 main series games that plastering citations after every single item which can be verified by playing the game would be better done by general sources as in some cases that's 9 references after a source and would clearly harm the readability if everywhere across the whole article it was done. You'll note I only do this for the main series games and not the spinoffs because the spinoffs are used a lot less and often times 1-2 cites are all that is needed.陣内Jinnai 23:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • One small thing that I noticed is that we are using the names from the English remakes when we are talking about the Japanese versions of the orignal games. For example the line Dragon Quest IV: Chapters of the Chosen was released in Japan in 1990 and in North America in 1992 as Dragon Warrior IV is used. One problem here is that the original Famicom game was not called Chapters of the Chosen so the part about Chapters of the Chosen being released in 1990 is not completely accurate. I was wondering if the original names should be used when the original version is being discussed. This is not a big issue for me and I have what the rules say about this. Finally, if it is changed the 5th a 6th games should be altered as well.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dragon Quest IV's original title is ドラゴンクエストIV 導かれし者たち which rougly translates to Dragon Quest IV:The Chosen Ones. In addition, MOS:FOREIGN discourages usage of foreign words, especially when there is an English translation. That it isn't a 100% litteral translation doesn't matter as most translations aren't.陣内Jinnai 03:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good, that settles that. I hope the request goes well.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by New Age Retro Hippie
Comments by David Fuchs
  • Wouldn't it make more sense to put the gameplay/common elements at the beginning of the article? Or at least something of a quick development overview? Right now the article doesn't really flow, or give a proper intro outside the lead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the source for "Dragon Quest is not as successful outside Japan, as it is eclipsed by another RPG series, Final Fantasy."?
  • [5] doesn't support the first part of the gameplay section, namely, "In Dragon Quest, players control a party of characters that can walk into a town and buy weapons, armor, and items to defeat monsters. Outside of town, on the world map or in a dungeon,".
  • Likewise, the above ref does not support "When the party encounters monsters, during either a random encounter or boss battle, the view switches from an overhead perspective to the first person, and players are presented with several options on a menu. The first-person menu-based battles have become a staple of the series."
  • Another spot check: "Each game has its particular set of classes; typical options include the Cleric, Fighter, Jester, Thief, Warrior, and Mage classes." → not explicitly supported by [6] or [7], and the note appended (currently #5) is full of unverified commentary (as are many of the notes.)
    • Oppose Judging by the above there appear to be referencing concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll address the others later, but I'll say the same thing I told Nikkimaria

        I didn't state this before because I thought it would be apparant with a series that would be citing from every one of their 9 main series games that plastering citations after every single item which can be verified by playing the game would be better done by general sources as in some cases that's 9 references after a source and would clearly harm the readability if everywhere across the whole article it was done. You'll note I only do this for the main series games and not the spinoffs because the spinoffs are used a lot less and often times 1-2 cites are all that is needed.

      • the items cited are non-contriverisial statements of fact verifiable within the game. That is what WP:PRIMARY is for. I take offense that the notes are largely "unsourced commentary", especially that one because it is in no way "commentary". In fact every comment there is sourceable by the games themselves save maybe references terms "first person" and "overhead". If you believe that they each need sites, I will have to say I disagree here in that goes against what is allowable perWP:CITE#General reference. The only way to not have them is basically plaster the article with tons of statements with 9+ references after every few lines, something people here equally dislike.陣内Jinnai 22:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't tell what Dragon Quest plays like, let alone play all the games to see if that is in fact true. Such generalizations about an entire series should be sourced. Anyone who has never played the series is not going to have any idea whether anything you've written is true, and thus should be cited. This isn't 1+1=2 territory. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • How do you want me to do this that won't create tons of citations across the body that will likely get it kicked out of a future FAC because "there are too many citations" since I've had to deal with that before. Since some of the items deal with some game sand some others, I can't just latch them into 1 single citation for each game. I'll have to do every game individually which will inevitably create tons of sentances with a lot of citations after it with the end result is imo it'll never please everyone here because another reviewer will come along and tell me to reduce those citations because they harm the flow, which the only way to do will be to make them general citations. It doesn't matter whether you've played the game; its still veriable and its still cited; WP:CITE doesn't require inline citations for non-contriviersial/non-quote statements. Other than some of the terminology, nothing there could be said to be contriverisal.
          • As for the terms, I can do some editing to remove some of the terminology as I can see your point with that.陣内Jinnai 18:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did find a secondary source to back up at least one of the sentances (after editing it) and I've removed the info on the type of perspectives (top-down and first-person).陣内Jinnai 17:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looks good to me, but could someone finish merging Dragon Quest X before we finish here? It's impotent to know what the merged article will look like before final approval. Great work! Judgesurreal777 04:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Well if its not going to be merged, then Support, the work done on this article has been extensive and of a high quality in keeping with FA standards. Judgesurreal777 23:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:34, 18 March 2011 [8].

Airbus A330

Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 05:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article has undergone the expansion and improvements necessary for Featured Article status. During the last 2 months, I have, with help from other Wikipedians, expanded the article to its current size. Meanwhile, I've rewritten existing text, eliminated unreferenced claims, and added sources to those lacking them. I truly hope and believe that this article could obtain Featured Article status, supplementing existing aviation-related FA articles such as Boeing 747 and Boeing 777. So, if you don't mind, please post some comments below and help me out with making this article worth reading for everybody. Any problem can be ironed out during the FAC process. Thanks --Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 05:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • "Airlines were not satisfied with a compromised aircraft, so Airbus decided to proceed with an entirely new aircraft, the Airbus A350XWB." - source?
  • Done
  • "The A330-200 is also available as an ultra-long range corporate jet by Airbus Executive and Private Aviation. The Boeing equivalent is currently the Boeing 767-300ER—and to a lesser extent, the 767-400ER—and in the future, will be the 787-8." - source?
  • Removed
  • Missing bibliographic information for Eden 2008
  • All information is provided under "Bibliography".
  • There is no Eden 2008 under Bibliography
  • Done. Sorry, I put in the wrong edition and isbn.
  • Jackson 2008, Recent developments, Reed 1992 are not cited
Like before, ll information is provided under "Bibliography".
Yes, but these sources don't appear in any footnotes
  • I was planning to use Reed 1992, but found it could be covered by other sources. Placed between <!-- -->. Sorry
  • Multiple inconsistencies in reference format and content (Rechecked 22:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC), not fixed)
  • All are consistent. If not, which one?
  • Many are inconsistent. For example, airbus.com is alternately referred to as Airbus S.A.S., airbus.com and simply Airbus
  • Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
  • There are 8 PDFs, two of them are used more than once, and they're both single-page articles.
  • Even the ones used only once need page number(s)
  • Done
  • Done
  • Make sure you identify the dollar country (for example, US$) in cases where it's unclear
  • Done
  • Use a consistent date format
Can you be more specific?
Date ranges should use ndashes in references, check for typos ("201 1"?)
  • Done.
What's wrong with them? They're all credible?
Please explain your reasoning with reference to WP:RS and related guidelines, or provide a previous discussion at FAC or RS/N where they were accepted as credible
I agree with Nikiemaria, they don't meet WP:RS. I've formalised the pprune.org one (You should cite to the reliable source, not people talking about the reliable source, hence if the real newsstory comes from Bloomberg News, as in this case, they're the Publisher, not Pprune. I'll work on some others, but this is going to be a pain.) You should always to apply the most professional, most respectable publisher-material when there's a choice, any hint of unprofessionalism isn't tolerated in Featured Articles, the absolute pinnicle of quality on Wikipedia has very high standards. Kyteto (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then the solution is to dump airliners.net and use the official Airbus pages. It is a change I've had to make to dozens of pages I've overhauled, replacing informal refs with formal ones containing the same information, because they're simply not allowed as citations in FA class articles under the policy of WP: Reliable Sources. The rules on External Links are less stringent, as they're not backing up any facts (it is basically the difference between trying to prove a fact in the article, and including a good followup article on the subject outside ow Wikipedia, one's evidence and needs to be water-tight, one doesn't have to be as it isn't making a case.) Kyteto (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no solid reason for the issue with the airliners.net pages. The airliners.net aircraft pages are copied with permission from The International Directory of Civil Aircraft ISBN 1875671528 or an older edition of it. The original source is clearly WP:RS and so should these pages. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added original source
I'll switch out to that then, the accuracy of the content to formal sources doesn't matter at WP:RS, if somebody checking the information needs to double-check the cites to see if they're accurate, there are problems (hence why it is best to simply cite directly from the blokes you can actually trust at their word). Content being right or wrong factually doesn't matter, it is the credentials of the publisher that's the issue. Kyteto (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defence Review is actually an organisation which provides news and coverage on defence matters.
  • I've replaced source no.4 with a press release from Boeing following their appeal.
I had already removed it as it was a unneeded duplicate ref, but because the commenter has their underwear in a bunch about the use of striking, there was no quick-and-easy way to demonstrate it had been dealt with, so exactly as my criticism, it caused unnecessary confusion to not strike it. Kyteto (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Make a note of your change, then. The "no striking other peoples' comments" is not my rule, but that of FAC itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All web citations need publishers
  • They all have one.
  • But you actually need to say what it is. For example, refs 96 and 97 have no publisher listed
  • Done
Per the instructions at the top of the FAC page, please don't strike comments made by reviewers. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done

Neutral, leaning oppose - most of the above concerns have been adequately addressed. However, reference formatting and the MoS remain issues. I'm also concerned with the prose quality in this article, and suggest a thorough copy-edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - please bear in mind I'm reviewing this from a completely "never reviewed an airliner" perspective, and this is a quick run through the whole article...

  • Is "large-capacity" meaningful? It's not linked.
  • It's self-explanatory. Doesn't need to be linked, not ecyclopediac.
  • "although the -200F can be powered by either of the two latter engines." seems a little high-detail for the lead?
  • Removed
  • Don't like linking "First flown", why not just be plain about it and say "Its maiden flight..."?
  • Removed link.
  • "but more popular" I guess popular needs context, it sold more? It was more enjoyable to passengers??
  • The sentence starts with "Due to dwindling sales", so in this case, it's about sales.
  • It's now March, can you update the lead "as of..."?
  • Done
  • "See also: Airbus A340#Development" can't you pipe link that to avoid a nasty #?
  • Done
  • long term -> hyphenate?
  • Done
  • "the revolutionary family of airliners later known as the Airbus A320, " is "the revolutionary family" neutral in tone? and any reason for Airbus A320 to be in italics?
  • how's revolutionary not neutral?
  • Done
  • "The B9 was essentially a lengthened..." what does "essentially" add to this sentence?
  • It means the B9 was a simply stretch.
  • Odd you link range (on its own) well after, say, long-range.
  • Fixed
  • Not sure a non-expert knows what a "quadjet" is.
  • Explained
  • B11 in italics. I don't see why. (et seq).
  • Because the name was changed (unless you want to bolden it). Removed
  • Not sure you need to link wing here.
  • Removed
  • "one technical advantage, the TA11's outboard " comma is an odd delineator here, perhaps a semi-colon, or a spaced en-dash.
  • Done
  • In the quote "...They liked" if that ellipsis indicates missing text but the next sentence starts with a capital T then I suspect there should be a space before the They...
  • Is this it?
  • "The A330 and A340 adopted the A320 flight deck of the A320 (pictured)..." why link A320 on the second mention in this caption?
  • Removed
  • You use "nmi" without explaining or linking the first time round.
  • Fixed
  • Are you deliberately overlinking? e.g. you link "fly-by-wire" in two consecutive sections, and only abbreviate it in the second?
  • Sometimes I don't keep track of the words I linked. Fixed
  • "Airbus decided that from the start, the A330 would be powered..." odd English, why not "from the start that the A330..."?
  • Fixed
  • " original requirement for 267 to 289 kN (60,000 to 65,000 lbf) (a measure of engine output)" clumsy, why not "original requirement from an engine output of ...."?
  • Removed
  • "Airbus's partners" pretty sure I've seen "Airbus'" elsewhere. Would recommend internal consistency.
  • Done
  • There's a mixture of primary measurements, i.e. either Imperial converted to metric or vice-versa. I guess I'd have expected consistency throughout.
  • Done
  • "and 5 percent on time." How do you quantify this?
  • Could you clarify?
  • "British Aerospace gladly accepted £450 " -> "gladly accepted"? A little POV.
  • Fixed
  • "In 1989, Asian carrier Cathay Pacific ordered nine A330s, later increased to 11.[32]" I believe MOS says comparable amounts can be represented similarly, so "eleven" would be fine.
  • Fixed
  • I know you have a "see also" but worth linking "crashed" to the same article in the first sentence, last paragraph of that section.
  • Fixed
  • "world's second largest " second-largest.
  • Fixed
  • "postponed by delamination to the composite materials." who discovered that? Was it from reports from other airlines?
  • Source doesn't say who discovered it. Does it matter? The point is deliveries were late because of production problems.
  • "230 t (510,000 lb)" vs "233.0 t (514,000 lb)[66]" - missing period, but also, no need for that ".0".
  • Removed
  • "virtually identical " not sure this is encyclopedic, perhaps "similar"?
  • "Similar" is not indicative of how closely they resemble.
  • " the wing also has2.74 m (9 ft 0 in) winglet, " something not right here.
  • Fixed
  • You quote "t/c" but don't clearly explain what it is.
Thickness/cord. Done
  • "manufactured by British Aerospace (BAe)" you've already abbreviated this...
  • Fixed
  • I've lost count of the number of times you link "fly-by-wire"...
  • Fixed
  • "and in the future, will be the Boeing 787 Dreamliner." ref for this claim is needed.
  • "all of which are ETOPS-180 min rated. and uses the Honeywell " odd sentence. I guess it should be something like "all of which are ETOPS-180 minute rated and use the Honeywell..."?
  • Fixed
  • "See also: Airbus A350" why is that at the bottom of the "A330-200Lite" section?
  • It's a follow on from that section. Moved.
  • Why isn't the orders/deliveries table in chronological order per all chronological tables?
  • What does italics mean in the table?
  • The year is yet to finish.
  • Operators section says 760 were in service, everything else says 765 were in service/delivered. What's the difference?
765 delivered', 760 in service. Also
  • After reading it, I still don't get how to make it accessible.
  • Engines table doesn't sort correctly in the Date... column.
  • Done
  • Lots of repeated periods in the references (due to use of templates, e.g. "Airbus S.A.S.. Retrieved 1 ..."
  • Done
  • Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Numerous problems that I can see. There is a gentle mix of US/Commonwealth terms used throughout (model/variant, landing gear/undercarriage etc.), should be one form or the other per WP:ENGVAR. Extra words/phrases could usefully be removed.

  • Hatnotes - Not sure that these are required, I can't see the possible confusion between this aircraft and a 1920s biplane at least, if it stays 'plane' should be changed to the project accepted term 'aircraft'.
  • Incorporate both hatnotes into one.
  • Lead - First paragraph mixes unit priority (mentioned by the previous reviewer), Airbus give Metric/SI units, these should be used first then converted to Imperial or US units (whichever is chosen for the conversions). This problem runs throughout the article including the specification table.
  • Fixed
Second paragraph; Airbus began by studying derivatives of its A300 in the 1970s, why not Airbus began studying derivatives of its A300 in the 1970s? The aircraft is the first Airbus airliner to offer a choice of three engine types, change to past tense perhaps as this feature/option is 20 years old now? The three engine types are linked but the first does not include the manufacturer (but does include the precise variant), the second links the generic type and not the variant, and the last links to the manufacturer, type and variant. If I wrote this I would use General Electric CF6, Pratt & Whitney PW4000 and Rolls-Royce Trent. The precise variants can be refined later in the relevant sections.
  • Fixed
Third paragraph; To counter the A330? Realising that there is an apparent sales war between Boeing and Airbus a more neutral term might be offered as a market alternative? Why mention the A350?
  • Fixed
  • Background - Revolutionary does sound NNPOV, innovative might be a more neutral word. Simultaneously working on two projects at once. That's what simultaneously means doesn't it?!! Could be reworded. The Germans, which Germans? Percent = %? Occurs many times in the article. Therefore not needed. Wing and airframe? The term airframe includes the wing.
Done
  • Design effort - Fin is linked but is not the best link, it is linked correctly later to vertical stabilizer which would need to be piped to fin if you want to retain the Commonwealth term. Franz-Josef Strauss is hyphenated, according to our article and the German article it should not be.
  • Fixed
  • I note from recent edit summaries that British English is being applied, vertical stabilizer and landing gear are US terms. To avoid future confusion a template can be added to the talk page for the form of English used (realising that not all editors go to the talk page but it helps), this is the British English template: {{British-English}}.
  • Done
  • Entry into service - Extended-range Twin-engine Operation Performance Standards (ETOPS), surely the term should be linked not the abbreviation?
  • It's similar to National Aeronautics and Space Administration, people link and refer to it as NASA.
  • Done
  • Further development - A329 and A330M10 should not be italicised unless they were individual aircraft. Aircraft itself? Just aircraft perhaps? On the right-hand main landing gear well would normally be phrased in the right-hand main landing gear well. A resigned system, 'redesigned' I would think. The last paragraph on production seems misplaced, would be better under the header of 'Orders and deliveries'. A large portion of this section is related to safety problems although you could say that fixing the problems is 'further development', might be better moved to a new 'safety record' section along with the accidents that were directly related to this aircraft type.
  • Even though the subheading says "Further development", it doesn't explicitly have to 100% be about further developments.
  • It's your call.
  • Design - The brake unit image is displacing the section header in my browser (Firefox), the wikilink is to 'carbon brake' but it just links to brake, misleading. On the ground, the two four-bogie Messier-Dowty-built main landing gear supports a maximum ramp weight of... Grammar doesn't seem quite right, 'support' perhaps? What is 'maximum ramp weight'?
  • Grammar is still not right there and the US term landing gear has been used.
  • Airframe and wing - this heading is a misnomer, the term airframe includes wing structure. Thickness/Chord ratio is not explained, a wikilink to chord (aircraft) could be added. Chord is misspelt 'cord' at the second instance. Shouldn't that be a 'low' ratio? 'Design' is repeated three times in the last sentence of the first paragraph. The second paragraph mostly repeats the information in the first. The higher the aspect ratio, the greater the aerodynamic efficiency needs a source. The A330, like its wing.., the wing is part of the airframe. There is another instance of fin linking to the wrong article.
  • Variants - Described as 'models' in other places, is the ICAO code box necessary or encyclopaedic? A revised nose landing gear layout. The same A330-200 undercarriage is used a mixture of terms (US/Commonwealth) and confusing, 'undercarriage legs' perhaps?
Undercarriage are legs. ICAO code box, yes. Fixed
A330-300, engine linking inconsistency, first part linked, second two not linked. The closest Boeing competitors are the Boeing 777-200 and, the now-out-of-production McDonnell Douglas MD-11., needs a source. A330-300HGW; Who was seeking airliner with a range..., 'airliners' probably, or 'an airliner type'? A330-500; aft the wing, 'aft of the wing', allows for range, 'allows for a range'. What happened to the -500 project? Military variants; refueling is US spelling, the majority of the article appears to use Commonwealth spellings.
  • Done
  • Operators - Is European airlines an airline? The source for the table/numbers is usually given under the header, we don't normally time stamp these tables, they get updated through article maintenance as should any other date related entries in the article.
  • Done
  • Accidents and incidents - At first it looks like a long list indicating an unsafe aircraft type until the reader sees that many of them are not related to the aircraft type (e.g. hijackings, dangerous air cargo, terrorist action, weather conditions etc.). It would be better to create a list of accidents involving the A330 or similar and leave the more relevant ones behind. Readers come to these airliner articles to see how safe the aircraft are, bearing in mind WP:NOTGUIDE this section should at least be balanced so that the true situation can be seen.
  • Removed.
  • Specifications - Again the source should be at the top under the header. This table is non-standard for the aircraft project, Template:Aircraft specifications should be used. Noting that other airliner articles use similar layouts they are also non-standard and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep using them for airliner articles. Unit priority problems as noted earlier (particularly the range figures). The source for the engine table would be more visible given directly under the header, various different formats are given for the same generic engine type, two are wikilinked, one is not.
Boeing 747 and 777 share this same layout. Template:Aircraft specifications are for simpler aircraft.
  • Where does it say that? Was Concorde a simple aircraft?
  • I just realised. Concorde has only one variant, where as Boeing 747, 777 and Airbus A340 has at least three. The template does not cater for three variants.
  • How many variants did the Vickers VC10 have? How many variants can we list in this table? As a plain wikitable it has no instructions for field completion. The convention is to pick one variant and list its specifications, this table misses out parameters. By being non-standard readers can't flick between articles and compare numbers. If specifications for more variants are needed they can be added to new variant articles, there are two A330 variant articles already.
  • Are all the specifications on the VC10 the same? Yes they are. The A330 has two passenger viriants, the -200 and -300, which have different capacities.
  • I don't want to get into a discussion on the VC10 but the variants differed in much the same way that the A330 variants do, it is shown more clearly here perhaps. Wikipedia aircraft articles are often 'number heavy', we should do what we can to minimise that problem (it gets noted by many non-aircraft oriented readers at reviews). The current specification table could appear to some as a sea of numbers but when it is looked at closely the differences are quite minor. An effective way to deal with this is to use the most common variant for the specifications and highlight the differences in the variants in their own sub-section, this has been done at the Sud Aviation Caravelle article. Another good reason to use the standard template is that it leaves room on the right for the placement of a 3-view drawing, (see de Havilland Comet) which is a widely accepted layout in the aircraft project. Is a 3-view drawing available for the A330? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, the Airbus A330 doesn't have a three-side view. Secondly, I don't know what the big fuss is about the table. Boeing 747 and 777 have specifications laid out this way. Thridly, Sud Aviation Caravelle#Variants still need a table to highlight the difference between the variants. Why not move that table down to #Specifications?

