Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2011

April 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 Nikkimaria 14:35, 11 April 2011 [1].

---

Livonian War

Nominator(s): Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it represents a vital article in terms of Estonian history, and an important one within the context of Eastern European history. I believe the content to be of a high enough standard for nomination in terms of historical coverage and accuracy (references are mostly to authors with articles here on WP), and think the prose is perhaps short of "brilliant" but does not represent a problem of great magnitude - and copy-edit problems are hard to find without the well-practised fine-tooth comb of FA. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Earwig's tool found no copyvio, will hopefully do spotchecks later
• Is Oakley 1992 or 1993?
• Make sure to include the accent on Dybaś
• Page ranges should use endashes and use a consistent notation
• Publisher for Russian Annals?
• Page numbers and publisher for Karamzin?
• Madaringa or De Madariaga? Check for other inconsistencies and errors
• Lots of little formatting niggles - doubled periods, inconsistent spacing and punctuation, etc. Check for consistency
• No citations to Dybaś 2009 or Brockhaus and Efron
• Publisher for Solovyov?
• Location for Stevens? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've believed I've covered the "Oakley" "Dybaś" "page notation" "Madariaga" "Stevens" and some niggles I found. I do have a couple of questions: is having sources that aren't used a problem? Dybaś appears to be a general work covering the topic; the Brockhaus and Efron is a public-domain-inclusion-plagurism notice (although not much of the original text is left). Solovyov and Karamzin are old publications, should I include a particular recent publisher for verifyability purposes? Thanks Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that are complete sentences should end with periods
• File:Livonia_in_1534_(Engilsh).PNG - was a base map used to create this, or is it completely original? What PD source or data was used to create it?
• Same questions for File:Campaigns_of_Stefan_Batory_(1578-82).png
• File:Polacak,_1579.jpg - what does "NN" signify? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments on comprehensiveness and neutrality

• Oppose due to problems with neutrality (primarily, bias against Batory, and Commonwealth). Open to changing this to support if those issues are addressed satisfactorily. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• The aftermath discusses the Polish-Swedish struggle up to 1629, but the Danish-Swedish one till 18th century. Why? Pl wiki article discusses the P-S angle till the Treaty of Oliva (1660) and I think so should this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The article does not discuss the Dano-Swedish conflict until the 18th century: the aftermath section mentions Bromsebrö (1645) as the last event, because then Denmark finally lost her last foothold in Estonia. With respect to Swedish and Polish-Lithuanian interests in Livonia, Oliva (1660) did nothing but confirm the situation before the 1655/60 war, which had not changed since the establishment of Swedish Livonia and the treaty of Altmark (which is mentioned in the article) some decades before - the only argument for inclusion would be that in Oliva, the great powers explicitely reckognized the power relations in Livonia. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Good enough reason to link the treaty there.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Also, I find the following fragment potentially not-neutral/biased: "North of the Düna, Stefan Batory denied the inhabitants of the Duchy of Livonia many privileges granted by Sigismund II Augustus in 1561, since he regarded the territories re-gained at Jam Zapolski as his war booty. The traditional Baltic German administration and jurisdiction was gradually impaired by the establishment of voivodeships, the appointment of Royal officials, and the replacement of German with Polish as administrative language". Sources used are in German, and German historiography has a history of bias against Poland (and vice versa). In particular the assertion that transition from German to Polish administrative system was "impairing" sounds dubious (I'd suggest changing "impaired by" to "transformed"). I'd like to see quotation and translations of those sources, and preferably, addition of English sources to verify them. Finally, while the above fragment gives some insight on the treatment of those territories by the PLC, the article does not discuss the corresponding treatment by the Swedish Empire. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The sentences quoted by you are based on Dybaś, Bogusław (2006) and Tuchtenhagen, Ralph (2005). Since your ethnicity-based argument probably does not refer to Dybaś - do you really accuse Tuchtenhagen (2005) of bias against Poland because of his alleged German nationality?!

• Tuchtenhagen (vita, google translate) is one of the best experts you can get for Livonia during the Early Modern Era, which is his main field of study. He has worked as a professor in this field at several universities, is a member of several respective scientific circles (e.g. Baltic History Commission) and publisher / co-publisher of several scientific journals, etc; cf de:Ralph Tuchtenhagen (google translate).
• The cited book, "History of the Baltic States", is a compendium, i.e. factual and reflecting scholary consensus.
• The cited book is part of the series "Becksche Reihe" published by C. H. Beck - i.e. it is part of a series of standard reference works published by a renowned publishing house.