I will leave others to comment on the reliability or otherwise of the sources used. I am seeing an error with the Commons box, it is overlaying the navboxes and it is causing a problem with Template:Airbus A3xx timeline, shifting the text to the left.

Really, it can't find anything wrong on my browser, Explorer and Google Chrome.
  • Looks ok now, strange.
  • Images - Appear to be correctly licensed, some don't seem to have the full licensing template applied. As a style point it is better to have noses of aircraft and engines facing the text, I don't think there is a guideline on it but it is certainly a trick used with portraits of people in biographies. Most of the images here are right biased, some with aircraft facing to the right (away from the text), they could be moved to the left. Although the lead image is quite good I have seen possible better ones on Commons, there is quite a choice there now.
  • Done

Although my comments may seem overly picky we are trying to achieve 'Wikipedia's very best work' and I can see some basic problems here at the moment. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picky, yes, but as you say, we are trying to achieve "Wikipedia's very best work".

Wahh, nominating an article for FA is pretty daunting, given the amount of dedication involved. As I finish with one's comments, other Wikipedians come. However, this is going to train me as a copy-editor and a self-reviewer, isn't it. Keep the comments rolling in, the more, the better. Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 11:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good, still some grammar problems and the US/Brit language thing has to be fixed, should make it clear that I don't care personally which form it is in, just has to be one or the other throughout. It is convention to follow the form used by the article creator if an article has no strong national ties (European consortium aircraft don't) but looking at back it can't be ascertained what form was intended to be used.
I see that there was a peer review which is a very wise step before FAC but it was only open for seven days and only one editor had a chance to look at it. There's no set time for a peer review to be open but I would have left it open much longer myself, there is no deadline! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:13, 16 March 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 23:17, 18 March 2011 [9].

Reaction Engines Skylon

Nominator(s):   Novus  Orator  09:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it recently became a Good Article with flying colors and I am curious if it is worthy of FA quality certification.   Novus  Orator  09:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Where did Alan Bond speak? Where might one obtain a copy or transcript of his lecture? (done, but publisher needed)
  • Need page numbers for citations to multi-page PDFs (done, but formatting is very messy)
  • Be consistent in what you call things - for example, one publisher is alternately referred to as "Reaction Engines Limited" and "Reactionengines.co.uk" (example fixed, but others remain)
  • Spell out journal names (done, but again formatting is inconsistent)
  • Use a consistent date format (not done)
  • If you're going to use a citation template, use it for all citations. In general, citation formatting should be more consistent (citation formatting is still very inconsistent)
  • Don't repeat cited sources in External links (done)
  • What makes this a reliable source? This? This? (done)
  • This link wouldn't load (fixed, but now that I see the site I'm questioning its reliability)

Oppose until concerns are addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC) (Updated 13:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for finding these trouble spots. I'm on it!--  Novus  Orator  05:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done All of the issues mentioned by Nikkimaria have now been addressed and fixed. Feel free to continue to comment on this article.--  Novus  Orator  07:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Done - People are welcome to continue commenting on the article if they so choose, but not all the issues I mentioned have been addressed. I've made some notations on my previous comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do my best to fix those areas. Your precise editor's eye is much appreciated.--  Novus  Orator  03:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral - Improvements recommended

  • On the source issue, I would recommend that each page of the same source be listed under a different citation. It is extremely difficult to search through 15-20 pages of text trying to look for one small nugget of information, and I believe it is standard practice to list the specific page. By moving the base source into a Bibliography, you can then short-hand the citations (listing just the author, year of publishing, and page number) directly into the cites, starting new citations for each seperate page.
  • Some of the citations don't appear to back on the fact they're citing, which is alarming to say the least. In "A Comparison of Propulsion Concepts for SSTO Reusable Launchers" I can't find any mention of the fact that "All current orbital spacecraft use multiple stages". It may be a basic statement that can be taken for granted, but it shouldn't be attributed to a document that doesn't back that statement up. I may have made a genuine mistake on not finding the information on my readings through it, but even key word hunting couldn't induce the appearence of similar information. Kyteto (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Introduction is littered with citations. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), citations should be kept to a minimum, only used on facts that aren't mentioned and referenced elsewhere in the body of the article: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.... Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." Unnecessary references should be removed from the lead. Kyteto (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already performed some consistancy changes, such as news articles from the online BBC website being given different publisher names on different references ("BBC Onlines" verses "BBC News", I have united them under "BBC News"), I'll continue to monitor and evaluate the article for other potential improvements.

I look upon this article favourably, it is a good subject manner and has been elaborated well; I'm willing to put the time in to help with some refinements, and once it looks to be of a quality I cannot find obvious flaws with, my support should be most forthcoming. Kyteto (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips and I'm on it.--  Novus  Orator  03:43, 10 March 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 23:15, 18 March 2011 [10].

Battle of Fort Sumter

Nominator(s): Historical Perspective (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a major contributor to the article (I have made some edits recently) however I have consulted with the three top contributors to the article and sought their input on nominating this for FA. I believe the article is well written and comprehensive. In connection with Operation Brothers at War, I am endeavoring to have this article promoted to FA in time for the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Fort Sumter. Hopefully, if reviewers feel it is worthy of FA, it could occupy the main page on April 12, 2011. I realize time is short, but I am willing to work hard and hopefully it can be done. Any suggestions on improving the article would be most appreciated. Thank you!! Historical Perspective (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time. I appreciate the work that's gone into this article, but don't feel it's yet at FA status.

  • Given the length of the article a longer lead would be appropriate
  • "The battle lasted 1861-1865" - was there supposed to be more to this sentence?
  • "American Revolutionary war" - capitalization
  • Article needs some general copy-editing for clarity and flow
  • "South Carolina authorities considered Anderson's move to be a breach of faith" - this needs to be further explained
  • File:Sumter1.gif is missing author information. If author is unknown, say so
  • File:ConfederateBattieries2.jpg is missing source and author information
  • "Instead, it seemed prudent to send an unarmed civilian merchant ship, Star of the West...Brooklyn was fired upon by a battery on Morris Island" - but didn't you just say Brooklyn was not sent? Clarify
  • Manual of Style edits needed - spell out "%", check hyphen use, etc
  • Text needs to be more accessible to a non-specialist reader. For example, what is "casemated"? What is the normal size for an artillery company? What are howitzers and smoothbores?
  • Don't begin sentences with "And". Check text for grammatical errors
    • Just a note ... the editors of Chicago disagree with the advice not to start a sentence with conjunctions such as "and" and "but" (at 5.206, with some of the strongest language I've seen in Chicago.) OTOH, I agree that starting a sentence that way often doesn't feel right to me in Wikipedia articles for some reason, and I agree with Nikki that the one "and" that starts a sentence feels out of place in this article. (Also, I'm wondering what that sentence means ... how was one situation similar to the other?) - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Web citations need publisher and retrieval date
  • Page ranges should use ndashes
  • Missing bibliographic information for McPherson
  • Hatcher is in References but not Notes
  • Be consistent in whether you include all authors in shortened citations for multi-author works. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Thanks very much for your comments and for pointing out improvements that need to be made. I and other users have addressed them as follows:
  • Lead: I added a paragraph to the lead regarding the winter "siege" which was, I believe, the only significant part of the article not already summarized.
  • "The battle lasted…" The ed17 took care of this.
  • "Revolutionary war" corrected by Hlj
  • General copy editing for clarity and flow: not sure specifically how to address this. Perhaps once typos, glitches and other fixes have been made, there might be some specific suggestions re: flow.
  • "South Carolina authorities…" Hlj has added narrative to explain this.
  • Added unknown author on the file description page
  • Unable to determine source for the color image so I replaced with a similar image from the collection of the Library of Congress.
  • re: Star of the West, Hlj took care of this
  • removed %, added ndashes for page ranges
  • Added wikilinks and a bit of explanation for specialized terms such as casemates, company, howitzers, smoothbores, and mortars.
  • Removed "And" and re-worded to clarify re: Fort Pickens
  • Publisher and retrieval date has been added for web citations
  • Hlj has taken care of MacPherson and Hatcher references
I believe these fixes address the specific items you listed. If there are additional fixes that you feel need to be made, please let me know. Many thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll be happy to help, but copyediting is generally seen as one of the last steps in the process, and I can't tell with this one whether we're close to the end or right in the middle. I'll try to get a sense of that from reviewers' comments. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 9 March 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 23:09, 18 March 2011 [11].

Air well (condenser)

Nominator(s): Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this article is interesting and engaging. The story of high-mass air wells, which never worked, is a modern parable of how not to do science and engineering. The account of radiative air wells on the other hand may be of the greatest practical importance to people who live in hot humid climes with a lack of potable water. Active collectors that are practical and ecconomical are currently being developed. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - an interesting topic, but I don't feel the article is yet at FA status

  • Per WP:LEAD, lead for an article of this length should be at least 3 paragraphs
  • Manual of Style edits needed - spell out "%", don't start section headings with "The", etc
Done Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See here for a list of problematic links
  • Avoid stacking images and sandwiching text between images
  • Reference formatting needs to be much more consistent
  • Unfortunately France does not have freedom of panorama, and therefore your lead image (and the later derivatives) need different licensing and may need to be removed
Oh dear! That sounds rather serious. Might there be a way round this, the structure is quite old and it is not a work of art but a machine protected by a patent? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How old, exactly? Is the architect still living? When was it patented, and by whom? French copyright law is not something I know a lot about, but more information might help resolve this situation. The other possibility is to argue that the structure does not meet the "threshold of originality" required for copyright protection - see the page I linked above for more information on that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read the link, I did not feel that I really understood it. The patent linked in the article is dated 1930 (there may well be earlier patents) and work on the structure in question started in 1930 too. The inventor was Achille Knapen, his company, British Knapen, was up and running in 1928 so it is very unlikley that he is still alive today. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source links for File:Yeti_AC-12_atmospheric_water_generator.jpg are dead
Working link provided. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captions should be grammatically correct and sourced where necessary
  • "Zibold's condenser was approximately the same size as the ancient stone piles that had been found, and although the yield was very much less than the yield Zibold had calculated for the original structures, the experiment was an inspiration for later developers." - source?
  • "Wolf Klaphake was a successful chemist working in Berlin during the 1920s and 30s. During that time, he tested several forms of air wells in Yugoslavia and on Vis Island in the Adriatic Sea. Klaphake's work was inspired by the works of Maimonides, a known Jewish scholar who wrote in Arabic about 1,000 years ago and who mentioned the use of water condensers in Palestine." - source?
Reference added. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unfortunately, the aerial well never achieved anything like its hoped-for performance and produced no more than a few litres of water each day." - source? There are other unsourced statements that also need citations
Specific reference added. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 14:09, 17 March 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 22:37, 18 March 2011 [12].

Frost Bank Tower

Nominator(s): TheAustinMan (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all of the requirements. All statements included in the GA nomination and peer reviews have been fixed, according to those statements. If the article is close to FA, I can fix things as the nomination continues. By the way, I'm only 11, so please, not too harsh. TheAustinMan (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - welcome to FAC! I don't mean to be discouraging, but I don't feel this article is yet at FA standards, although I'm open to changing my mind if you're able to resolve my concerns. If you need something below to be further explained, please let me know

  • You use quite a few commercial sites as references, which can be a problem in terms of reliability - they tend not to be the type of high-quality references preferred for FA articles. Can you briefly explain your reasoning?
  • This video - couple of problems with this. First off, when citing something to a video, it's a good idea to include a time - when does Jones mention the Bohemian Club? What makes Jones qualified to opine on the inspiration of the building - is he an expert in architecture, an arts critic...? Finally, why cite this to a mocking YouTube video instead of a more direct source like a newspaper article, or even an excerpt from a radio show? Also, the titles don't seem to match
  • This source appears to be a student-written blog - what makes this a reliable source?
  • Check formatting in references. Will you use a website name or an actual publisher name as a publisher? Check spelling ("allbuisness"?), consistency ("Retrieved" or "Accessed"?), etc
  • Don't include things in See also that are linked in article text
  • Some copy-editing needed for clarity and flow. Try reading the article out loud, as this often helps to identify problem areas. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Hello! Welcome to FAC! I took a look at the article. I agree with Nikkimaria. I'm not saying the article is bad. It's very good. Here are some errors (not big) I found:

  • As Nikki said, references need a check. Some are formatted using {{cite web}}, while others are not formatted using the template. Be consistent.
  • Again, as Nikki said, the video from youtube, is it official? Videos can be cited. Please take a look at WP:ELPEREN. A direct source is preferred.
  • Insted of filling in publisher as Austinchronicle.com, can you expand it to The Austin Chronicle? (For refs 19–23).

Good luck.—Novice7 (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Nominator, TheAustinMan, has Resolved The Concerns Mentioned Above. Click "Show" Below For Details and Comments Regarding the Fixes

Resolved comments from TheAustinMan (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "You use quite a few commercial sites as references, which can be a problem in terms of reliability - they tend not to be the type of high-quality references preferred for FA articles. Can you briefly explain your reasoning?"
    • I used these commercial sites because they are related to the topic of buildings and architecture. They have also had a history of providing information which has been used by the general public. I also couldn't find other sources though... :(
  • "This video - couple of problems with this. First off, when citing something to a video, it's a good idea to include a time - when does Jones mention the Bohemian Club? What makes Jones qualified to opine on the inspiration of the building - is he an expert in architecture, an arts critic...? Finally, why cite this to a mocking YouTube video instead of a more direct source like a newspaper article, or even an excerpt from a radio show? Also, the titles don't seem to match"
    • "I have decided to take that video off because I agree that using YouTube videos doesn't fit with featured articles. I placed in a direct source instead.
  • "This source appears to be a student-written blog - what makes this a reliable source?"
    • I have decided to use another source rather than a student-written blog.
  • "Check formatting in references. Will you use a website name or an actual publisher name as a publisher? Check spelling ("allbuisness"?), consistency ("Retrieved" or "Accessed"?), etc"
    • I checked the formatting in the references. I decided to use the actual publisher name, so you will see the actual publisher. Some publishers have '.com' in their name, like AllBusiness, so don't take it for granted that every name with '.com' is not the real name.
  • "Don't include things in See also that are linked in article text"
    • I sort of "traded" links, so I took off some links in the article text that were unnecessary so they could be placed in the See Also. Kind of genius, right?
  • "Some copy-editing needed for clarity and flow. Try reading the article out loud, as this often helps to identify problem areas."
    • I copy edited the whole page and I think its better than before. If you still see some blocky sentences, please notify me.
  • "As Nikki said, references need a check. Some are formatted using {{cite web}}, while others are not formatted using the template. Be consistent."
    • I have consistancized the references so that they all use {{cite web}}.
  • "Again, as Nikki said, the video from youtube, is it official? Videos can be cited. Please take a look at WP:ELPEREN. A direct source is preferred."
    • As I mentioned, I have used a direct source instead.
  • "Insted of filling in publisher as Austinchronicle.com, can you expand it to The Austin Chronicle? (For refs 19–23)."
    • Yep. I changed the names.

TheAustinMan (talk) TheAustinMan (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Comments Below Are Not Part of the Resolved Comment Box

Comments (contd..)

  • Sorry, but I don't think Ref 7 says anything about January 2004 being the building's opening date.
  • Ref 8 is a dead-end (broken).
  • Ref 19 (Life123) seems like a question-answer website (like Yahoo! Answers). I don't think it's reliable. Also, it does not say anything about the club.
  • Expand IALD (IALD Award)
I meant expand the abbreviation to International Association of Lighting Designers and add IALD in brackets. —Novice7 (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Comments Above Are Not Part of the Resolved Comment Box

Resolved comments from TheAustinMan (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Sorry, but I don't think Ref 7 says anything about January 2004 being the building's opening date."
    • I noticed the fact was gone from that website. I used another reference instead
  • "Ref 8 is a dead-end (broken)."
    • I replaced that link with the updated link.
  • "Ref 19 (Life123) seems like a question-answer website (like Yahoo! Answers). I don't think it's reliable. Also, it does not say anything about the club."
    • I exchanged that for 2 references, each with a segment of information that combines to make what this article has.
  • "Expand IALD (IALD Award)"
"I meant expand the abbreviation to International Association of Lighting Designers and add IALD in brackets."
I did that and added a reason why.

TheAustinMan (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the FAC instructions and do not add template hidden headers to FAC noms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 18 March 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 04:50, 14 March 2011 [13].

Refugee controversy in Sjöbo

Nominator(s): Alphasinus (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this for featured status because i think it passes the criteria. I've done some changes that made it qualify for GA status but the main contributer to the article is User:Theleftorium. Alphasinus (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Leaning oppose. Article doesn't seem well-developed to me. More background on the ethos of Swedish refugee policy would help build the story. Sources are thin, prose needs polishing. Here's some examples/recommendations: Sasata (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • no mention of the 1989 "Aliens Act"?
  • no mention of the 1989 film about the incident, Sa Gar Ett Ar; Teden I Sjobo?
  • Sources not used:
  • Rysted, G. (1992). "Encounter with strangers: refugees and cultural confrontation in Sweden"
  • Pred DS. (1992). "Even in Sweden: racisms, racialized spaces, and the popular geographical imagination"
  • Graham M. (2002). "Emotional Bureaucracies: Emotions, Civil Servants, and Immigrants in the Swedish Welfare State" Ethos 30(3):199-226. JSTOR 3651871
  • "...when the Moderate Party took over the power in the Sjöbo Municipal assembly." underlined part sounds odd
  • various minor typographical errors: missing a space between sentence; cite before punctuation; is the quote in the "Debate and media attention" section supposed to be ended by a fullstop or an ellipsis?
  • one sentence paragraphs need to be expanded or integrated elsewhere
  • "The county had accepted a large amount of refugees" amount -> number
  • percentages are given with both the symbol and by writing out "percentage"
  • translations of the Swedish reference titles would be nice
  • why is the "detailed article" ("The day that Sjöbo split") externally linked not used as a source?

Sources

  • Earwig's tool found no copyvio, manual spotchecks not done due to lack of source availability and my lack of Swedish skills
  • Make sure all non-English sources are identified as such
  • I echo Sasata's question about why the external-links article was not used as a source
  • It would be helpful to provide times for when information being cited to radio or video sources occurs - similar to page numbers for book sources, this allows the reader to more easily verify the information
  • YouTube video should have an access date

Images

  • "Then-Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson was critical of the result" - the result of what? I realize this is explained in the article text, but would be good to state here
  • "A part of Sjöbo's town square, where both pro- and con- demonstrations were held" - source? Not mentioned in article text
  • File:Sjöbo_Municipality_in_Scania_County.png - what evidence do you have that the outlines are PD? The source you linked has a copyright notice at the bottom. Also, would be good to provide a more specific source link. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Why is a bare year linked in the first sentence? Of all the things to link in the beginning, where reader attention is greatest, this is about the least useful thing I can think of.
  • I see "Municipal commissioner" and "Municipal Commissioner" in the lead. Which is it?
  • Background and motion: Space needed after first sentence.
  • Debate and media attention: Third paragraph of the section has a double period at the end.
  • Aftermath: I don't understand why the end says "As of today" when the source is from 2006. That's not today. How about saying "the Sjobo Party remains active" or similar? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:34, 7 March 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 04:50, 14 March 2011 [14].

Mothers of the Disappeared

Nominator(s): Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Midnight, our sons and daughters / Were cut down, taken from us / Hear their heartbeats... / We hear their heartbeats..."

Hello everybody. Today I bring to you an article on the U2 song "Mothers of the Disappeared". The closing track of The Joshua Tree, it details the plights of an organization of women whose children were forcibly disappeared. I could go on, but heck; that's what the article is for! I've thoroughly exhausted all of my resources and I am confident that this meets all of the FA criteria. The article has been through a recent Peer Review, and I hope that it will be considered among the best of Wikipedia's work when the process is through. Enjoy the article! Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Minor points only:-

  • Refs 16, 31, 39 (McCormick): At first glance "McCormick" does not appear in the bibliography. It appears as "U2 (2006). McCormick, Neil. ed." I would drop the initial "U2" and place McCormick in its proper alphabetical sequence.
  • Ref 17: fix hyphen in pages range
  • Ref 62: Is Propaganda the name of a journal or magazine? Who publishes it? Is "'Click.' Inside PopMart. 'Click.'" the title of an article?
  • Ref 47 should be placed at the end of the sentence that it is citing.
  • Ref 65: "Raidió Teilifís Éireann" should not be italicised (it isn't a printed source). Check for other instances.
  • In the bibliography: No apparent citations to "U2 – The Joshua Tree: Authentic Record Transcriptions"
  • Bibliography: Publisher locations missing from Cogan, Kootnikoff

A few sample spotchecks carried out without problems arising. Other than the above, sources and citations look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some initial responses:
  • The McCormick references follow the standard our WikiProject has agreed upon. The book doesn't have a copyright page that clearly outlines author roles in the book and different sources will tell you different things (e.g. WorldCat, Amazon, etc). The band members are listed on the cover, but most sources credit the book to McCormick, and to U2 as a group. However, all of the words in the book are the band members' own - McCormick doesn't offer his own words and only compiled the band members' accounts of their history, so he essentially is an editor (and the "cite book" template is correct in its formatting for editors). Rather than credit the footnotes to U2, which could be confusing since they have authored and published many items that can be used as references, we credit McCormick as the editor.
  • I accept what you say. On the other hand, for clarity's sake it would be possible to format the short citations: "U2 (2006). McCormick, Neil (ed), p. xxx" (This is a suggestion not a request)
  • Ref 17 had the hyphen fixed
  • Ref 47 is only supporting the dedication part of the sentence - the date and circumstances of his fate are supported by the 2 citations that close the paragraph.
  • Ref 62 is a fan magazine published for U2 fan club members, the publisher is unknown (at least by me, I never owned a paper copy of any of the issues).
  • Ref 65 has had the radio station un-italicized.
  • Cogan and Kootnikoff now have locations.
Let us know if you find anything else. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Y2kcrazyjoker4 addressed most of the concerns you presented. In regards to the others:
  • "'Click.' Inside PopMart. 'Click.'" is the title of an article.
  • If need be, I can place reference 47 at the end of the paragraph along with the two others. I placed it in the middle of the sentence because that was the only part it supported.
  • The Authentic Record Transcriptions initially went to "Authentic Record Transcriptions (1999)" in the footnotes. Both have now been amended with an author. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with the sources, subject to the small requested clarification on Propaganda. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images/Media

  • File:U2_Mothers_of_the_Disappeared.ogg needs further copyright information - producer, copyright holder? Does U2 hold copyright, or does Island?
  • File:President_Ronald_Reagan_receives_the_Tower_Commission_Report_with_John_Tower_and_Edmund_Muskie.jpg - need ARC identifier. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sound sample has been amended with the producers and copyright holder of the song. U2 own all of the rights to their music, and have done since 1983 I believe. I'm looking for the ARC identifier for the Reagan image, and will get back to you once I have found one. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I found and added the ARC identifier to the Reagan image in Commons. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hating the quotebox overuse on this otherwise well-presented article. I normally like seeing a couple of these in an article, but the problem here is that they give undue weight to the always-melodramatic U2's Save the World rhetoric. As a U2 hater, my reading might be biased, but I think the article thus suffers from a severe pro-U2 bias.—indopug (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've integrated two of the five quote boxes into the prose. I don't see how the remaining three could give a pro-U2 bias; one describes the process of mixing the song, and the other two the inspiration behind it. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:02, 3 March 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 04:50, 14 March 2011 [15].

Calabozos

Nominator(s): ceranthor 03:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is a comprehensive and well-written account of a minor, but interesting volcano. Since beginning the article a little over a month ago, I've improved it drastically, adding lots of information, consulting new references, and finding nice images. The help of Awickert, who found resources for me, DiverDave, who helped when the article was still small, and Malleus, who copyedited the article for me, has been invaluable, and I thank them all for their contributions. I'd also like to thank Pyrotec for reviewing the article at GAN. ceranthor 03:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • please fine-tune the refs:
*et. al to the correct et al. (also in the article text)
*endashes for page ranges (bibliography)
*Drake et al. should have a doi
*compare refs #12 and #13, the latter has a comma following the author name, unlike the former
*why is ref #15 "Grunder and Mahood" when it's only "Grunder" in previous instances? What's the page #?
Source doesn't provide pg. numbers.
*ref #18 change "pg." to "p."; ref #8 change "page" to "p."
*ref #20 needs an author (Topinka, Lyn) and the date should be enclosed in parentheses like the prior instance (ref #19)
  • inconsistent use of title case or sentence case in journal article titles in the bibliography
I'm simply following the article names themselves; the one that's not capitalized is not capitalized here.
The case for titles should be consistent in this article; it won't make any difference to the reader searching for the article if the case is switched from title to sentence or vice versa. Sasata (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*author display not constant in the bibliography: some have "and" before the final author, some don't
*Siebert, L needs fullstop to be consistent with others
*does Stern et al. (2007) not have an ISBN or location?

Otherwise sources and citations look ok. Sasata (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • More: Sasata (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moreno, T. and Gibbons W, ed., p. 154." why is this listed with the editors when there's a prior instance that lists by the author of the chapter?
  • since you're using literature that starts with the author name Hildreth in both the Bibliography and the References section, it might be a good idea to specify the year in the short-form refs to alleviate confusion (eg. instead of "Hildreth et al., p. 45." use "Hildreth et al. (1984), p. 45."
  • refs #9 and #14 have the first author delimited by semicolons, but the rest are by commas... not sure if that's deliberate or not but it looks a little odd
  • still need to fix author display: compare "Simkin, T; Siebert, L. (1994)." and "Grunder, Anita L. and Mahood, Gail A. (1988)."
Should all be fixed. The references are delimited by semicolons where there's an author and coauthors.
Nevermind, I got rid of the semicolons.
Thanks for making the changes. For future reference, I think if you want to give the first names in full, it's easier to read the list of authors if they are delimited by semicolons. If you only give the initials, then commas are fine. I've never been a fan of the "and" before the final author, but of course that's personal preference. I'll give the rest of the article a full review after you've had time to deal with the extensive commentaries below. Sasata (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on 1c/1c—Sources list looks a little thin to me... have any of these journal articles been checked for additional information? Sasata (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title: The link between volcanism and tectonics in the southern volcanic zone of the Chilean Andes: A review
Author(s): Cembrano, J; Lara, L
Source: TECTONOPHYSICS Volume: 471 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 96-113 Published: 2009
Nothing additional on Calabozos, but it goes into detailed info about SVZ.
Title: Eruptive stratigraphy of the Tatara-San Pedro complex, 36 degrees S, southern volcanic zone, Chilean Andes: Reconstruction method and implications for magma evolution at long-lived arc volcanic centers
Author(s): Dungan, MA; Wulff, A; Thompson, R
Source: JOURNAL OF PETROLOGY Volume: 42 Issue: 3 Pages: 555-626 Published: MAR 2001
Similarly, here, just brief mentions of Calabozos, nothing new.
Title: The Puelche Volcanic Field: extensive Pleistocene rhyolite lava flows in the Andes of central Chile
Author(s): Hildreth, W; Fierstein, J; Godoy, E, et al.
Source: REVISTA GEOLOGICA DE CHILE Volume: 26 Issue: 2 Pages: 275-+ Published: DEC 1999
Found a bit of information! I'll add it to the article.
Title: Volcanism and erosion during the past 930 ky at the Tatara San Pedro complex, Chilean Andes
Author(s): Singer, BS; Thompson, RA; Dungan, MA, et al.
Source: GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA BULLETIN Volume: 109 Issue: 2 Pages: 127-142 Published: FEB 1997
Title: O-18/O-16 ISOTOPE GEOCHEMISTRY OF SILICIC LAVA FLOWS ERUPTED FROM VOLCAN OLLAGUE, ANDEAN CENTRAL VOLCANIC ZONE
Author(s): FEELEY, TC; SHARP, ZD
Source: EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS Volume: 133 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 239-254 Published: JUL 1995
Couldn't find a full-length article, but the abstract doesn't even mention Calabozos, so I'm going to assume there's not really anything here.
Title: LOW DELTA-O-18 SILICIC VOLCANIC-ROCKS AT THE CALABOZOS CALDERA COMPLEX, SOUTHERN ANDES - EVIDENCE FOR UPPER-CRUSTAL CONTAMINATION
Author(s): GRUNDER, AL
Source: CONTRIBUTIONS TO MINERALOGY AND PETROLOGY Volume: 95 Issue: 1 Pages: 71-81 Published: 1987
Title: THE HYDROTHERMAL SYSTEM OF THE CALABOZOS CALDERA, CENTRAL CHILEAN ANDES
Author(s): GRUNDER, AL; THOMPSON, JM; HILDRETH, W
Source: JOURNAL OF VOLCANOLOGY AND GEOTHERMAL RESEARCH Volume: 32 Issue: 4 Pages: 287-298 Published: JUL 1987
Yes, I've read over the two articles directly above and found them to be a little too specific and complicated for inclusion on wiki, but I'm willing to add them if you wish. As for the rest, I'm inclined to think that the articles on specific complexes would not be particularly useful, but the Calabozos one and the Chile volcanism ones look promising. ceranthor 13:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've resolved your concerns, Sasata. ceranthor 14:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of DOIs. I think the references may need another pass through to ensure the issues above are sorted (e.g. page numbers and ISBNs are important), and can you check if the journal articles have free access to the full text anywhere? Rjwilmsi 21:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You fixed all the ISBN/DOI issues, and no, there are none of those freely available. If you find one online, you should probably be concerned. ;) ceranthor 22:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just added the p. number for the Grunder/Mahood ref. Everything should now be fixed. ceranthor 22:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Given the length of the article, a slightly shorter lead would be more proportionate
  • 2 dab links - Lenticle and Acid leaching
  • "Part of the Chilean Andes' volcanic segment, it is considered part of the..."; "results in the formation or...results in the formation of" - repetitive, check for similar issues
  • Lead could be a bit more accessible in nature. What is "plutonic"? "Tuff"? "mya"?
  • Link unfamiliar terms on first appearance. For example, "stratovolcanoes" appears in the first paragraph but is not linked until the fourth. At the same time, avoid overlinking. For example, Miocene is linked twice in the same paragraph
  • "Calabozos caldera is..." - is "Calabozos caldera" the correct name? If so, amend other instances; if not, grammar
  • Check MoS issues, particularly hyphens/dashes
  • "Beginning 6.4 million years ago the Chilean Andes were quiet, though whether or not this quiet took place throughout all of the Andes remains unknown. Central Chilean volcanoes began activity once again around 2.5 million years ago, and have erupted almost continuously since" - phrasing is slightly awkward
  • "Calabozos lies in an area between thick and thin continental crust, suggesting its eruptions are probably fed from a pool of andesitic and rhyolitic magma that sits just under its caldera" - I'm not a geologist, so I'm having some trouble seeing how these points are connected. Why does its location in a transitional region imply the presence of a magma pool? Could this be made clearer?
  • Which is correct: direction-direction-trending or direction-direction trending or direction-to-direction trending? (Rechecked 21:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC), not done)
  • Calabozos "seems to be" or "is" of similar age to Cerro Azul? Make consistent
  • "the record that defines the southern sector is poorly kept" - meaning is unclear, and seems to imply human involvement/stewardship
  • "lake" refers to the laguna, correct? May want to clarify
  • Make sure to provide conversions for all measurements in climate section

Didn't get all the way through yet, I'll revisit once you've had a chance to look at these points. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should have fixed all but three. I can't think of any other way to phrase the kept sentence. I'm not good at spotting hyphen/dash problems (poor eyesight), and I actually quite like the length of the lead; if we could keep it that way, I would be happy. ;)
  • "(lens-shaped layers of mineral or rock embedded in a different material.)." - don't need the first period, and I'm again confused by your meaning here - what "different material"? Must it be rock, or can it be anything?
  • "The sheets of remaining ash left over from each of the eruptions range from 200 cubic kilometers (48 cu mi) to 500 cubic kilometers" - are those numbers each or total? If each, which eruption produced the higher number? If total, reword for clarity
  • "As the ash was deposited, it accumulated in layers that formed quickly and resisted erosion, but only partially melded together. Other than three sections where very thick or thin rock did not coalesce well, the entire sheet is melded together." - these seem contradictory to me, can you explain/reword?
  • "between less than 5 to approximately 15 percent" vs "contains five to 30 percent" - why the different approach to numbers?
  • "its high levels of lithics probably originates from either being exposed to the rocks after they were erupted, lying adjacent to them while they underwent subsidence, or just formed slowly and over a long period of time. Any of these reasons would also effectively account for the poor mixing of the lavas" - grammar
  • "ejected from Calabozos vicinity" - grammar
  • "traveled in a similar format" - phrasing seems odd; I think I understand what you're saying, but it could be worded better
  • "continue for hundreds of meters until they disappear" - one can assume they no longer continue after they disappear. Are you missing an adjective - gradually, suddenly?
  • "non-welded sheets of lava. Another zone of nonwelded" - which hyphenation is correct?
  • "near Cajon Los Calabozos" - this means nothing here, as there is no map and it's not explained until later that this is a hot spring (Rechecked 21:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC), not done)
  • "It last erupted during Holocene time, producing a 2.5 cubic kilometers (1 cu mi) lava flow" - grammar. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've resolved all your concerns. ceranthor 13:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most specific issues are fixed. However, I think this article needs a good copy-edit for clarity and flow before I can support. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead
  • How do you pronounce 'Calabozos'? Do you pronounce it differently from the English Calaboose, and what language is Calabozos from? Also, why does Calaboose redirect to prison? That confused me when I first clicked on it. It might be better not to link 'Calaboose' at all, unless the name means something.
  • "pool of magma nearby" - seems a bit vague - can you be more specific?
  • "Loma Seca Tuff" - is there a way to avoid semi-linking part of what looks like a proper noun, and linking tuff another way?
  • "a massive amount of space surrounding the caldera" - this is also vague, I'm left wondering whether this is hundreds of metres, kilometres, tens of kilometres? Is it volume or distance? Is there way to be more specific than "massive"?
  • "Each period is distinct for its composition and size" - this sounds like a very precise wording required by the science, but leaves the layreader wondering what it really means and why you've said it. Either explain why this is important, or drop this.
  • 26 by 14 by 3.5 km - I find myself mentally picturing that and thinking - it is quite flat! If it is, maybe say that? I also find myself wondering if the large spread of the volcano 26 and 14 km away from the caldera accounts for this "massive amount" of tuff surrounding the caldera? i.e. is the tuff part of the volcano, or deposited outside this 26 by 14 km area?
    • Update: having looked at some other sources, I now see that it is the caldera that is 26 by 14 kilometres - one source calls it a mega-caldera. And the term I was looking for is Topographic prominence - do you know what that is for this volcano, or is it just a sprawling mess of volcanoes arising from this massive caldera? More like a complex than a single volcano?. Regardless, I think that the lack of a picture or map means that it is all too easy to misunderstand the current prose, like I did when reading: "The volcano's dimensions are 26 kilometers (16 mi) by 14 kilometers (8.7 mi)". I then mentally put a caldera on top of a volcano of that size... Maybe replace the word volcano with caldera? Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give the size of the volcano but not the caldera - has anyone published measurements of that?
  • Having now reminded myself that a caldera is not a volcanic summit crater(!), do you know when the event took place that caused the most recent collapse that formed the caldera? Some sources call it a multi-ringed caldera (e.g. the abstract for Hildreth 1984 says "composite ring-structure caldera"), does that mean successive collapses after successive eruptions? And if this is a "composite ring-structure caldera" why does the article not say this?
  • "Activity from the volcano has produced multiple other stratovolcanoes and even a complex volcano" - in mentally trying to picture this, I'm not clear whether the 'child' volcanoes are close by or on top of the existing one, or a fair distance away and connected to the same underground system. Is it possible to be clearer here? I read the "Later events" section, but that didn't really help. A map of the complex is really needed here.
  • I also found myself (in the absence of any picture of the volcano) trying to picture what its surroundings are like. It is also not clear if the figure of 3,508 metres elevation is from sea level or from the base of the volcano? Which-ever it is, I find myself wanting to know what the other measurement is, so I can picture how high it rises above the mountains around it, or alternatively how high they rise above this one (or maybe they are all the same height). How far away are the other nearest peaks? How many are there? Is it tall for an Andean volcano or on the small size? Things like that.
  • Are there satellite pictures of the region? Not everyone will know that you can follow the co-ordinates at the top to get to satellite imagery (and even there, zooming in gets a better view of what I think is the caldera), so maybe prompt readers via an external link and/or change the scale on the co-ords link?
  • You say "an extremely remote area of poorly glaciated mountains" - can you be more precise? Can you give the distance to one of the nearest sizeable settlements?
Geology
  • "The date of its last known eruption is unknown" - confusing - how can an eruption be both known and unknown? And doesn't Holocene mean the last eruptions were in the Holocene (as the infobox implies)? Maybe you mean the date is not known with precision?
  • "In a publication" - change to "In a paper published in 1976"?
  • "whether or not this quiet took place" -> "whether or not this quiet period took place"?
  • How does the "K-Ar dating" paragraph relate to Calabozos? Were the Calabozos eruptions included in those described by Drake? If so, that needs to be explicitly stated.
  • "just under" - can you be more precise, say kilometres at least? Give some idea, though I realise this is something that people may need to do further measurements to ascertain, what justifies "just under"? There must be something that allows an assessment like that to be made.
  • Diagrams would really help here when describing the different layers and events. Prose description can only go so far.
  • Rather than show a picture of another volcano of similar age, why not show one that looks similar in shape and appearance?
  • "Malargüe" - double-check umlaut
  • When you mention Hildreth, instead of "Their study", say "Their 1984 study" - gives chronological context to the research.
  • Consider scattering date context throughout for the research to give something more accessible to latch onto for the reader getting lost in the geological terms.
Climate and vegetation
  • You mention vegetation and climate but not the fauna - if there is no fauna (e.g. due to the climate, or due to the volcanism and the "pumice desert"), you should say this. If there are some limited fauna, or no studies have been done of the fauna, then say this.
Threats and preparedness
  • You are going to hate me for saying this, but the mentions of the Armero tragedy, the CVO and Mount St Helens are gratuitous here. Step back a bit and think whether they really have anything of relevance to this article. If not, try and rewrite this section and focus more on the Volcanic Disaster Assistance Program, which sounds like it should have an article.
Pictures
  • Unless the following photo can be used under a free licence, I would suggest pointing the readers to this photo of the caldera. That helped me understand things a bit more. I would also suggest finding some way of telling the reader early on to look at the photo to help orientate themselves when reading the article (I found the above image when Googling to try and work out what this 26 by 14 km bit was all about).
  • Alternatively, you could search Google Images (like I just did), for "calabozos" + "caldera" (that gets rid of all the images of prisons), and the top hits are examples of Astronaut Photography of the Earth (from the Space Shuttles and the ISS). The site search interface is here. I searched for Calabozos and then found the 'Astronaut Photography of the Earth' search system useless, so went back to Google Images and there are the following six images: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. If those are public domain (the terms of use are here), then I hope one of them shows the caldera!
  • I also found some ASTER images here. I got there by clicking the "MAPS" link on the sidebar on the entry for Calabozos on the GVP (Global Volcanism Program) page. Large number of images there, showing the caldera in a range of conditions. The one I liked was this one from 2006, but there are others as well, so if those can be used, do pick one (or more) that are best used to illustrate the article. I think the Calabozos caldera is the horizontal rectangular feature just above and to the right of the glacier-like feature.
Overall, I found myself wanting to know more about the geography and climate and environment of the area, and felt the article was a bit too focused on the complex geology (compare this article with another volcano article that has just been nominated at FAC: Mount Cleveland (Alaska) - the difference in approach between the two articles is quite striking). It's also incredibly frustrating to read descriptions of something with no picture to look at! I'm sure the geology is excellently summarised, but I found myself wanting more from the article and it felt like the story is only half-told and there is more detail yet to be found by later researchers. Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Added extra notes. 03:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! That's a lot of stuff for me to do, so it'll take me a good day or two to get around to all of these. ceranthor 13:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I would have more time this week, so I apologize that I'll probably have to wait until tomorrow or Monday to get to these. Sorry! ceranthor 18:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me and Cer, we write somewhat differently; I for one am less heavy on the tectonic setting stuff. The whole section as a matter of fact was Cer's idea originally =) ResMar 04:32, 10 March 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 19:34, 11 March 2011 [22].