It is disturbing that you argue that this excellent modern expert source should be treated as biased based on nothing but the alleged ethnicity of its author. That should not be an issue even if the author did not have that many credentials in international colloaboration as Tuchtenhagen. Scholary sources need to be evalued by the education and reputation of their authors, the only legitimate nationality-related evaluation is to check whether the author is bound to/works under some kind of authoritarian regime and is thus influenced by state ideology/propaganda/censorship - but again that has nothing to do with natinality/ethnicity per se. The book was first published in 2005 Germany, not in 1941. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the accusations are likely either, but I think you're coming over a bit strong here Skäpperöd; any source's validity and truthfullness is open to legimate question, but not necessarily guilty of a particular deed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Polacy na Łotwie by Edward Walewander 1993 describes the situation in more detail. Tuchtenhagen is available online on google books and initial glance at the book suggests to me that some portions of information were omitted while others cherry picked. It does however seem that Tuchtenhagen a somewhat critical view of Poles, somewhat resembling the pro-Protestantism bias encountered sometimes in German historiography when describing the religious conflicts in that area of Europe. This is perfectly valid viewpoint, but needs to be marked as such and counterbalanced by other viewpoints that hold opposite view. Walewander for example notes that some churches taken by Catholics were actually restored to them, after being taken by Protestants. Of course probably all writers on this subject are somewhat biased, so we can't determine truth here, but have to present opinions regarding this.In any case more can be copied from Tuchtangen and others to ensure that the description isn't one sided as it is now(fr instance Tuchtangen also notes overall atmosphere of religious conflict, and attacks by Protestants as well).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Molobo above addresses the problems quite clearly. I don't think Tuchtenhagen is particularly biased, it is more of a "how certain arguments from his book were stressed and others, ignored." In particular, the critique of Batory does not seem that relevant to the article. I see no such critique of others (=UNDUE), and as I mentioned before - and I am still waiting for a reply to that - the article does not discuss the treatment of people and territories by other powers (more UNDUE). The critique of Batory seems to be relatively unfair, too. The article does not mention that Batory introduced Countereformation to the entire Commonwealth - he did not single out Prussia, as it is implied. The article does not mention that the Countereformation in Poland was relatively mild, that Batory supported the existence of multiple churches (instead it creates the impression that Batory brought religious intolerance and decline), that change of administration, post-war, was a common practice (it is almost as one would write: "Batory, in his war efforts, was responsible for death of many." - doh!). Leafing through this book, quickly, with a German-speaking colleague, and through another one online, I can point out such phrases as "But generally speaking, the Polish monarchs, especially Stefan Batory were primarily concerned with the economic development of the conquered territories". Yet this is not present in the article, and he agreed with me that the book almost seems to have been used to cherry-pick criticism of Batory (and the Commonwealth), and left all other views out. The Polish nobility remained there "...strong for the next three hundred years", but the article does not mention this, and seems to suggest that those territories were primarily Swedish or German. "Southern Livonia remained with Poland until the partitions" - yet the article implies that Sweden gained the entire territory. I could go on, but overall I am not impressed with the way Commonwealth is marginalized in the article, Batory is being singled out as some villain or an incompetent leader, and so on. Overall, I have growing and serious doubts about this article being neutral. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Originally a compact, self-sufficiant, unconquerable military colony in the midst of savage and jarring barbarians" do we need to propagate outdated stereotypes with obviously POV quotes from early XX century ? The quote in question comes from 1905, and I believe represents a stereotype image of victims of Teutonic Order's aggression that is no longer represented in modern history. I suggest removing or trimming this quote so we can avoid such portrayal of these people.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Oh wow, I did miss that. Nothing like some 19th century source to put the "barbarians" in their place, right? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The source isn't 19th century, but 20th century; it was reprinted by the Cambridge University press in 1971. It remains a standard work in this field, as clear by the occurence of the book. Whilst he may well be wrong, he cannot be dismissed with the distain you embody.I will, of course, look to change the quotation as I do think it needs a more modern approach. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Another comment. Why the term Dominium Maris Baltici is present only as an external link? I think it is importnat enough to deserve a mention. Pl wiki lists it as an alternate name for the war, but I think it is not exactly correct. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Here are other points made in the pl wiki article that seem relevant, yet are not included in our article:
  • that the Livonian nobility wanted to join the Commonwealth to obtain the extensive rights and privileges of the Polish nobility (the word szlachta is not mentioned in our article at al). The article does mention that "When the Livonian Confederation turned to the Polish-Lithuanian union for protection in the Treaty of Pozvol..." but it fails to elaborate on why (in particular, why did the LC turned to P-L instead of Sweden or Russia?). Oh, and the term Livonian Confederation should be ilinked and explained on its first appearance in the article, neither of which happens.
  • pl wiki implies that before the Treaty of Pozvol, there was a treaty/alliance between the Order and the Muscovite Tsar, intended by the Order's Master as a way to waeken the political opposition in Livonia, that backfired, galvanized support for the Polish faction, and resulted in widespread unrest. Our article makes no mention of that.
  • The discussion of the Treaty of Vilnius (1561) should mention rights and privileges the Livionian territories gained (such as guarantee of religious tolerance), not just what territories were given to whom.
  • When discussing election of Polish kings, the article on free election should be linked
  • "Much of Lithuania, still annoyed at the permanent union with Poland, wished to elect Ivan IV..." - cite
  • According to pl wiki, in 1568 Poland allied itself with Sweden, and Moscow, with Denmark. This article is unclear about the first, and seems not to mention the second event. This important alliance change needs to be clarified.
  • Description of the Treaty of Stettin should be expanded, with regards to what it meant for Denmark, Russia and the Commonwealth (even if some countries like the Commonwealth were not parties of the treaty, it nonetheless stabilized the situation and implicitly recognized parts of the disputed territories as theirs)
  • War of the Polish Succession (1587–1588) should be linked as it is discussed in text
  • The article confusingly first mentions the Treaty of Jam Zapolski and then the Truce of Jam Zapolski. This should be standardized and reorganized to avoid the confusion.