Irresistible (Jessica Simpson song)

Nominator(s): – Novice7 (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I've fixed the article up as much as I can (transforming it from this version to the current version). I believe it is well written and comprehensive. Thank you. – Novice7 (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tbhotch

This is the first part of my review, have fun Novice :) Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 07:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Infobox
wearing a purple sweater and short... -> wearing a purple sweater and a short
around her shoulder -> which shoulder? or maybe you intended to say shoulders
To the right of the picture, the words "Jessica Simpson" and "Irresistible" are written. -> How they are written?
Recorded: Murlyn Studios in Stockholm, Sony Music Studios in New York City -> recorded when?
Fixed
  • Lead
for Simpson's second studio album, also entitled Irresistible (2001). -> It can be re-worded
Year-end charts -> year-end charts
had a James Bond theme -> link it
Fixed
  • Background
Stockholm; Sony Music Studios -> link them
Columbia Records released "Irresistible" on May 29, 2001 -> and there were not more release dates worldwide?
Fixed first issue. For the second, yes, there are release dates. But, I didn't include them as I though they might become redundant.
You can include where it was released on May 29. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 21:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composition
94 beats per minute -> consistency with the numbers
F3 to the high note of E5 ... D2 to the note of E5 -> link them
shouldn’t -> You know
famous virginity intact -> BLP issue
version featured on Lizzie McGuire Soundtrack -> link it
The version featured on Lizzie McGuire Soundtrack has altered lyrics -> the version featured on the soundtrack has altered itself or someone altered it?
Fixed most. Added a citation for the virginity thing, and changed the soundtrack lyrics mention.
  • Remixes
remixes from So So Def Recordings, Hex Hector, and others. -> Who others?
Dupri also appears on the remix video -> This is mentioned because...
Fixed first. For second, now that I've read it again, I feel it makes no sense as Dupri's presence is mentioned in the next sentence. Shall I remove it?
Yip, very redundant. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 21:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reception
Change the name of the header since is is part of the "Reception" section
BBC -> link it
"Irresistible" won a BMI Music Award -> in which category
  • Commercial reception
Commercial reception -> as above
Although in New Zealand, the single debuted at number forty-five and dropped to number fifty the subsequent week,[31] it eventually peaked at number forty-one.[31] -> need a copy-edit, including when it reached its peak. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 21:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The song also" is mentioned five times, this needs to be fixed
Fixed most from both. Okay, so shall I merge the two individual receptions into one? – Novice7 (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is on option, or the second is search synonyms such as "Commercial response" or "Critical reaction", or something like that. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 21:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. – Novice7 (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music video
It begins with a helicopter -> Is not "an helicopter"?
MTV's Total Request Live countdown -> MTV's Total Request Live (TRL) countdown
Fixed
  • Live performance
setlist -> link it
song on MTV's TRL Tour -> unlink it
On June 4 -> year (I assume 2001 thanks to the next date)
Cancun -> grammar, Cancún
She appeared on an episode of MuchMusic in Canada on June 11 -> June 16 was previously mentioned, should this not go in chronological order?
She also performed the song at Monkey Club Paris -> in Paris, Texas or in France?
Fixed. Oops! I may have misplaced the MuchMusic performance. Corrected it, and it is in France.
  • Refereces
Ref 3, could you be more specific? The {{Cite album-notes}} has 17 fields and you are using very few of them
Ref 5, who wrote the article
Ref 11, David Manship -> Capital City Press
Ref 16, as ref 3
Ref 22, Daily News. -> Daily News. Heartland Publications.
ref 29, consistency needed with the publisher
Ref 41, as ref 3
Ref 59, IMDb is not a reliable source
Refs 62-66, as ref 3
According to WorldCat, the ISBN of Today's Superstar Entertainment: Jessica Simpson is wrong
Fixed, I guess. As for the liner notes, I could not add much, as the album has a fold out booklet, and has no page numbers printed. Similarly, for the remix ep. The release notes also suffer from almost the same issue, as the singles do not have any booklets (the information is printed on the back cover).

Those are all my comments off this article, good luck. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 07:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your comments. – Novice7 (talk) 10:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If I am able to say support, I do. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 04:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! – Novice7 (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The release date given in the infobox is unreferenced and original research. If the Australian release date reference is used it is generalizing from one countries information to apparently global claims via original research. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I made another version of the article. I don't know if I can move it to mainspace. I have referenced the release dates on that version. It is currently in my sandbox. Thanks for the comment. – Novice7 (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is an improvement to write it in prose. However, the reference your using doesn't say anything about release in Australia. Also the Australian chart site already used in the article lists the single as being at the later date of 25/06/2001. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the source. I checked the chart site. It shows the same release date for many countries, while Amazon shows different ones. – Novice7 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but my original observations still stand. In addition what makes Amazon.fr with it's information pertaining to only one specific retailer a high-quality reliable source for a release date in France? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I searched on all possible online stores, and could not find anything regarding the single release. I even tried Sony Music France's website and its archive using Web Archive. I used Amazon.fr, as the release date published there corresponds to original release date in that region. Proposal: Maybe I can mention the US release date (as I found a Record label source for it) and mention it in the lead and infobox. I can add mention it was released in the US, in the infobox. – Novice7 (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you seem to be saying you can't source the information in the article. How about removing all the release information entirely. Especially the one in the infobox? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found a label source. And, of course, Amazon. Also, {{Infobox single}} says "the earliest known date". That's why I added May 29. I don't know if I am allowed to remove release dates. – Novice7 (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the label source in the article? The release date has only the amazon.fr reference used. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beside the US vinyl release. Here's the link [23]. 14:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, don't have the time to follow this up at the moment. Feel free to ignore my coments. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the layout and style of the article. – Novice7 (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: the new images need ALT for consistency. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 04:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it okay now? – Novice7 (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed it. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. – Novice7 (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Looks good, with a few exceptions.
  • The lyrics are more mature and suggestive than those Simpson's in previous songs. - those /of/ Simpson's, maybe?
  • "I think you're going to see a new side of Jessica Simpson," she explained to Associated Press.[5] - Explained? Is there a better word to use?
  • The song features a string section[20] by Stockholm Session Strings.[4] - Might be better as, "The song features string instruments played by etc.".
  • Irresistible" was received with mixed reviews by critics. - You said in the lead that it was met with mixed to negative reviews, can we make this consistent?
  • Teresa Gubbins of The Dallas Morning News was mixed in her review, writing that the "song's sound may help get [Ms.] Simpson on urban radio but it does nothing to showcase her voice." - maybe better as "had mixed feelings in her review"
  • Her performance was commended by The Richmond Times, who wrote that her voice "soared,"[69] but reproved by Andrea Kibler of The Buffalo News, who felt Simpson was lip-syncing the whole song.[70] - Can a person feel that someone is lip-synching? May be better as opined or expressed that she thought Simpson was...

Great work. ceranthor 00:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you. (Please note that I had asked Ceranthor if he could check the article out. I tried my best not to canvass.) – Novice7 (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images/Media

  • "It also incorporates hooks." - source?
  • "Simpson performing on the United Service Organization's Celebrity tour" - what is this?
  • No issues with the images themselves - fair-use images have appropriate rationales, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "from her second studio album of the same name." I know this is majorly picky, but this could be read that she had two studio albums of the same name.
  • "It was first released on ..." could relate to the album, since that's what you last spoke about.
  • "came up with the title" a little colloquial reading for me.
  • "inter-cut with Simpson's. Simpson performed " could you not say "She performed" as it's clear you're talking about Simpson here.
  • I would think it more useful to link Disney Channel Original than to link music video.
  • I would avoid using ASCAP as an abbreviation before you use it expanded.
  • Songs for Hall & Oates? really?!
  • "they wrote the song from scratch" - reiterate "Irresistible" rather than "the song".
  • "with a couple of" a little colloquial for me.
  • C Major -> C major.
  • "double-punch" - I have no idea if this is good, bad or indifferent!
  • "of BBC gave" we usually say "the BBC".
  • Last sentences of Music video section are unreferenced.
  • Is "skimpy" encyclopedic?
  • Reality Tour or "Reality Tour", be consistent with the quote marks.
  • No need to link Paris.
  • "Riprock 'N' Alex G Remix " vs "Riprock N' Alex G Remix" - consistent apostrophes please.
  • Weekly charts table, ultratip should come before ultratop, I assume you're ordering them alphabetically to start with..?
  • Yearly Charts->Yearly charts.
  • Refs 90 to 100 (bar a couple) need to use en-dash per WP:DASH, not spaced hyphens.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rambling Man! I fixed most of the issues.
  • Yes, the source says "songs for Hall & Oates.."
  • Allmusic review seems positive as it says none of the other songs, except the mentioned ones, register as songs.
  • I added a ref. for music video.
  • I linked Paris as there is Paris, Texas and Paris, France.
  • Yes, I sorted it alphabetically. I can move Tip up if you want me to :)
  • The refs from 90 to 100 are created by {{singlechart}}. I don't know how to fix it :(

— Novice7 (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments
    • Ref 100: Should has a language parameter; it is mostly in German.
    • Ref 42 and 43: I think too; mostly in German.
    • Ref 49 and 50: Connection refused.
    • Ref 54: Media type text/html is wrong for .pdf files.
    • Ref 59: node name or service name not known.
    • Ref 30: How's that there are two publishers? I would pick the one between brackets.
    • Ref 32: "publisher=[[Knight Ridder]]/[[Tribune Company" — forgot two square brackets.
    • Ref 6: "publisher=Amazon.com" — publisher is "Amazon Inc."
    • Why you italicize works? Explain.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GreatOrangePumpkin
  • As I wrote earlier, they're made by Singlechart template. I don't know how to fix them.
  • My fault. I usually never look above comments.
  • It's okay :)
  • 42 and 43 are Billboard sources.
  • You are right, but the language of the website is German.
  • It shows up as English to me. Maybe it is region-specific? — Novice7 (talk)
  • Extremely strange. Yesterday it was in German D:. How's that? Maybe I accidently translated the article with Google Translator, but I don't think I did that without realize something. Firefox is sometimes just crazy, nothing else :/.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe a server problem. It's working for me (ref 49 and 50).
  • Seems to be OK now.
  • Can you please explain? I've seen it before too, but don't know what it means.
  • I have no clue what the problem is. You can try someone above; maybe they will fix it. Maybe Checklinks is just plain stupid.
  • Sorry, I couldn't understand.
  • Someone fixed it. The sentence is from Checklinks.
  • Removed. Sorry.
  • It's fixed.
  • It says Amazon Inc.
  • Checklinks is sometimes very strange. It still shows the wrong publisher. However, it is now correct.
  • I italicized work field, because, only print sources should be italicized. But, if work field is left un-italicized, then online sources will also be italicized.
  • Good to know.

— Novice7 (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! — Novice7 (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm afraid that because of the use of the {{singlechart}} template, ref 97 now has a spam-esque title which has no relevance to the page it's linking, and also the template's main editor has chosen to use a spaced hyphen rather than en-dash. I would advise against using the template if this "title" is what you get for every reference using that website. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've changed it. But, I remember hearing that once the template is used, it should not be removed :( —Novice7 (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why that would be the case. The template is just another way of using a {{cite}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. I changed the German chart template as you pointed out. I hope the new title is okay. If I may ask, I thought the reference titles should be the same as that of the source? —Novice7 (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citation template guidelines are a little more vague, just "Title of online item". This template interprets that as the HTML title, regardless of how useful it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for clarifying. I hope the German chart is okay now? —Novice7 (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Novice7 (talk) 13:47, 7 March 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 19:34, 11 March 2011 [24].

Californium

Nominator(s): mav (reviews needed) 22:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article for some time now and think it now meets all FA criteria. If it is still weak in one or more areas, please tell me and I'll try to fix those issues. The article is already A class content-wise and has recently gone through a PR. This is an obscure element that is only available in tiny amounts, so it was difficult to find sources that had significant content that would be appropriate for a general encyclopedia article. mav (reviews needed) 22:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—I participated in the peer review of this article. It is in pretty good condition but the first three sub-sections are really thick with jargon. I gave it another read-through and found a few more issues I'd like to see addressed:
The third paragraph in ===Physical properties=== was the worst offender; it added content best suited for a table and concepts that are well beyond the interest or understanding of a general reader. So I removed it. I think the rest can be mostly understood in context by anybody who has taken and passed high school chemistry while preserving info useful to an expert. --mav (reviews needed) 01:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking better now. Thank you.—RJH (talk)
The jargon-filled compounds section has been moved to its own article. The section added little and was a bit of an aside anyway. Other edits made to help explain jargon in context and make prose more clear. --mav (reviews needed)
    • The lead does not cover most of the Characteristics section, nor the production or precautions sections.
    • Why does the physical properties section switch from Centigrade to Kelvin and then back to Centigrade?
      Centigrade is the de-facto standard temp scale used in chemistry for normal temperatures but extreme temps make more sense expressed in Kelvin. --mav (reviews needed) 01:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the 'Cp' in Cp3Cf? The Cp article says only that it is an obsolete symbol for Lutetium and Copernicium.
      It is the symbol that represents a metallocene, which is C5H5-. But that is getting too much in the weeds, so removed. --mav (reviews needed) 01:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this sentence needs a little work: "Its use in mineral prospecting and in medical treatments and research means it can be found near facilities that use californium." Is this trying to say that mishandling results in some loss of the element?
      Source does not say. Sentence changed to "Californium can be found near facilities that use the element in mineral prospecting and in medical treatments." --mav (reviews needed) 01:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this statement is quite accurate: "Electromagnetic emissions possibly caused by the decay of californium-254 are observed in the spectra of some supernovas." The observation was that the characteristic light curve of a supernova explosion is very similar to energy curve emitted by the 55-day day half life of Californium. Hence it was suggested that supernovae generated large amounts of Californium, which supplied the energy for the light emission. However, this is now known to be incorrect since the energy comes from the decay of nickel-56. I don't believe the spectra of Californium was ever observed.
      Good catch. Commented out pending finding a good cite refuting the older work. Then maybe turn it into a footnote. --mav (reviews needed) 01:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could the article give an energy (in eV) of the neutrons emitted by californium-252? (Or a mean energy if it is emitted over a range?)
      Is this what you had in mind? --mav (reviews needed) 02:43, 17 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 00:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - HTTP 302. I missed that. Now fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 17:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Sources seem reliable, although I can't speak to comprehensiveness. One question, though: you seem to use a considerable number of older sources and a few tertiary sources. Is there a reason for this?

Much of the work on this element occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. Most of the specialized encyclopedias used summarize primary sources and thus are secondary sources. The others are used sparingly. --mav (reviews needed) 20:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I'll address each point this weekend. --mav (reviews needed) 03:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some areas that seem to awkwardly mix phrasings and/or tenses. Here's one where a better phrasing would drastically improve clarity:

  • "Two to six out of 100,000 people are estimated to die of a fatal cancer if they were continuously exposed to soil with an initial average concentration of 1 pCi/g of californium-251 and californium-249, respectively."

The "are" followed by "if they were" is rather disconcerting. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 16:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I'll address each point this weekend. --mav (reviews needed) 03:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I'm not sure if this addresses your exact concern but I revised the sentence to hopefully make it more understandable: "An incidence of two to six fatal cancers are expected to occur for every 100,000 people continuously exposed to soil with an initial average concentration of 1 pCi/g of californium-251 and californium-249, respectively." I'll keep your general comment in mind as I copyedit. --mav (reviews needed) 21:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More jargon moved to daughter articles or explained/made more clear. --mav (reviews needed) 03:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments after doing a few edits:

  • bulk modulus of 50 GPa: how does this compare to other more common materials (so a layperson can appreciate the value)?
    Added Al for comparison. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hydrogen hydrides" what is that? (the word hydrogen is probably wrong)
    Removed. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Californium(IV) oxide (CfO2) is formed by oxidation at high pressure. " high pressure of air or O2? and how high? 10 bars, or 10kbars?
    • MS: why did you delete this?
      Removed - in the original article the authors used high gas pressure (bars I guess) to speed up the natural oxidation process without the need for high temperatures, but they didn't have to. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Fission neutrons of californium-252 have an energy range of 0 to 13 MeV with a mean value of 2.3(2–3?) MeV and a most probable value of 1 MeV.[25]" while interesting, very few readers whould get anything out of this without further details. What is 3? supposed to mean? How much is 1 MeV for a fission neutron? I am tempted to suggest moving half of this info to a footnote.
    It was 2.3 with middot coming from an old notation for the decimal separator. To clarify why the energies are so different - 1 is sum average and 2.3 is statistical fit. I am puzzled by how to answer on "How much is 1 MeV for a fission neutron" - it is a lot for a neutron (can knock any atom from any solid), but might be low or high for different fusion reactions. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Californium metal was first prepared in 1974" what scale did they get? miligrams? less? picturable?
    Clarified. They deposited small-area thin films suitable for electron microscopy, i.e. they did not have to maximize the amount. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there an estimate on the total amounts of the element synthesized until now? more than 10kg?
    It should certainly be less than 100 g.Materialscientist (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "very minute amounts might exist in some uranium ores" from the uranic neutrons?
    "Clarified". I guess not only neutrons, but also other reactions (alphas). Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Compounds containing ... but pure samples of the metal have not been made in particle accelerators." not sure if this sentence sounds right
    It was indeed odd. Fixed. I guess it meant to say that pure metal is produced in accelerators and compounds in reactors, which is somewhat dubious - it is always produced as a metal, but converts to compounds (by surface reactions) later. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Californium isotopes with mass numbers 249, 252, 253, and 254 were observed for the first time in the radioactive dust collected from the air after an explosion.[44]" I would say this should be moved to the history section with the reference to 1956
    Well, it is talking about how Cf gets into the environment. Thus I think it is best to keep it in the occurrence section. As I say below, this is a synthetic element so all aspects of its occurrence will be tied to history in some way. --mav (reviews needed) 02:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • should the occurrence section be part of the characteristics one?
    Mav can add more, but for most elements "occurrence" is much closer to "production" and thus placed there, as a separate section. Materialscientist (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given this is a synthetic element, I agree; occurrence in the case of Cf is directly related to human production. But occurrence does make more sense placed in the characteristics section for some elements, such as oxygen, where occurrence naturally flows from a stellar nucleosynthesis-oriented isotopes section. --mav (reviews needed) 02:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename production to nucleosynthesis?
    "Production" is the standard WP:ELEM section title and is more accessible than nucleosynthesis. --mav (reviews needed) 02:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "4997Bk(n,y)25097Bk" I would use a non-shorthand notation for this reaction (what is "y" here?)
    Its γ. Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Californium in the skeleton adheres to bone surfaces before slowly migrating throughout the bone." needs citation
    Verified and moved the supporting citation (it was oddly placed). Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • maybe mention how much Cf was used/given to discover Uuo
    Added from the source. The Russian team used about 10 mg in their both attempts. Materialscientist (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As expected from Mav, a very nice article! Nergaal (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your comments on and edits to the article. I've been out of town for the last couple days and just got back. I'll start to address concerns later on Friday and during this weekend. --mav (reviews needed) 10:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like some things are missing. I have just noticed that californium is the heaviest element that has been reported in supernovae from the nucleosynthesis page lead section, but that fact has the [citation needed] tag next to it. I would have included it if only that tag was not there, but it is and thus I cannot put it in. Can somebody find the natural californium source page? There seem to be a few other details that need putting in. I want the article to become featured, and so I need all the help of my fellow Project Elements users - Lanthanum-138, Mav, Nergaal, and a few others. Let's do this together. (Mav, can you help me?) FREYWA 06:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is discussed on the talk page under Not in supernovae (I presume). The claim goes back to 1956 and is outdated by later observations.--Stone (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref note added about supernovae. This element seems to be a magnet for incorrect initial findings or counter-findings that keep getting repeated in otherwise reliable sources (it took me over a month to resolve whether metallic Cf had been prepared or not). Wikipedia is a great place to work these issues out. Please feel free to copy and/or modify my note to other articles. What other details are missing? I intentionally overlooked a lot of really technical info that is well beyond the interest or understanding of a general encyclopedia reader. --mav (reviews needed) 14:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead
  • Is "weighable" a word? And shouldn't the technical and scientific term be "mass"?
  • "is one of highest atomic mass elements" - missing word 'the' (surprised this was missed in copyediting).
    Fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 18:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is one of highest atomic mass elements" - possibly a hyphen is needed somewhere as well.
    I don't think so... --mav (reviews needed) 18:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, yeah. I need to think twice before suggesting hyphens. Carcharoth (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Californium slowly tarnishes in air at room temperature and disrupts the body's ability to form red blood cells by bio-accumulating in skeletal tissue." - These two separate properties shouldn't really be conflated in a single sentence. It is jarring to have to mentally switch from a picture of a tarnishing metal to californium-poisoning. i.e. If read too quickly, the reader will think that one property follows on from the other. Suggest splitting into two sentence or rephrasing.
    Separate sentences now. --mav (reviews needed) 18:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Characteristics
  • "Weighable amounts of californium make it possible to determine some of its properties" - again with the word weighable. But I think the point here is that you have sufficient quantities of the elements to determine certain properties. i.e. it is not the fact that it is weighable, but that you have enough of it to do certain things (including weighing it). The whole section would read better if you just said "As a synthetic element, the properties of Californium can only be determined if enough of it is produced and the isotopes produced are stable enough to be analysed". On the other hand, if "weighable" is a technical term specific to studies of chemical elements, and synthetic elements in particular, then a footnote to that effect will help.
    Changed to "Unlike many other elements heavier than plutonium, enough californium can be collected to determine some of its properties." --mav (reviews needed) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not immediately clear to me that α and β are the Greek letters alpha and beta. I usually like to see some parenthetical note telling me what the symbol is, if it can be described simply.
    fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the "double-hexagonal close-packed form" exists below 900 degrees C, does the "face-centered cubic form" exist above 900 degrees C? The lead seems to imply this, with "two crystalline forms under normal pressure, one above 900 °C and one below", but the section here in the main body of the article seems to have missed out the words "that exists above 900 °C" for the β form.
    Correct, clarified. --mav (reviews needed) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 1: "The three lower mass transplutonium elements require much less pressure to delocalize their 5f electrons" - would it be possible to name and link to these other three elements? Also, lower-mass needs to be hyphenated.
    americium, curium, and berkelium mentioned and linked in note. --mav (reviews needed) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've passed on the hyphen bit... Carcharoth (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the bulk modulus compared to that of aluminium? A random comparison or a standard one?
    There is no standard comparison for this value. Aluminium is chosen as an element, which is accessible to most readers and which has a value close to that of Cf. Materialscientist (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What MS said. I made this clear in the text via "... but smaller than more familiar metals, such as aluminium ..." --mav (reviews needed) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that makes it much clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "similar to other 3+ actinide elements" - not everyone will realise "3+" refers to valence here. Suggest rewording to "similar to other 3+ valence actinide elements".
    Done. --mav (reviews needed) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and dysprosium, which is the lanthanide above californium" - suggest using the word "element" before dysprosium to make things clearer.
    Done. --mav (reviews needed) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "chalcogen" - this one threw me, and I'm moderately familiar with most chemical terms. Suggest explaining what a chalcogen is, as it doesn't take long.
    It might sound odd, but "chalcogen" is less ambiguous than its explanation "an element of group 16" - whereas "chalcogen" is a very common term, group 16 is confused with group 6 (VI) even by scientists :) (because of coexistence of the wide/compact periodic tables). No slightest disrespect to this comment, but basic notions are to be wikilinked rather than explained. Materialscientist (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but since oxygen is a chalcogen, is there not redundancy or imprecision in saying "hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen or a chalcogen"? I tried rephrasing it, but it is difficult. Carcharoth (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, oxygen is chalcogen. Needs a prose tweak. Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Rephrased to "a chalcogen (oxygen family element)" --mav (reviews needed) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it reacts with hydrogen when heated, why is the reaction with "dry hydrogen" rapid? This seems like a discrepancy without further explanation.
    I presume small amount of moisture will modify (oxidize) the surface of Cf and slow down the reaction. Many reactions stop by such surface layer, whereas pure dry hydrogen easily diffuses through and reacts with the bulk of a metal. Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the products of the reactions named in this section?
  • "Few californium compounds have been made and studied." - is it possible to have a rough range here? Less than ten? Less than 20?
  • It is not clear here how you get from the samples of californium, freshly produced by the methods described later in the article, to the oxidation states being described here. When it tarnishes in air, for example, which oxide is produced? Ditto for all the other compounds named - how are they produced?
  • Is there a reason the 'Chemical properties and compounds' section uses "further information" and the 'Isotopes' section uses "main article"?
    Because Compounds of californium is not supposed to be strictly an expansion of the chemistry and compounds section in this article; instead, the daughter article expands on just one part of the subsection here. Yet, that is the case for Isotopes of californium. --mav (reviews needed) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, though I've seen "see also" used at the top of sections. I've only rarely seen templates like that used at the end of sections. It just looks strange to me. I see no reason not to put all such "see other bit over here" pointers at the top of sections. i.e. my objection (and I wasn't clear on this) was more about the placement of the pointer template. I'm so used to seeing them at the top of sections that seeing one at the bottom of a section is jarring. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The isotopes of californium range in mass number from 237 to 256." - would it be possible to have a source for this?
    Same as the rest of the paragraph. Added anyway. --mav (reviews needed) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to its high neutron capture and fission cross section" - it shouldn't be too hard to put this in a less technical way - my understanding of that is that it is unstable in the environment it is formed in (the earlier mentioned "intense neutron radiation in a nuclear reactor"), due to being split up by neutrons that hit it soon after it is formed (quite why this is the case for this isotope and not others is another question, which would require unpacking the mechanics of nuclear reactions a bit more).
    Changed to "...due to its propensity to collect neutrons (high neutron capture) and tendency to interact with other particles (high cross section)."--mav (reviews needed) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You describe the decay products of Californium-252, but not of the other isotopes. What do Californium-249 and Californium-251 decay into? Isotopes of californium was no help here.
    Already mentioned in the Most stable isotopes part of the infobox. Cf-252 is the most important isotope so it is also mentioned in the prose. We normally summarize trends here by stating what the most common decay modes above and below the longest lived isotope are but there is no such trend for Cf. The best I can do is add: "Most of the other isotopes of californium decay to isotopes of curium ( Z = 96) via alpha decay."--mav (reviews needed) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot to look in the infobox. As I said, I went looking in Isotopes of californium and that didn't give the decay products apart from a very small entry in {{Actinidesvsfissionproducts}} for Cf-250 to Cm-243 (I had to look hard at that template to find that), so I assumed no-one had listed them anywhere yet. It seems strange that the infobox for the element would be more detailed than the article on the element's isotopes, but maybe that just indicates more work is needed on the related articles. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Californium-252 undergoes α-decay" - the term "alpha decay" is not linked here, and is written using the Greek letter. Later on in the article, the term is linked, and written as "alpha decay". Earlier in the 'Isotopes' section you link beta decay. Inconsistent linking and use of α/alpha and β/beta. Suggest whole article is checked for this.
    Fixed in this section. --mav (reviews needed) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks OK elsewhere as well. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One microgram spontaneously emits 2.3 million neutrons per second." - you link to microgram. Interesting as that article is, I'd much rather learn whether 2.3 million neutrons per second is a lot or not (it sounds like a lot). Also, is the energy range given for its neutrons high, low, or normal? i.e. Can the harmfulness of Californium-252 be compared to other radioactive isotopes. I realise it is not possible to do this if the sources don't say anything, but these are obvious questions readers will ask themselves.
History
  • Your NYT source says ""Element Created; Has Heaviest Atom" - but the Wikipedia article is silent on what this means. Can this be clarified?
    The NYT is hardly a good thing to cite here anyway; it is simply cited to back up an inane statement about Cf not having a known use or value when it was discovered. As if knowing what the use or value of a newly discovered element was expected by anybody who had a clue about how basic science works; one normally has to perform lots of tests before finding out what use a new element may have. Cite and statement removed. --mav (reviews needed) 20:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "35 MeV alpha particles" - I think this should be hyphenated as "35-MeV alpha particles" (as opposed to 35 particles of a MeV each).
    Good idea. Done. --mav (reviews needed) 20:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2: "set-aside" - this shouldn't be hyphenated here. The "difficult to get to California" bit is cute.
    Fixed and yep. :) --mav (reviews needed)
  • "Californium metal was first prepared in 1974" - this begs the question of what state the 5000 atoms initially produced in 1950 were in. Is this "unknown", or were they ions detected by the synchrotron? You also say that "nuclei" were produced in 1950, and then later say "atoms". Which was it? Nuclei or atoms?
    Certainly atoms. Those 5000 atoms were scattered in the target composed of another material (which turned into a complex mixture after irradiation) and were detected by energy and character of emitted particles. I believe those were individual atoms (per low conversion probability) in a solid matrix, and that there was no technique to ascertain that in the 1950s (even now such identification would not be trivial). Materialscientist (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that makes it clearer. So should the one instance of "nuclei" be changed to "atoms"? Search for "nuclei" in the text of the article. I suppose the equations are for nuclei, aren't they? Though if the beta particle is shown with a minus sign, why is the alpha particle not shown as a double positive charge? Alpha decay has a 2+ by the helium nucleus. I know the electrons matter little here, as these are nuclear reactions, not chemical reactions, but it still seems inconsistent. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "long-duration irradiation" - what duration? Is this days, months, years? (You do give a hint later, with the "five years" bit).
  • You fail to give the year for the weighable quantities bit.
    The actual journal article that published the achievement is cited. I don't have access to that article, so I can't say if the achievement was done the same year as publication or before that (or even if the article mentions the date). --mav (reviews needed) 20:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest either trying to get hold of a copy of the reference, or giving the year the results were published. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the metal production year (1974) put in so early? It seems out of order with the rest of the history.
    An artifact of section expansion. Fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 20:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • "Bombardment of californium-250 with neutrons produces californium-251 and 252" - you need to either pre-hyphenate 252 or write out californium a third time, or rephrase this.
    Done. --mav (reviews needed)
  • "Millionth gram" - this needs hyphenating, but isn't this just another way to say "microgram"?
    Changed to "microgram" --mav (reviews needed) 21:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only two sites produce californium-252" - this repeats what was said in the 'History' section. Readers will notice this. But in any case, the material in each section looks at first glance to be contradictory! The history section says "The High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina" and the rest of the article (including the production section) says "Oak Ridge National Laboratory". When you click on High Flux Isotope Reactor you find out it is "located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee". But then you go back to the history section of this article, and find that it says "at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina". What is going on here? (Note that the 'Applications' section mentions the 'Savannah River Plant' as well.) The quantities mentioned in the two sections don't seem to match up either. I would say, work out what needs saying, and say it in one section only. Note also my comment on the talk page of this FAC page about the IP edit that seems to have caused the confusion here.
    Argh - History section cleaned-up. I need to recheck all relevant sources to clear this up in all affected sections. --mav (reviews needed) 03:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "available for commercial use through the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission" - here, it is worth making clear that the regulatory activities passed to this body (give the year) from the Atomic Energy Commission mentioned in the History section.
  • You gave a price in the history section. Are no current prices available?
    For such elements the price is rarely available in reliable sources, and I can only speculate why (e.g. all orders are highly individual, they specify the required purity, form, etc., that affects the price). Materialscientist (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. An example here would at least give some idea, but it may be best to let readers look this one up themselves if they are curious. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three californium isotopes with significant half-lives are produced, requiring a total of 14 neutron captures by uranium-238 without nuclear fission or alpha decay occurring during the process." - For this sentence to really sink in, it would be best to point out that the berkelium (and the elements it is produced from) are all themselves made in nuclear reactors or particle accelerators, in a chain that can be traced back to uranium (as in the diagram). This point hasn't been made earlier in the article.
    Good idea. Added "Californium-253 is at the end of a decay chain that starts with uranium-238, includes several isotopes of plutonium, americium, curium, and berkelium and the californium isotopes 249 to 253 (see diagram)." --mav (reviews needed) 21:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Applications
  • "half-lifes" - should this be "half-lives"?
  • "received a loan of 119 µg of californium-252" - do you need to link or write out "µg"?
    Note to Mav: it stood as mg, but changed to µg a few hours ago per source
    See also my note further down about µg vs mg vs g. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neutron penetration into materials makes it useful" - replace "it" with "californium".
  • As an aside, the 'applications' section is very interesting and well-written, and the changes in use over time was fascinating (the californium bullet bit was hilarious - though not really an 'application' is it?).
  • "and fission fragment and half-life studies are other applications of californium" - by "fission fragment" do you mean "fission fragment studies"? I found this sentence a bit impenetrable. It would be nice to know what fission fragment studies are and how californium is used in half-life studies.
    To clarify: "studies of fission fragments [chemical identity] and half-lives". Technically, these might be different measurements, of emission energy, emitting particle nature, and of decay time. Materialscientist (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Precautions
  • "an initial average concentration of 1 pCi/g" - any chance of explaining what this means? Comparing it to something else? Is this, for example, considered a safe or dangerous level? How does it compare to the levels mentioned in the 'Occurrence' section?
Other
  • Didn't check the infobox (I saw some verification thing going on in all the chemical infoboxes, that I assume has been done now?), though it does look fascinating, but the redlink "d" is a bit distracting. Minor quibble, I know!
  • Seaborg died in 1999. It confuses me to see "Seaborg 2004" in the references! Is there not a more elegant way to cite an entry in an edition that was published after the author of that piece died?
    It is the 5th edition, of an encyclopedia, which usually reprints former editions with minor additions and corrections. Materialscientist (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    An extreme example of the same issue is for Mark Twain's autobiography (2010). The date is simply a publication date. I'm not aware of any citation convention that accounts for this type of thing. --mav (reviews needed) 18:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to strike this, as difficult to action or unactionable. Personally I'd not bother with giving the author here, as it is the encyclopedia editors that are taking responsibility for the republication of Seaborg's original entry. Out of interest, does the entry in that edition directly credit Seaborg or indicate when the entry was first written, and does it indicate whether updates have been made and does it credit any changes (the actual text of the entry might make it clear that changes have been made since the last edition)? FWIW, the first edition seems to have been 1994. Carcharoth (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the two equations in the article, I was able to understand what the equations were showing because I can read such equations, but someone with no science background would not recognise them. Is it possible to have links or words under each bit to explain them? In particular, something saying that Cm is curium, that He is (in this case) an alpha particle/helium nucleus, that Cf is californium (in case the reader has forgotten this), and that n is the symbol for a neutron? For the second equation, saying that Bk is Berkelium, that β- is a beta particle/electron, and that n,γ is (I think) neutron and gamma rays?
  • The article would read better, IMO, if it ended on the final sentence of the "applications" section. Has the order of sections in the elements articles been determined by WikiProject Chemistry? If so, fair enough, but the "Precautions" section ends on a fairly damp squib of a rather technical nature. Best of all would be to end with the "ununoctium" bit, sticking the "other applications of californium" sentence somewhere else.
    The section order is set by WP:ELEMENTS. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Guidelines. --mav (reviews needed) 18:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I see you don't stick rigidly to that layout, so technically this is actionable, or to put it another way, if I pointed out that parts of this article's layout don't conform to that WikiProject guideline (I'm not going to do this, as I agree with the changes you made), you would have to justify the changes, but it doesn't work the other way round? It's not a major concern, but it still stands, as I think ending an article on "precautions" is failing to consider the best way to finish the article. I'll have a look at some other featured articles on elements and consider this some more. Carcharoth (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seaborg's Nobel Prize was for his work on discoveries in the transuranic elements. I believe that that includes his work on this element. If that can be double-checked, it is worth mentioning here, I think.
    Nobel cite says "for their discoveries in the chemistry of the transuranium elements". Cf was announced in Feb. 1950 and the prize given in 1951. The speech mentions Cf, but as a recent addition, thus per my WP:OR I would say it was probably not a decisive element of the Nobel Prize award. Materialscientist (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the "Presentation Speech by Professor A. Westgren, Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences". Now that you've pointed me there, I got to wondering what Seaborg sent in his Banquet Speech (unfortunately he gave it in Swediah and I can't understand it) or even in his official Nobel Lacture. I tried to find a suitable quote from there, but it doesn't really fit. There might be possibly pointers there to improve the history section still further, though. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of the researchers mentioned in the history section either don't have articles or are wrongly linked here. Stanley Thompson (1893-1953) was a Canadian golf course architect. Kenneth Street (1890-1972) was an Australian jurist. I don't know if either were related to the researchers in question here, but it is kind of depressing that articles arrive at FAC without people at earlier review stages having checked links like this (please don't take offense at this, it is not directed at this article in particular - it happens on other articles as well). When I noticed this on another FAC article recently, I suggested that all the links be double-checked to make sure they go to the correct destination. It takes time, but is worth doing.
    Fixed by Stone and noted for future copyedits. --mav (reviews needed) 18:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Stone has created Stanley Gerald Thompson. And from there I found this (Stone had found a mirror site, I think, not sure about how that works), which is fascinating and a potential help in finding journal articles about the history of the discovery, but that could be a whole other article in itself. Carcharoth (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional note: I did short stub for Kenneth Street, Jr. as well. Street died in 2006. I wasn't aware that Ghiorso died only a few months ago (December 2010). A nice bit of trivia (not for this article) is that there was a proposal to give ununoctium the name Ghiorsium. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture of the shipping cask is a great one for this article, but I was hoping to read something in the article about the technology involved there, and what the methods used are to transport this element and why such large and heavy casks are needed. I have a vague idea why, but I'm not going to speculate. The other question would be how the element is got out of that flask and into the equipment mentioned in the applications section.
  • In some places the article talks about milligrams, in others it talks about micrograms, and in others it talks about grams. This is a difference of several orders of magnitude. I noticed Materialscientist corrected at least one instance where microgram had wrongly been written as milligram. Is it possible to do a complete check through the whole article to make sure no similar mistakes are present? Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully some of those comments will be of use. I'll check back over the next few days and see if anything else comes up on a second reading. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review - I'll start addressing your points later on Sunday. --mav (reviews needed) 06:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Physical properties section, you change from Celsius to Kelvin. I think it'd be better to stick to one or used C (K) or something.
Unresolved items copied to talk:Californium. --mav (reviews needed) 11:02, 12 March 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 19:34, 11 March 2011 [25].