All to "truce". [Grandiose]

• • "It was a humiliation for the Tsar, in part because he was the one requesting it" - cite
  • As I mentioned earlier, the Treaty of Oliva should be mentioned.
  • I'd like to see foreign language sources clearly marked as such in the bibliography with {{de icon}} and others, if appropriate

Question: German language sources are marked by the |language=German field and thus in display as (in German) which the {{de icon}} would almost duplicate. Is this really preferable? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think both should be used. The |language is better for machine searching, but de icon is more visible to the human reader. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Throughout my reading, I also noticed numerous sentences without inline refs, only with refs at the end of the para. I think this is not acceptable to FAs, but if it is, please let me know and I'll tag all sentences I'd like to see cited with citation needed template.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Have to say it a difficult article to write -- it is a tangled mess of four foreign armies fighting for the same piece of land. I think it is a good start and has the components needed to became a FA. However, I have to oppose. First, it needs a very thorough copy-edit. There are a number of run-on sentences to the point I cannot figure the intended meaning. Would suggest asking Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests for help. At the same it has numerous stylistic issues (inconsistent dashes, italics, capitalization, etc.) Second, inconsistent referencing. Some sections (like "Livonia before the war") are very well sourced, while others (like "Russian war with Sweden") are sourced very poorly. Third, important factual errors: Kingdom of Poland got involved later; it initially was an affair of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Sigismund II acted in his capacity as Grand Duke of Lithuania, not as King of Poland. The article fails to mention completely that this war was one of the major reasons for the Union of Lublin. Fourth, a map of new division of Livonia would be really helpful.

• A couple of points about the issues here. The referencing is just a slight inconsistency in style. Referencing (ultimately in the bits I was responsible for creating) has fewer references because they are not repeated sentence-by-sentence. However, they are just as suitably referenced in terms of whether the end reference covers them, which it does. (True, but apparently FAs require sentence-by-sentence: will do so when I get the book in hand). The Poland/Lithuania relationship is a complicated one; the sejm (as I think is noted somewhere) was requested to provide Polish assistance but refused; however, it is not always clear to what extent it was involved. If there are specific things that were "isolated" from Poland, and you think they have been misrepresented, I suggest you mention them, because I thought the text reflected the sources in this regard. The Union of Lublin] page makes mention of the Livonian matters; I think it needs a mention, but I'm not sure to what extent. The nature of Sigismund's inheritance is listed there as the primary reason, and I'm not certain but I don't recall the books I have access to portraying it in a big light. I'll check, but as you can see I've got quite a lot to work on. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Specific items:
  • the former establishing the Duchy of Estonia under constant invasion from Russia, and the latter control of the old Bishopric of Ösel-Wiek placed under the control of Magnus of Holstein -- the latter did what? Unclear, needs rewording.

clarified, though I think the lead as a whole is not a good summary atm. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• • The year after Sweden and Russia signed the Truce of Plussa, Sweden gaining most of Ingria, and northern Livonia, keeping the Duchy of Estonia -- huh?

rewritten Skäpperöd (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• • There is absolutely no need for the two quotes in the "Prelude" section. Re-write.

Moved one, deleted the other anitquated one. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• • In June 1556, Wilhelm appealed to Polish king Sigismund II for help against landmeister Wilhelm von Fürstenburg. Whilst there, however, von Fürstenburg successfully besieged the archbishop, and the landmeister's son killed Lancki, a Polish envoy. -- Who is William? What was Fürstenburg doing to him? Why? Where is "there"?

clarified Skäpperöd (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Sigismund to invade the southern portion of Livonia with an excessive army of around 80,000 -- needs ref.
  • created a mutual defensive and offensive alliance, in the Treaty of Pozvol, primarily aimed at Russia -- needs more emphasis that this put Livonia under "protection" of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (and not Kingdom of Poland) and started the war
  • Tsar Ivan IV demanded that the Livonian Confederation pay about 6,000 marks to keep the Bishopric of Dorpat, based on the claim that every adult male had paid Pskov one mark whilst Pskov had been an independent state. -- needs ref
  • Ivan continued to point out that the existence of the order required his goodwill -- what does this mean?
  • Russia fought in a a war in the Crimea. -- less WP:EGGy, please

changed text to match link. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• • John lent Sigismund 120,000 riksdalers and received seven Livonian castles as security -- ref needed

ref'ed Skäpperöd (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• • "yet Livonia remained an important theatre of conflict" (Frost). -- why such weird wording/sourcing?
  • at Czasniki (Chashniki) in 1564 and 1567, a period of intermittent conflict between the two sides -- huh? fragment?
  • was held at the coast by the other powers -- what other powers?
  • A "grand" party... -- entire paragraph needs refs
  • Section "Russian war with Poland–Lithuania" makes it seem that Lithuania was in a good shape. It really wasn't: it had lost two major cities, its nobles did not want to pay taxes, and the talks for the Union of Lublin started just around that time because, among other things, Lithuania wanted stronger Polish support in the war.
  • So what happened after the Polish-Lithuanian-Russian negotiations failed in 1566? There are 4 years missing (1566-1570).
  • Ivan IV had requested the return of John's wife, Catherine Jagellonica to Russia -- why? what claim did Ivan had on Catherine?
  • The section "Russian war with Sweden" -- needs more refs and trimming as it is too detailed (in comparison with the rest of the article). Also it has nothing on "Russian-Swedish war", just on negotiations gone bad.
  • in Russia, at Morum, continued -- what's Morum?

Morum is a (more rare mis?-)spelling of Murom, I linked the resp. article and added the widely used spelling. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Magnus had fallen into disgrace when he defected from Ivan IV -- need to explain why would he do that
  • following the double election of Batory's fiancèe Anna Jagiellon and Maximillian II in 1575 -- what does that mean?
  • Batory gathered 56,000 troops, 30,000 from Lithuania -- ref please
  • a humiliation for the Tsar, in part because he was the one requesting it -- ref please
  • Russia would surrender to the Polish-Lithuanian Confederation all areas in Livonia it still held and the city of Dorpat; Polotsk would be kept under the confederation's control. In return, Velike Luki would be returned from Batory's control to Russia. -- ref please
  • Need full citations for: "The Full Collection of Russian Annals", vol. 13, SPb, 1904 and Journal of central European affairs. 5. 1945. p. 135.
• Renata (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologise, I'm afraid due to real life I'll have to stay away from Wikipedia for a few days. I reckon this'll still be here when I get back. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• I did some reading this weekend. I am even more strongly opposed now -- the articles misses some very important points (like the fact that Sigismund Augustus not merely supported, but initiated the whole mess with Wilhelm von Brandenburg, the extremely complicated political dynamic between the four countries, etc. -- who supported who and why -- while zooming in on a couple negotiation attempts). If I have time, I will actually edit/rewrite the article. Also found a factual error: there no two battles of Ula and Czasniki in 1564. That's the same battle known under two names. Created article at Battle of Ula. Renata (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose on prose per standard disclaimer for the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's not bad, it's just not up to FAC standards, and I don't want to spend a lot of time on it if the article is going to fail FAC because of other opposes above. If the problems above are resolved, please ping me and I'll try to get a better sense of how long it will take me to copyedit this. Just looking at the first few sentences of the first section:
• I can't tell if it's British, American or some other flavor of English. "organised", "secularised" (further down), but "organized in a de-centralized" (which doesn't have a hyphen btw).
• "It consisted of territories of the Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order, the prince-bishoprics of Dorpat, of Ösel-Wiek and of Courland, the Archbishopric of Riga and the city of Riga." See WP:Checklist#series. It's not written in stone, but I find that if I ask writers to move the complex part of the series to the end, the end result is usually more readable. So: "It consisted of territories of the Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order, the Archbishopric of Riga, the city of Riga, and the prince-bishoprics of Dorpat, Ösel-Wiek and Courland."
• "The political division was not only in administration, there were also persistent rivalries ...": comma splice.
• between the archbishop of Riga and the landmeister of the order for hegemony.": The Teutonic order? And this isn't the way "hegemony" is usually used; I'd probably go with "dominance".
• "The order itself was divided since the Protestant Reformation had spread to Livonia in the 1520s": Per Chicago, "since" is the wrong word when it could mean either "because" or "after".
• "a slow, gradual process": a gradual process.
• "resisted by part of the order who": resisted by the part of the order who.
• - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator. There's a fair bit to work on here, most will still get done. Ultimately I need to get some of my books back, this could take some time. As I say, thanks for your input - I'm not withdrawing because I can't take the criticism, it's just going to take a while to adapt for all of it, and I think it would be better to start over with the FAC when we're done. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:00, 11 April 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 03:32, 8 April 2011 [2].