The Autobiography of Malcolm X

Nominator(s): — GabeMc (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC), Protonk (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating The Autobiography of Malcolm X for featured article because after it's GAN and two peer reviews we believe the article is FA quality. — GabeMc (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was trancluded on 9 February; when transcluding a FAC, please update the timestamps to avoid premature closing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

  • All sources look good. Some require fee or subscription to view the article, and these should be noted, by adding either "Fee required" or (subscription required) to the citation. This applies to 69, 70, 74, 75, 76. Check for others.
  • Spotchecks: Mostly OK, but: "In 1998, Time named The Autobiography of Malcolm X one of the ten most influential nonfiction books of the 20th century"[78] I can't see this mentioned in cited source. Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try to get a scan of the original article but I think the marginal notes in print made clear those 10 books in the linked reference were the top of the "Time 100" non-fiction books for the 20th century. Protonk (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I linked to the Table of Contents of that issue of Time, which describes the list of nonfiction books. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I added the {{subscription}} tags where appropriate. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The link to the "Table of contents" adds nothing and should be removed. The Paul Gray source will be OK if you change the text to correspond with what's in the source, which lists ten "required reading" nonfiction books. It doesn't say "ten most influential" and doesn't mention the 20th century. So you should say: "In 1998, Time named The Autobiography of Malcolm X as one of ten "required reading" nonfiction books". Brianboulton (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll change it, but I believe you're wrong. The cover of Time says "100 Artists and Entertainers of the Century" and the Table of Contents indicates that this list is part of a special section whose contents are all "most influential". But I'm not interested in getting in a pissing match over it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose
    • " Arnold Rampersad and Michael Eric Dyson agree that the narrative of the Autobiography resembles the Augustinian approach to confessional narrative."—who are Arnold Rampersad and Michael Eric Dyson (in other words, why do we care what they think?) Likewise, every time you bring in a new critic, professor, what have you, explain who they actually are. Wikilinks are not a crutch for unclear writing.
    • "and was credited in much the same way ghostwriters are credited, when they are credited."—Besides having way too many "credited" in close proximity, this doesn't actually explain how ghostwriters are credited.
    • "modern sources tend to treat him as an essential and core collaborator"—which ones? you start out by essentially stating this as fact, but at the end of the paragraph you appear to only have Dyson and Marable supporting that idea.
      • By the end of the section it is clear that modern sources such as Dyson, Marable, Eakin, Stone, Gillespie and Wolfenstein all support the idea that Haley was "an essential and core collaborator". — GabeMc (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In a view shared by many critics"—I'm uncomfortable with this, as the citation schema suggests that no source clearly stated "many critics", instead it's a synthesis of different books' reaction to the view.
    • The biggest issue here is that the article is severely tilted out of balance; the critical response section is inadequate I feel for telling me exactly how the book was received. There are only really positive views selected, but is that actually representative of its reception at the time? Can you objectively source "Other contemporary reviews were positive but mixed"?
    • I'm also concerned about the excessive quotations, which may have been attempts to avoid close paraphrasing. Either way they give the article a disjointed feel, more a collection of facts and views in some sections than a cohesive article about a subject. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • Support - But here are a few minor areas of possible improvement:
  1. Section "Malcolm X and Haley as collaborators" seems overly long; should be broken into a couple of subsections.
  2. Section "Malcolm X and Haley as collaborators" could use a better, more precise title that encompasses all that material.
  3. Pic of MLK near top of "Malcolm X and Haley as collaborators" section doesnt seem too relevant at that location. Move?
  4. I would like to see a small section at bottom on "Impact" or "Legacy" or "Influence" of the book, which summarizes latter works that refer to it, or pay homage, etc
  5. I would combine the two sections "References" and "Further Reading", but that's just my preference.
  6. True bibliophiles would insist on a list of the editions (I presume there were multiple)
Otherwise, great article. --Noleander (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I tweaked the title a little (2), but it will need a better title when it's split into smaller sections (1) tomorrow. Moved the pictures (3) and combined the two sections (5) (did you mean sort them together, or just move them under one heading?). I agree that a section on the book's influence would be a great addition (4), but I don't have the time now to research it properly (deadlines at work). As for different editions (6), that's also interesting research that will have to wait (unless somebody else can do it now). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding (5) References vs Further Reading: I suggested combining them into a single list. But that is just my preference, and there are good reasons for leaving them as two lists. --Noleander (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My personal preference is to break them back out, but it isn't a big deal. Protonk (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. They were never combined. --Noleander (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Alex Haley needs linking on first mention in the body (taking the example of Malcolm X, which is linked in both the lead and the body).
  • Regarding the first block quote in Construction, it describes how Malcolm X "stopped almost as if he was suspended like a marionette", and then how he continued walking. Could some context be given in its introductory paragraph describing the fact that he was walking to begin with (which would add to the power and meaning of the quote)?
  • "He expended energy to minimize his own voice, signed a contract to limit his authorial discretion nominally in favor of producing what looked like verbatim copy." Are the two parts of this sentence linked? That is, did he sign the contract to "minimize his own voice"? "signing" or "and signed" might then be more appropriate here.
  • I also don't understand the use of "nominally" here; was it "nominally in favor of producing what looked like verbatim copy" or did he nominally "limit his authorial discretion"?
  • "Haley writes that during the last months of Malcolm X's life "uncertainty and confusion" about his views were widespread in Harlem." What is the relevance of Harlem in this case? Why is it important the article tell us about the "uncertainty and confusion" in Harlem in particular?
  • "Haley influenced the narrative's direction and tone while remaining faithful to his subjects syntax and diction." Needs possessive apostrophe.
  • The third paragraph in Publication, sales, and critical reception is a bit of a mess, tense-wise. Fremont-Smith and Ward's receptions to the book are framed in present tense, for example, and then Rustin, Newsweek and Nelson's are in past tense. The next three sentences are present, present, past. I think a decision needs to be made about which is best to use.
  • "In 1968 film producer Marvin Worth commissioned a screenplay based on The Autobiography of Malcolm X from novelist James Baldwin, who was later joined by screenwriter Arnold Perl, who died in 1971 before the screenplay could be finished." The repetition of "... , who ..." here is slightly clumsy; could it perhaps be re-worded? For example, "In 1968 film producer Marvin Worth commissioned a screenplay based on The Autobiography of Malcolm X from novelist James Baldwin; he was later joined by screenwriter Arnold Perl, who died in 1971 before the screenplay could be finished."
  • Not sure of the official ruling on this one, but I believe the ISBNs in Editions need formatting so they link (as in the References section).
  • The "GoodReads book statistics" reference needs more detail.
  • To some extent I share David Fuchs' view (above) that the extensive use of quotes gives the article a disjointed feel; it doesn't tend to flow as a narrative, rather it seems to be in places simply an analysis of the critical commentary. This is not really an actionable point, but it is perhaps worth bearing in mind for future articles. Apterygial 10:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quote issue is a tough one. If you look through the past revisions of the page you'll see that what quotes remain in the article are significantly pared down from where it stood even before the GA nom (let alone after the RfC). The issue at the core of the article is the debate over the book authorship as it relates to ideas about autobiography, imputed ideas about Malcolm X himself, and the back and forth over how a narrative becomes a published work (or vice versa). Apart from that debate the commentary on the book is fairly pedestrian. Also, among the quotes left on the page there are at least 2-4 which are too good to summarize and too central to remove. I know that isn't really an answer, but it is an idea as to where we are coming from. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have no outstanding concerns. Apterygial 23:24, 9 March 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 19:34, 11 March 2011 [26].

Charles Holden

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Holden was an early modernist architect who left a lasting architectural legacy in London. Starting out in the Arts and Crafts Movement at the beginning of the 20th century, he progressively simplified and stripped down his style to its bare elements. He was awarded the Royal Institute of British Architects' highest award, the Royal Gold Medal, in 1936 and declined a knighthood on two occasions. In the 1920s he was one of the principle architects designing the war cemeteries in France and Belgium for the British war dead of the First World War. His largest buildings in London remain prominent examples of the 1930s monumental style, but he is probably best known for and had the longest lasting influence with his stations for London Transport. DavidCane (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: I originally wanted to use Eitan Karol's definitive biography Charles Holden: Architect as a source, but the book cost £50 when published and no less now on the second hand market. Six months ago I placed an inter-library book request for it, but had given up hoping that a copy might turn up, so finished the article with the information available. Unexpectedly, the book has arrived today (thanks Kent County Library Service and University of Bristol). As might be expected, Karol's book contains a great deal of information on its subject. I will therefore be adding some new information to the less developed sections of the article (Early life, Family, War cemeteries and memorials and Town planning) and possibly more on architectural criticism and his architectural writing. This will mean some additional references being added and some possibly being replaced. I don't expect that this will have any detrimental affect on the condition of the article, whilst the changes are made.--DavidCane (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

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 corner of this page. --PresN 19:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oughn't the ODNB ref to be formatted with {{cite encyclopedia}} rather than {{cite web}}? --Eisfbnore talk 20:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have cited the web edition of the ODNB rather than the print version, there is no volume number, page number or edition detail to include. The result is, therefore, exactly the same with the two cite templates. See below:
--DavidCane (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An interesting article which seems largely comprehensive. A couple of comments:

Early life

Early career

War cemeteries and memorials

  • Should the country described in the quote be explained - I would guess France of Belgium but I couldn't find this.
  • In what was was the war cemetery at Louvencourt "experimental"?
    • The IWGC tried out three different prototype cemetery schemes to see what they would cost to build. Louvencourt was one of these prototypes. They were all too expensive (each war cemetery was originally going to have a chapel, a "war cross" and a "great stone"), so they revised the specifications to eliminate some of the items in the smaller cemeteries and bring the costs down for the ones that followed. I will add some clarification.--DavidCane (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London Transport

Generally I found it a very interesting read.— Rod talk 21:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (followed by review later): I've read about the war memorial and war cemetery work Holden did, and I'm going to read through this article and leave some thoughts here. We should have a picture somewhere of one of his cemeteries, not just the memorials he did. Carcharoth (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead section: In one of the biographies I created recently, someone came along and put the postnomials in a template. The edit is here. The template is {{Post-nominals}}. I'm generally wary of wrapping article prose in templates, but this looked interesting. Should it be standard on biographical articles (this isn't really the right place to ask that), and should it be used on featured articles (I might ask at WT:FAC), and should it be used in this article? The lead paragraph mentions the WWI cemeteries but not the WWI memorials (admittedly, there were far more cemeteries than memorials). Should the WWI memorials be mentioned in the lead or not? In "simplified forms and massing", massing is a technical term here that I stumbled on. Is it possible to have a link or rephrase this?
  • Early life: It is possible to link Great Lever. Personally, I would then delink Bolton and Lancashire (all three are linked in the infobox). I would also say where St Helens is, as that gives an idea of how far they moved. Is a more specific link for 'draughting' possible? I think linking to 'Manchester' in 'Manchester architect' is overlinking. One general thing from this section - it is not clear exactly what qualifications he gained - can that detail be added?
    • I've linked to Great Lever, but think Bolton and Lancashire still need to be linked.
    • I've addded a note to indicate that St Helens is about 15 miles from Bolton.
    • His draughting classes weren't specific to any one field, although Karol says the class was called "Mechanical Engineering", but it was essentially draughting. I've linked to technical drawing.
    • Holden had no formal architectural qualifications - not uncommon at the time - and received most of his training on the job. Karol indicates that he did a class in Architectural history at the School of Art (grade: Excellent) and classes in "Brickwork and Masonry" and "Building Construction and Drawing" (first class honours in both) at the Manchester Technical School. These were vocational subjects like City & Guilds from which he won a £3 prize for the brickwork and masonry course. He also studied architecture at evening classes for three years at the Royal Academy School when he started working for Adams. I'll be adding a bit about the RA when I make some changes to the Early Career section.--DavidCane (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Family life: you don't link his wife's professions (nurse and midwife) but in the earlier section you linked his father's professions (draper and milliner) and his brother's profession (land surveyor). I would say for consitency, either link all or delink all, unless there is a reason to link them. I also disagree with linking the counties if there is an article on the towns. The link people are most likely to want to follow are the ones to the towns/cities. They can then go from there to the articles on the counties if they want to do so (this applies through the whole article). It might be worth mentioning in the article that Margaret Steadman was 10 years older than him - when they began living together he was 23 and she was 33. I also find the "Norbiton, Surrey (now Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames)" bit confusing. The point there is more that Norbiton was more rural at the time, but was swallowed up by the expansion of London in the early 20th century. What you really need to get across there is what Norbiton was like at the time - were they living in dense suburbia or gentrified country, or a small village? The austere family life and the 'betterment of the World' comment is intriguing. Is anything said anywhere about religion, or is it all from the philosophies encountered in the Manchester days? Is anything more known about the stepson Allan and how old he was? Was he around or grown up? This section ends with 'Charles and Margaret Holden lived at Harmer Green for the rest of their lives'. The rest of the article is all about the architectural career and legacy. It is normal to include a bit about the end of a subject's life in an article such as this. Standard would be his death date (already supplied in the lead and infobox), the location of his death (already in the infobox), possibly the cause of death if known, where he is buried, and whether he was survived by his wife (sorry, his partner - did she inherit despite not being married to him, for example). Also, in the rest of the article she is referred to as Margaret Holdman, though you say they never married? Did she change her name? Was she his common-law wife? I see that the article does say that Margaret died in 1954, but you have to scroll back up the article to find that out).
    • As I indicated in my Additional Comment above , this section is one I am going to expand a bit as I work through Karol's book. The information is a bit scattered, but I can say that most of the Holden's life style was philosophical. Holden had both grown up in the Church of England but found it unfulfilling and moved away from formal religion. Both were associated with the Quakers but not formal members.
    • Allan Steadman did live with the Holden's at Harmer Green and there is an interesting quote from Janet Ashbee about Charles and Margaret making their own clothes and a suit for Allan. What he did in later life Karol does not seem to say.
    • I didn't emphasis that Margaret was older than Charles as this didn't seem particularly important. It can be worked out quite easily from their dates.
    • Margaret pre-deceased him. Their attitude to marriage was that it was an artificial imposition by society. She was generally known as Mrs Holden, as most people did not know that they were not married. Common law marriage does not actually exist in England and the term wasn't used in their day.
    • In earlier drafts, the family life section was at the end of the article, but this seemed out of context, with most of what it contained relating to things that happened earlier in his life.
    • Holden was cremated and his ashes scattered in the Garden of the Friends Meeting House at Hertford. A memorial service was held at St Pancras church in June 1960.
    • Nurse and midwife are commonly recognised terms, but the meanings of draper and milliner are more obscure these days. I linked land surveyor because surveyor is a generic term and there are many specialisms (I'm a Quantity surveyor myself, but know little about the land surveyor's role).
    • I think it is quite normal to link both town and county in articles.--DavidCane (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skipping ahead, the external links section could do with a bit of tidying. I thought that guidance existed on this, but maybe it doesn't. The best practices I've seen are ones where you tell the reader you are linking to a search rather than a website (the London Transport Museum Photographic Archive link) and where deep linking (the LTM photographic archive sublink) to an image is avoided - that image will have a proper page that can be linked to, such as this one or (for the one you linked to) this one (the hopefully permanent links are the 'Bookmark this page' links at left on that website). For National Portrait Gallery pictures, I would recommend using {{Npg name}} to format the external link and generate the right link. The RIBA link is a search as well, so some annotation for the external link should tell the reader that (is there really no guidance anywhere on this?). I also checked the sister projects, and Commons has a page commons:Charles Holden, as well as a category. Currently the article only links to the category, but if someone was prepared to expand and maintain the Commons page, that would be a good link to have (you can annotate things there where you can't in a category). Nothing found on wikisource.
    • I'll have a look at the external links formatting, though I don't think there is any guidance on this section. I have concentrated on the prose, but more full details on where the links go might be useful.
    • I'm not sure what the preference is on Commons regarding personal articles; it seems more appropriate to link to the category, rather than create an extra page just to give annotations to images.--DavidCane (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general point: should the mentions of listed status be capitalised? eg. Grade 1, Grade II, etc.?
  • Early career: I find semi-linking of terms within proper names very distracting. The example here is "King Edward VII Sanatorium". The name is 'King Edward VII Sanatorium', and if you need to link sanatorium, that should be done without interrupting the flow of the name, IMO. Similarly, linking to Cornwall in 'Cornish granite' is a bit much. Better in both cases would be redlinks if articles are needed. For "Dedicated to the memory of King Edward VII", maybe mention he died in 1910, as the design competition was 1909. FWIW, we have a picture of Oscar Wilde's tomb in Paris - if there is no room in the article, that would be something for the list article or for the Commons page (rather than the Commons category).
  • Another general point - when you quote what critics and others are saying, it is not clear unless the reader burrows around in the references, when these comments are being made. Are they contemporary to Holden, or people commenting closer to our time? I think it is important to distinguish these two main classes of comments (Pevsner and Service are writing in the 1970s, while others such as Karol in 2007, are writing much more recently). I would tend to give date context when mentioning a source by name in the article for the first time.
    • I don't think the distinction needs to be made. It is more normal to show the date in reference at the bottom of the page. If the quote was from someone other than the author of the cited source or at some other time, I have, where possible, indicated where and when the quote originates. --DavidCane (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • War cemeteries and memorials: You could link First World War once somewhere in the article, maybe the first time it appears in this section? I'll come back to this section later, as I have some books on this that might be of use. OK, I've put what I have on the talk page here. I think the only bit that could be added (after I discovered that Stamp misattributed the Royal Artillery Memorial) is the quote from Von Berg - as someone who worked with Holden, I think it would help to give that side of things. It seems that the early history of Holden with the IWGC is not that clear, and I can't suggest much to improve on what the article already says. I think what I will do here is work on List of buildings by Charles Holden and make sure the list of cemeteries is complete and sourced. It is possible that will need renaming in some way, but could the link here at least make clear that the list is not just buildings and also includes cemeteries? It might also be worth mentioning that Pearson, Holden's partner in the architectural firm, worked on the Royal Artillery Memorial.
    • I've linked First World War where first used, though it is arguably a common enough term not to need it.
    • The list of buildings was compiled as I found new items for inclusion. A series of detailed lists is included in Karol's book, so I was going to revise this to add quite a number of smaller projects and unbuilt projects not currently included.
    • The list of cemeteries was compiled by digging around in the Commonwealth War Graves website and is sourced to that already. Karol's book contains a list based on an IWGC original, although he and Guerst both indicate that this was prepared some time after the event and has obvious errors and omissions.--DavidCane (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • London Transport: The 'Day and Night' link is to an image. Is that acceptable? Other than that, this section is really good (as is most of the article). When I encountered the name 'Eric Aumonier' here, I thought it sounded familiar. Is the William Aumonier mentioned earlier a relative? The link behind 'Post-war austerity measures' is disappointing. I had expected an article on post-WWII austerity, but instead got a poor article on austerity.
  • University of London: "Others have described it as Stalinist, or as totalitarian due to its great scale." Should the links be to the articles on the -isms (in this case Stalinism), or is this a reference to Stalinist architecture and would that be a better link? I don't know if totalitarianism is also an architectural term, but if it is we don't have an article on it. The Senate House building does remind me of that massive building done in (I think) Romania - do you know the one I mean?
  • Town planning: The postnomials in the lead section include (presumably) 'Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute' (MRTPI). This is not mentioned in the town planning section, but it probably should be. You say "H M Enderby" - should the initials have periods after them?
  • Later life and retirement: it is not clear from the article at what point he retired or reduced his work. The ODNB entry does mention that Margaret became an invalid (and predeceased him). Maybe something could be said of his retirement? But it doesn't say where he was buried, unfortunately, though I do wonder where his money went!
    • Holden retired in 1957, so his retirement was relatively short, though he had been less involved in the running of the practice for some time before then. The house at Harmer Green and its contents were auctioned and £8,400 was left to relatives, friends and staff and £2,000 to charities.--DavidCane (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recognition and legacy: "The RIBA holds a collection of Holden's personal papers and material from Adams, Holden & Pearson" - is it possible to source this and/or link to a page describing this collection? Also, some of the entries here, such as his being Vice-President of RIBA and a member of the Royal Fine Art Commission, fit uneasily in this section. It depends on whether they were honorary positions recognising him as a doyen, or whether they were roles where he worked hard in the service of his profession and its professional bodies? I'm also thinking that the section is a bit short - there must be more 'legacy' than that? One thing I find that can be mentioned is where obituaries were published. From the ODNB, it seems his obituary was published in The Times on 2 May 1960 - that is something I think is worth mentioning - as having your obituary published in The Times did (and still does) mean something. I also think that linking to an obituary or two is useful for a reader, even if the real meat of a biography comes from the books done later.
    • While the roles certainly required "work" of Holden, it certainly was an honour to be the Vice President of the RIBA and a member of the Royal Fine Art Commission and was recognition of his standing in his field.
    • In an earlier draft there was a legacy section, but I split it up, as I felt it was more relevant to include the narrative with the buildings themselves.
    • There were obituaries in a number of papers and periodicals, including the Manchester Guardian, the Daily Telegraph and the Architectural Review. These could be listed. I have a copy of The Times obituary, but it does not provide anything additional to the other sources, so it is not listed as a source. --DavidCane (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: I noticed the name of Charles Hutton in the sources. Is this the same Charles Hutton who was his assistant? It would be nice if there was some way to mention that, and whether any of those listed in the sources worked with Holden or not.
OK, I'm done here now. I enjoyed the article very much, and if the quibbles above are cleared up or some reason given why they can't or shouldn't be actioned, I'd be happy to support. Carcharoth (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses to the points I made. Rather than reply above, I'm going to pull out the points I think might still need consideration, and everything else in what I said should be considered resolved or not worth pressing the point, or will be addressed as more is added based on the Karol book (in particular, on his early life and family life, and retirement, and obituaries and memorial service). Anyway, the remaining points are:
(1) I'm still uneasy about the 'massing' word in the lead (possibly you missed that amongst the other things I said).
(2) I hope someone more active at FAC will comment on whether guidance exists for external links formatting.
(3) I'll try and do something with the Commons page at some point (it already exists, so no need to create it). There are some good examples to point to over there to show what I mean, but that's not really vital here.
(4) If linking to an image is acceptable, OK, but the reader should get some warning, as the link looks just like any other link.
(5) "Eric Aumonier was William's son" - this is a bit of human interest that might be worth adding, but maybe not if none of the sources mention it. The bit about Charles Hutton being the co-author of one of the sources is more difficult to work in, so probably not worth it.
(6) It was the Palace of the Parliament that I was thinking of.
Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Striking three of the points above (one was addressed, and I expanded the Commons page and redid the external links myself). I also created an article on the second of the memorials Holden designed, and linked that in to the two articles (the main one and the list). If the small amount of editing I've done around this topic allows, I'd be happy, as I said before, to support, and will do so formally below. Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support this nomination (see review and discussion above). Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC) For clarity, striking all addressed points above. 03:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - 17 images used in this article - some are on Commons and some are not (this could be a problem in future, so it might be an idea to standardise the location of the images). The ones uploaded by a photographer under a free licence (or released en masse from a project like geograph.org.uk: see File:Belgrave Hospital for Children.jpg) are all fine. One was from Flickr and the licence has been checked by bot - that should probably be double-checked (File:Senate House, University of London.jpg). Public architecture in the UK can be photographed and freely distributed. Distribution of photographs of public architecture in France is less clear, but I don't think it is of concern here due to the nature of the work photographed (a war memorial - see File:NZ Memorial at Buttes 3467 (crop).jpg). That leaves 5 images to check - I'll comment in more depth on these other images below (all five are on Commons, not uploaded locally).

  • (1) File:Charles Holden by Benjamin Nelson.jpg - uploaded March 2009 - source and artist information provided on image page. For the record, this is one of the images that were part of the upload from the NPG that caused a fuss a few years ago. It has the warning label it needs to have, so it is fine as far as that goes (those issues are outside the scope of FAC). This is an artwork, and the artist died more than 70 years ago, so this image is fine to be used.
  • (2) File:Chapel at King Edward VII Sanatorium, Midhurst.jpg - uploaded August 2010 - source information confirmed, and image page states that the photographer is not known. This image is secondhand from the BMJ. The original publication was in Architectural Review. Ideally, the issue it appeared in there would be checked for a photographer credit, but failing that, it is more than 70 years since publication and no author known, so this one is OK.
    • The "PubMed Central" archive which contains the article breaks the journals into individual PDFs. I have checked first and last PDFs for this edition of the journal here, and there does not appear to be any illustrations credits listed.--DavidCane (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • For this one, ideally you would find the issue of the Architectural Review, as that is more likely to credit the photographer. The BMJ may have republished the photo without properly crediting the photographer. As you've checked in likely places within the BMJ issue, though, that is probably good enough, though if you ever do find that photograph in The Architectural Review, see what they say. Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (3) and (4) File:BMA Building July 1908 Strand Elevation.png and File:BMA Building July 1908 Agar Street Elevation.png - both uploaded September 2010 - same source information. Image page states that photographer not known, and checking the source, there is no photographer named and no credit. To be absolutely sure, you could check the rest of that issue to make sure the credits weren't provided elsewhere.
  • (5) File:Bristol Royal Infirmary Extension, 1912.png - uploaded February 2011 - stated source is a postcard scan in a book published in 2004. Is our copy another scan (directly from the 2004 book), or is it a copy of the Google Books scan of that book? (The link to Google Books provided on the image information page does not work for me.) Presumably the postcard was published in 1912 (can that be confirmed?) Any copyright information is likely to be on the back of the postcard (or is it the indecipherable squiggle under the caption on the postcard?). Either way, I'm not convinced here that the author is unknown. Did you check the 2004 book thoroughly to see if they provided any copyright information?
    • The postcard image was extracted from Google books (I use a proxy server to get access to the US version of Google books). The caption in the book says circa 1912. The illustration acknowledgement for the postcard in the book was just to Bristol Library's collection, not to a publisher.--DavidCane (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It sounds like you can't reasonably ascertain the identity of the photographer, so the image is probably OK under the upload tag on Commons. If there are ever any problems on Commons, the tag to use here would probably be Template:PD-US-1923-abroad (the same applies to all four of images 2-5). Overall, I think the images are fine, and source and licence tags all check out following the points made above. Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, for these five images, the first one is fine, and the other four rely on the author not being known (if you want the image to be on Commons), or first publication being before 1923 (if you want to upload here under PD-US-1923). I'm not convinced the author is necessarily unknown for all of them, but they were all published before 1923, so at minimum they are OK as far as Wikipedia's image policy goes. Apart from that, I also checked the alt text, and though not a current requirement, the alt text here was excellent, and the captions used within the article were also good, as was the layout. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 23 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 20:44, 8 March 2011 [27].

102nd Intelligence Wing

Nominator(s): Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...after three years of work and hundreds of edits to this page, I feel as though the reason that I became a Wikipedia editor is finally good enough to become a Featured Article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that Kevin Rutherford has spent much time working on the article. However, the close paraphrasing and plagiarism indicate that this article is not ready for FA. Cunard (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disclosure: I previously encountered the nominator at DYK here, where I pointed out copyright violations and plagiarism in his article. Cunard (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Cunard: I really appreciate the work you did on this. I've alerted the coordinators at MILHIST to the problem, in the hope that we never have a copyright problem in articles that pass our A-class review again ... although I want to point out that the article has changed a lot in the last 10 months, and I haven't checked who said what when. - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Kevin, I've seen you make intelligent, insightful comments for a long time, so I can't figure out what's up here. I only had to look at the first link Cunard points out. This seems like obvious POV to me: "Yellow refers to the sun and the excellence required of Air Force personnel." And how could large blocks of copy-pasted text from a unit's self-description be anything other than POV ... and even when it isn't, be perceived that way by reviewers? Facepalm: I see this passed an A-class review last May ... I don't understand how that happened; I need to ask around for how the reviewers are handling these problems nowadays. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this all mostly years ago, when I was still quite a new editor so a lot of things in that that I wouldn't do now. I had an editor run a review independently (if you want, I can provide the site) and I thought I addressed all the issues. In terms of the POV thing, I think I was more in a rush and copied it since it was in the public domain. I'll go and fix this later on today. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kevin, I'm sure the sea of opposes must be an unwelcome surprise. It's possible that the problems could all get fixed during the FAC, but it will mean a lot of rewriting, and sometimes it doesn't happen fast enough for FAC. If this fails FAC, I'd recommend going back for a MILHIST peer review to handle all the new material, and if all goes well there I think you can be optimistic about bringing this back to FAC. I see the part that I objected to wasn't in the article 10 months ago when it passed the MILHIST A-class review; we need to add something to the instructions at A-class about being careful about making significant changes before going on to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, that's life. I do like this process though because it usually allows for me to do a better job when I address issues that need addressing. I do agree with you on the new rules part and I think a lot of this can be tied into recent events when we realized that some of our articles need help. I definitely don't identify with the editor that originally wrong this article in the past and I am more than willing to fix every blaring issue that is out there immediately. Additionally, I did put those things of text in blockquotes for now, but if you think that they just need to be re-written, I can do that as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • I haven't checked the close-paraphrasing concerns raised by the above reviewer, but that's a big red flag and needs to be addressed immediately
  • Organization needs work. Several very short paragraphs and subsections that could be merged or expanded as appropriate. "Description" section reads like the alt text for the related image, not as actual prose.
  • Tone is a problem in several areas - should always be neutral and encyclopedic. "the unit has consistently excelled"? "rich heritage"?
  • WP:OVERLINK - for example, World War I linked twice in quick succession. Also, should be consistent in whether you refer to it as World War I or the First World War
  • "The War Department agreed The Guard should organize aviation squadrons as an organic part of the 18 infantry divisions assigned to the National Guard." - appears twice, one after the other
  • Needs some general copy-editing for flow, tone and clarity
  • Need much more consistency in reference format.
  • Book and journal citations need page number(s)
  • Several sites are potentially concerning in relation to WP:RS and WP:SPS. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please tell me what those sites are so I could look into it? Thank you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, now for this one. I have fixed the paraphrasing, the overlinkage, and repeating sentence issues. In terms of the organization thing, I feel as though the separate paragraphs would be akward if they were merged up, but I could be quite wrong. The tone issue was just addressed as becomming part of a direct quote as well. If I can grab a few people, I can get the copyediting done within the next day or so. I think the citation issues are due to the fact that this article has citation templates from a time when we had a bit of a transition in doing them, although I don't see anything wrong with them right now. The Air Forces magazine thing will only get a citation if someone has a subscription to it so I feel like that will be an impossible task at the moment. The World Airpower Journal is on every air force unit Wikipedia page and it is a virtual holdover from the time when the article first was created. I really can't address the reliable sources thing until someone notes them because I have a hard time telling them apart sometimes. Otherwise, I feel as though I haven't forgotten anything blaring but you can correct me if I am wrong. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks everyone above. I'm going to address these issues late on today. If the above editors could respond to me, that would make this process a whole heck of a lot easier. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • MILHIST's peer review and A-class review are, and are intended to be, more supportive than FAC. Even though many of the most active FAC reviewers will in fact be pulling for you, and will give you all sorts of information, there are limits on how many fixes they can make before people will start complaining, "Well, I see you fixed that in his article, why didn't you fix it in mine?" So ... if reviewers give you what you need, great, and if not, we should be able to fix everything in a MILHIST review. I apologize that most of the problems mentioned are things I don't generally handle. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't worry about it, I am used to how things work here so nothing suprises me that much anymore. Almost three and a half years of this produces a great level of apathy sometimes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:26, 8 March 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 20:44, 8 March 2011 [28].

Rachel Weisz

Nominator(s): Gduwen (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC); --Gunt50 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think its information meets the FA requeriments:

1.

  • (a) The article is well-written.
  • (b) The article is comprehensive for the topic.
  • (d);(e) The article is neutral and stable

2.

  • (a) The lead summarizes properly the content
  • (b) The section heading have an appropiate structure

3. The images featured in the article meet the needed copyright status, are properly tagged and captions meet the requirements

4. The article successfully focuses on the topic

--Gduwen (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time. Article is of sufficient quality for GA, but is not at FA level at this point. Some copy-editing is needed, and there are multiple manual of style issues (particularly overlinking). There are extensive problems with reference formatting - it should be completely consistent, web cites should have publisher and retrieval date information, etc. The article also uses some sites of questionable reliability. You might consider having this article peer reviewed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs, 1 dead external link (the oscars.org search link doesn't work). Several external redirects which may lead to link rot; see them with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dead link was corrected--Gduwen (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: Nominators, what work is being done to address Nikkimaria's concerns? I don't see any movement here. Edits have been made to the article, but it's difficult to me to tell what they are because edit summaries are not being used regularly. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-edits are being corrected, web cites templates have been completed, and IMDb sources have been replaced.--Gduwen (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give one or two examples of unnecessary redundant links? --Gduwen (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to solve the overlinking issues according to the MoS throughout the article. You should take a look now--Gunt50 (talk) 00:08, 7 March 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 20:44, 8 March 2011 [29].

James E. Boyd (scientist)

Nominator(s): —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a delightfully cited and comprehensive biography. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, still leaning oppose because it still needs copy-editing/cleanup. Also, referencing format should be more consistent. Looking better, though - keep up the good work! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose at this time, although I'm open to revisiting once the below issues are addressed.[reply]

  • WP:OVERLINK - don't link the same term multiple times, especially in close proximity
  • Better, although there are still some extraneous links - extra occurrences of Rosselot, very general terms like American, etc
  • "At the Engineering Experiment Station, Boyd helped spur the organization's mainstay, electronics research and development, generally contracted by the federal government" - phrasing
  • Is any more information available on his childhood?
  • I have been unable to find any additional information about his childhood or his life post-Georgia Tech. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was able to find (through much difficulty) the names of his parents and siblings. I was also able to infer where he went to high school (based on being able to find sources stating that his siblings went to school there), but there were no sources that stated explicitly that he went there, so I left it out of the article in case that inference would be considered original research. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several WP:MOS issues - problems with dashes/hyphens, footnotes should consistently appear after punctuation, etc
  • Footnote placement corrected; however, other MoS issues remain. For example, why does Heisman's record use dashes and Alexander's use hyphens?
  • On a related note, nowhere in the article does it explain what these 'records' mean. I happen to know that they refer to wins-losses-draws, but anyone who doesn't follow North American sports won't understand them, and will just see a string of meaningless numbers. There's also potential confusion because you are using 'record' to refer to the simple results obtained, rather than its more common use for the best results ever obtained (as in 'world record' etc). Modest Genius talk 18:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful to lay readers to give a sentence about what exactly his thesis was about
  • Lots of very short choppy paragraphs - suggest merging or expanding where possible
  • "When forced by Georgia Tech vice president Cherry Emerson to choose between the two organizations, Boyd remained with Georgia Tech but retained his position on Scientific Atlanta's Board of Directors" - she forced him to choose between them and he chose both? This needs to be explained or clarified
  • "one such example is his placement of physicist Earl W. McDaniel despite the dislike Joseph Howey, director of the School of Physics, held for McDaniel after an undergraduate picnic prominently featured a keg of beer" - presumably McDaniel was involved in the picnic? Clarify
  • "Under his purview" - Howey, McDaniel or Boyd?
  • Needs copyediting for clarity and flow
  • "she eventually earned two degrees in education and earned the college's highest honor" - repetitive; look for similar phrasing problems.
  • That particular instance is fixed, but others remain - for example, "were developed at the station, as the station did not".
Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I'm working on some of these issues now. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked a good bit on the specific issues you've raised, although I think it could still use a good copyedit. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disavian, a quick point about the review process - per the instructions at the top of the FAC page, "nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors" and "Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time." Nikkimaria (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. It's been a while since I've been through FAC. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what you mean by "[inconsistent] referencing format" in this instance? I'm not sure what's wrong with it as it stands. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'm seeing several small errors/inconsistencies in the way references are formatted. For example, ref 29 uses month day, year date formatting, while most of the others use ISO formatting. Ref 12 uses "pp." despite having only one page number listed. Ref 7 has no publisher listed. Ref 14 lacks closing punctuation, and uses the {{citation}} template, where most of the other refs use templates from the cite family. These are just some examples - in general, reference formatting needs careful editing for accuracy and consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... I looked into these. Ref 29 uses the {{Inflation-fn}} template, which presumably goes to the most recent source for inflation data, and isn't something that is easily reconfigured from month, day, year to ISO. I'm up for suggestions on that one, as it doesn't make sense to change all of the other refs to match the template. I fixed the two or so refs that used pp when it should have used p. Ref 14 now uses {{cite report}} and as such has closing punctuation. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for now, as I'm not convinced this article is sufficiently well-written.

  • There are several one- and two-sentence paragraphs, which should either be merged, expanded, or deleted. The Retirement section is particularly concerning.
  • The language is not neutral. Numerous instances of wording that suggests that Boyd is awesome and everyone else sucks:
    • "As president, Boyd was faced with two great issues, which he resolved instead of waiting for a replacement:"
      done (rephrased) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Boyd's selection as interim president by Georgia's chancellor was strongly influenced by his ability as both a capable academic administrator"
      done (rephrased) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Boyd also championed the establishment of research facilities."
      done (removed) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Boyd was also known for his recruitment of faculty capable of both teaching and performing notable research; one such example is his placement of physicist Earl W. McDaniel despite the dislike Joseph Howey, director of the School of Physics, held for McDaniel after an undergraduate picnic prominently featured a keg of beer." Also, how exactly do these sentences have anything to do with each other? Deciding to ignore obvious illegal activity and the preference of a relevant director is not a great example of Boyd's recruiting capabilities.
    • "William H. Row (who had held the position a mere nine months)" How exactly is this relevant?
      done (removed) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boyd increased both undergraduate and graduate enrollment, faculty, degrees and programs on the campus, sometimes by an order of magnitude." Really awkward phrasing. Orders of magnitude should be discussed only in the context of hard sciences, not undergraduate enrollment.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this article, and I like all of your suggestions. I have yet to fix the the McDaniel bit to my satisfaction, but have attempted to remove peacock terms wherever you have highlighted them. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like all of the fixes you've made, good work! I've made an attempt to tweak the McDaniel bit. What do you think? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That does sound better, I like it. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up. Please read the WP:FAC instructions, do not use done templates, do not amend other editor's posts (add your posts to your own line) and sign your entries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs; 1 dead external link (britannica.com). 1 external redirects which may lead to link rot; see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a more recent link for that ESPN ref, let's see if it fixes the redirect. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I've replaced the dead britannica link with a more detailed journal ref. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - a few brief comments.
    • The death category is wrong (1988 instead of 1998).
      Fixed, good catch. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is ancestry.com a reliable source?
      That particular page looks like it's managed by "Cobb and Cobbs" which seems like a fairly active genealogy project. I suppose I could always email and ask how they got that particular information (wedding date)? Given the nature of the fact being cited and the fact that I haven't found that information anywhere else, I'm satisfied with that particular source. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      How can you assess the reliability of that site. It looks like a freely hosted site. Can you explain who 'Cobb and Cobbs' are? They say "Welcome to the "Cobb and Cobbs" surname research website, a central meeting place for anyone researching a Cobb genealogical connection." That doesn't inspire me with confidence. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The obituary of Boyd's mother-in-law (Betty Reynolds Cobb) gives the name of his father-in-law: H. F. Cobb. You could add this to the article (the name is given in full as Hiram Felix Cobb in her article), though I see that he died shortly after his daughter (Boyd's future wife) Elizabeth was born, so maybe not.
    • I've just come to this article after reading and reviewing J. Robert Oppenheimer. The contrast in the type and number of sources is not unexpected, but still very noticeable. Clearly there will never be as much written about Boyd as there will be about more famous people, but I'm actually very impressed with what you have managed to do here. I do have concerns though that you may be relying too much on just a few sources. Could you say a bit here about which are the main sources you have used here, and which ones are just used in passing for a sentence or two? A rough idea can be gained from the number of superscripts on each reference, but I'd like to hear direct from you which are the main sources used here.
      • So when I approach a subject related to Georgia Tech, my first instinct is to reach for my copy of Engineering the New South, a work written for Georgia Tech's bicentennial by six historians: ISBN 978-0820307848. It is written (somewhat surprisingly, given its focus on a particular subject) in a very neutral tone and gives footnotes where appropriate. It also gives a larger historical perspective when appropriate; for example they go particularly in depth when discussing (for example) the rise of federally funded research and how it related to the growth of graduate programs nationwide (and obviously, how it impacted Georgia Tech). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • (para break) The other major source for this article is this pdf from the Georgia Tech Library's archives department. It is apparently written by Dr. James R Stevenson. A few other sources that I used a few times included some coverage of his time as president of University of West Georgia (by Doug Vinson, instructor of journalism at UWG); and a couple GTRI-published websites (one, two) that summarize his tenure as GTRI director. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the detailed explanation. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've not seen the "further information" template used before - is placing it at the end of a section correct?
      A quick perusal of some articles using it show that many use it as a "related to this" link at the top of the section, and a couple use it at the bottom as a "you may also be interested in" link after a block of text. I don't think there are any guidelines, but if a reviewer insists on one perspective or another I'll follow it. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I've asked in another FAC as well, so we will see, I suppose. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead picture is really poor (a low-quality scan from a book or magazine) - is there no chance at all of getting a better one? I also see it has OTRS permission - I'm not sure whether that has to be double-checked here at FAC (by someone with OTRS permission, which I don't have), or if we take that on 'assume good faith'.
      As far as I can tell, that particular image is from the April 1954 edition of The Research Engineer, a Georgia Tech Research Institute publication. Here's a link, go to the last page on the bottom-right: April 1954 Research Engineer. The OTRS permission is from Kirk Englehardt, GTRI's current Director of Communications. I haven't come across any other images of Boyd. There has to be one somewhere, but I haven't found it. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I won't oppose on that basis, but will leave it unresolved and wish you luck in looking. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't be sure (because of the templates at the bottom), but I think this article is only currently linked from about 10 other articles. Which might be enough, but is still rather low. Would you consider finding out how many articles this one is genuinely linked from (i.e. not including links generated by footer templates)? If the number is low, that is again no unexpected, but when the number of incoming links is low, it is important, IMO, to make sure they are maximised and done correctly.
      He's seriously discussed in Georgia Tech Research Institute, University of West Georgia, History of Georgia Tech, and Glen P. Robinson. There are a couple passing references in Neely Nuclear Research Center and Tignall, Georgia. I've just added links to Scientific Atlanta, Bud Carson and Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football. The only big change I'd make at this point would be to include his time as president of Georgia Tech in History of Georgia Tech, as I apparently have not done so. I'm not opposed to linking to him from additional articles, but these are the only ones I've thought of so far. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      That looks fine. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Were you unable to find any longer obituaries for him at all? Those would normally say whether his wife survived him or predeceased him, and would name other surviving relatives (including the children). I would also add to the final sentence that he was 91 when he died.
      I have looked high and low and have not found any sort of obituary for him. Not to say that there isn't one, but I don't have LexisNexis access or anything like that. Finding one would probably shed some additional light on his childhood and post-retirement, both of which I'd like to elaborate on. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I've re-read the article again, and I'm still impressed by it. I am close to supporting, but would really like to see the retirement section expanded if at all possible. Is there really nothing about what he did in retirement? Could you ask someone who has access to something like LexisNexis? Apart from that, the only quibble I have is that you bring in Rosselot to the main body of the article (in the 'Researcher and entrepreneur' section, without explaining who he is. For me, finding an obituary and a better picture would clinch things. If others think those are not actionable enough, I will probably support, but will hold off until others have given their opinions. Also, you really need to get the ancestry.com source issue sorted. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      How do you like the image now? I found the same picture in another document from the same source, and ran it through photoshop to drop a lot of the noise. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth (talk) 04:17, 28 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 Nikkimaria 20:00, 7 March 2011 [31].

Olivia (Fringe episode)

Nominator(s): Ruby2010 talk 21:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article status because I feel it fulfills the FA criteria (i.e. it is well-written, carefully researched, and notable enough as a season premiere). Please note that this is my first FA nomination (I have 5 GAs, and decided to try moving up to the next level). Thank you, Ruby2010 talk 21:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on sourcing. Below are some concerns:

  • Earwig's tool found no copyvio, but there were several instances of close paraphrasing found during spotchecks: "roughly four episodes, beginning with the season premiere" vs "roughly four episodes beginning with the season premiere"; "The character was described as "lovely and together" and deeply devoted to her daughter" vs "described her as “lovely and together” and deeply devoted to her daughter."; "life would have been like in its most mundane forms, such as within daily routines" vs "life in its most mundane forms, like that of daily routines". Look also for replicating the source wording around direct quotes
  • ""Olivia" was written by executive producers J. H. Wyman and Jeff Pinkner, and was directed by Joe Chappelle" - source?
  • Source for the MLK reference?
  • Fixed (the citation in question carried over into the next sentence).
  • "a beautifully emotional hour with suspense, humor, and kissing... [that was] superb and surprising" - given that "superb and surprising" appears before the rest of the quote in the source, you might want to rethink this
  • ""unlike a show like Lost" - besides the issue of italicization present in the source, the source says "not unlike a show like Lost", which means something very different from what you've presented here - this is misrepresentation of the source
  • "The radio in Henry's taxi can be heard mentioning former president John F. Kennedy is stepping down from his role as ambassador, proving that he was not assassinated." - source?
  • "the journey that our heroine is on and then come back over here because [Altlivia] is embedded in our team, we have point of view characters in both universes and it seemed to us the perfect opportunity to really explore in a really thorough fulsome way the alternate universe" - doesn't exactly match the source's wording
  • Can you justify your use of Yahoo and TV Squad here?
  • What makes this a reliable source?

Also, though this was not the focus of my review, I suggest doing some manual of style work before this nom gets too much further along. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not responding sooner. Thank you for taking the time to look over the article. I will work to address your concerns. I edited the article per a few of your suggestions, and will return to the rest of them sometime later today or tomorrow. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 02:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Noting concerns above, but mainly on prose & clarity. Never having heard of the series before, I found a good deal of re-reading necessary to get a glimmer of what is going on. It it really "science fiction" as the first sentence claims? I wonder. "Fauxlivia", who I take to be the parallel world version of the heroine, pops up without explanation half way through the plot summary. But the prose needs a real going over. a few examples:
  • "She instructs Henry to the address for Massive Dynamic but finds the facility does not exist in this universe."
  • "...engages in idle chatter with Walter, nearly slipping her identity to him on her lack of knowledge of the prime universe's popular culture."
  • "...explains the events of his time in the parallel universe to disinterested government agents" (or is this WP:ENGVAR? Even if so, best avoided).

Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of your concerns are well-noted. After some consideration, I am going to de-nominate the article and spend further time improving it. Also, the article would only be complete after I gain the information that will undoubtedly be provided on the DVD's special features (which is not currently released). Thanks to all the looked over the article. Ruby2010 talk 19:45, 7 March 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 04:55, 6 March 2011 [32].

Laurie Nash

Nominator(s): Roisterer (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the criteria for Feature Article status. Laurie Nash was a Test cricketer and leading Australian rules footballers of the 1930s and 40s. The article went through Peer Review in May last year and I believe I have dealt with all the issues raised in that. This is my first attempt at FAC, so hopefully I've got everything right. Roisterer (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: This looks pretty good. If I can find the time to give it a full review I will. Meantime, here are some mainly minor comments on sources:- *Ref 1: suggest extend this to "Miller, Keith in Introduction [or Foreword, or whatever], Wallish, p. iv"

  • Ref 4: I imagine that this site is published by Carlton Football Club, and they rather than the web address should be shown as the publisher.
The site is run by Carlton fans so I'm unsure what to do here.
  • Ref 20: I'd like a bit more information. Who is "R Smith"? Is this a page from a larger website? If so, how do I get to the home page?

*Ref 28: Ric Findlay is the author, not the publisher, which is "Centre for Tasmanian Historical Studies" *Citations to newspapers should be in a single standard format. At present the formats for ref 37 and 38 are different from those for 42 and 43. There are several similar instances.

I think I have finally got all these citations in the same format.

*Ref 61: I don't think this explanation is required, if you are reflecting the source.

  • Ref 106: Bradman Albums need to be listed with other books in References, and a page number added

*Ref 131: Publisher needed *Ref 196 needs a page reference. This should be a short citation since the book details are listed under References*No citations to Cousins (2008); should be listed separately as Further reading (or omitted)

Good spot. I had "Collins" listed for some reason.

*Dito Williams (1986)

Hmm, I had a Williams citation; it must have been removed at some point.

Otherwise sources and citations look good. Incidentally, you say the article was peer-reviewed last May; I can't find the link to the archive of this review on the talk page. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian, I'll get onto these. --Roisterer (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Various small nit-picks from the first half or so of the article... *Why two Test cricket links in the first two paragraphs?

  • Tasmania: Typo in "Nash was chosen in the Northern Tasmania side in he annual match...".
  • Test debut: "The match was the first to finish in under six hours play." "hours" → "hours'"?
  • Bodyline: "English newspaper the News Chronicle stating that the emergence of Nash...". "stating" should be "stated".
  • Redundant use of "bowling" in "In the wake of England's tactics of bowling sustained fast short pitched bowling...".
  • You don't have to have a Jack Fingleton link here when there's already one in the prior section.
  • 1933: Don't think Centre should be capitalized in the second paragraph of the section.
  • 1935: "as, in addition to playing at centre half-back and centre half-forward, also successfully played in the ruck." Add "he" before "also". I don't know why "also" is necessary, but that's a different issue.
  • If I was to offer one general suggestion, it would be to combine some of the many one-sentence paragraphs in the article, as they can look stubby when compared to some of the longer paragraphs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I'm working on it. --Roisterer (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links. A few external redirect which may lead to link rot; see them with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • File:RNashColl.jpg appears to be a drawing, not a photo. The Australia PD tag bases status of artistic works on author's date of death, not publication date. Same concern for the cartoons with this tag
  • What is the copyright status of signatures in Australia? File:Laurie_Nash_signature.jpg may have the wrong tag, but COM:SIG doesn't include Australia
  • The Australia PD tag requires that you "provide information of where the image was first published and who created it." - make sure you do so for all images with this tag
  • File:JackDyer.jpg needs a date of publication/creation, and the source link no longer works. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the moment. In general I like this article, but the prose is not yet up to FA standard. I have only looked in detail at the lead and Early life sections, and have found numerous problems. The rest of the text needs to be gone through carefully, so that similar issues can be picked up and corrected.

  • Lead
    • In the first paragraph: "Additionally, a fast bowler and hard hitting lower order batsman, ..." "Additionally" is not a good conjunction with which to link his football and cricket prowess, and the comma is awkward. Suggest reword: "In cricket, Nash was a fast bowler and hard hitting lower order batsman who played two Test matches for Australia. He took..." etc
    • The last part of the first paragraph is overcomplicated. I realise that you are trying to inform non-cricket-minded readers, but perhaps this is spoonfeeding? I would say: "In these matches he took 10 wickets at 12.80 runs per wicket, and scored 30 runs for an innings average of 15."
    • Do we know when Nash Sr played against the MCC tourists? As written, it sounds as there was only one such team, when of course there were many.
    • "...a cricketer, becoming..." is an example of what is known as "noun plus -ing", and should be avoided. Try "...a cricketer, and became both one of..." etc
    • Third paragraph: "and played only two Tests". As this information has been given already, this phrase could be deleted.
    • Fourth paragraph should not commence with "He..."
    • "...rejecting offers of a home posting, stating..." Too many -ing endings in quick succession, needs rephrasing. And "differently from" not "differently than"
    • Delete comma after "publican"
  • Early life
    • Too many short paragraphs (five of which begin "Nash" or "Nash's") Some redrafting necessary to improve the prose flow.
    • Second para: the first sentence is of inordinate length and needs breaking up.
    • "Sir Walter Nash and pianist Eileen Joyce were relatives". Of each other, or "related to the family"?
    • "forbid" as past tense? We would normally say "forbade" - is this an Australian English thing?
    • What is the relevance of the last paragraph to this article?

Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please do not "strike" my comments as you respond to them. Brief notes of your actions will do. Brianboulton (talk) 23:53, 26 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 15:51, 4 March 2011 [33].

Turning Point (2008)

Nominator(s): --WillC 09:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel it is the best article I've written yet and would like to see it become a Featured Article. All comments are welcomed.--WillC 09:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Neutral

  • Needs copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow - for example, "The main event for the TNA World Heavyweight Championship between the champion, Sting, and the challenger, A.J. Styles, was the main event"
  • Multiple MoS fixes needed - for example, some missing hyphens, The Sun should be italicized throughout, etc
  • "It was the fourth event under the Turning Point chronology" - you never explain what this means. Is Turning Point a series? A tournament? The article as a whole seems to assume at least some knowledge of TNA on the part of the reader
    • I would feel it is common sense regrading this is an event, that it would be a series. Like talking about "Super Bowl XLV", you wouldn't expect them to have to explain that the Super Bowl is a list of events. And plus that statement pretty much explains that it is a series. It is also hyper-linked for more information.--WillC 21:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe, but surely you wouldn't expect to see "Super Bowl XLV was the forty-fifth event under the Super Bowl chronology"?
        • Well that would be a different story. It is obvious by the title there, but not here.
          • You're right, it's not obvious here - which is why you need to explain things so that people who don't know a lot about TNA can follow the article.
            • It is explained here. I really don't see how it isn't. "It was the fourth event under the Turning Point chronology and first event under the name to take place in November." pretty much explains it is the fourth event in a series of events. What else could it mean?--WillC 23:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't link terms in See also that are already linked in the article body. In general, see WP:OVERLINK
    • Only two areas where professional wrestling is linked. One in the lead and one in the see also secton. Point out any other overlinks and I'll fix them.--WillC 21:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Professional wrestling isn't in the see also section. However, Turning Point is. Overlinks include: legit, English language, Spanish language, ring announcer among others.
        • I meant pro wrestling was in the see also template. I must have not been paying attention when I wrote that. Fixed all the overlinks I could find. There were none for the English and Spanish. Now as for the table. According to overlink, tables are exceptions to the rule.--WillC 21:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know that, and I wasn't looking at the table. English and Spanish are linked in "Event".
  • "Ten year Army veteran Sean M. Autrey served as the special guest ring announcer for the encounter" - source?
    • Number 24 covers that statement. Alot of the sources cover more than one sentence.--WillC 21:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doesn't support "ten year Army veteran" or "special guest ring announcer".
        • Well the ring announcer part is obvious, but I changed sources to fix that. The 10 year apart was announced during the show, refs don't say that, so changed it to retired like is mentioned.
  • "with the added stipulation that if Cage lost, he would be forced to join The Main Event Mafia" - source? Several other unsourced statements
    • Like above, sources cover more than one sentence. 21 and 20 cover that, as well as 29. Everything is pretty much sourced. Added 10 new ones before I nominated the article.--WillC 21:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Prowrestlinghistory.com a reliable source?
    • They get their information from magazines, DVDs, etc. However, they are only covering minor information. Times of matches and the attendance of the event. Been used it other FAs and GAs by WP:PW, namely Lockdown (2008) which I helped pass in 2009 (I'll admit, pretty bad but I plan to fix that article up a bit)--WillC 21:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source doesn't talk about TNA, but about pro wrestling in general. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and thank you for your comments. They mean alot. I'm glad I got someone to look over it so quickly. I'll try to fix all comments you have left or leave. I haven't nominated an article here since January 2009. And I haven't worked on a PPV since this one in 2009--WillC 22:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Thank you for your comments Giant.--WillC 02:54, 19 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/March_2011&oldid=419551460"