---

John Y. Brown (1835–1904)

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A U.S. Representative and governor of Kentucky, Brown was first refused a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives for being too young. On his second election, he was denied his seat because of alleged disloyalty during the Civil War, and during a third, non-consecutive stint in the House, he was officially censured for using unparliamentary language against a fellow member. Subsequently elected governor, he exacerbated the split in his party over the issue of free silver. Later, he was an unsuccessful third-party candidate for governor and served as legal counsel for an accused conspirator in the murder of one of his opponents after the contest. His client was convicted. Talk about a rough-and-tumble political career! As always, I look forward to addressing your comments. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
• Images themselves are unproblematic, licensing seems fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Query: I noticed that John Y. Brown has his birth and death dates in his article title. This is something that is a bit alien to me on Wikipedia as usually we use proffessions such as writer, politician, scientist etc, etc... to differentiate between people of the same name. As it so happens we have 4 people, FOUR PEOPLE, with practically the same name that have been in almost identical positions in Kentucky (talk about inbreeding) however the more recent politicians all have either Sr., Jr., or III after there names. So my question is this would it be possible to remove the dates in brackets from the article title and just keep the disambiguation link at the top of the page for people who are searching for the other politicians? --Kuzwa (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

First, I'd respectfully ask that you keep your comments about inbreeding to yourself. In the first place, it is insulting, and in the second place, this article explicitly mentions that this John Y. Brown is not related to the others; he is simply their namesake. The others, of course, have a grandfather-father-son relationship, and the naming in this case is not uncommon at all, even in locales where it's less common to see jokes about inbreeding.

Regarding the naming of the article, it wasn't my choice; that's how it was when I started work on the article. That said, I can't think of one that is necessarily better. Dropping the vital dates implies that this article is the primary topic for John Y. Brown, which is not the case, imo. John Y. Brown (governor) is insufficient because both the subject and John Y. Brown, Jr. were governors; John Y. Brown (congressman) is also ambiguous, as both the subject and John Y. Brown, Sr. were members of the House of Representatives. John Y. Brown (politician) and John Y. Brown (Kentucky) are also out for obvious reasons. That means that about all we are left with is something like John Y. Brown (19th century), which is just as bad as what we have now. I'm open to suggestions, though. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments moved to talk page

• Support per standard disclaimer. Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose 1b,cComments:

• What was he doing from 1861 until 1866? The narrative is a little light on that point and there's the alleged 'disloyalty' but no information about what he was doing to be disloyal. Kirk (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources seem to say. The NGA claims he enlisted in the Confederate Army, but no other source mentions that. NGA is known to miss from time to time, so I consider that unlikely. Following the war, many former Confederate soldiers were elected to office in Kentucky, and their Confederate service was usually seen as a qualification, not a problem. If he had served, his contemporaries would have no doubt trumpeted it from the heavens. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think you need to figure this out - well-educated 26 year-olds not serving in some fashion sounds significantly omitted to me. I think you at least need to include that claim - your opinion makes sense as well but do you have a citation you can use? If you need a source you can't get let me know and I can see if I can help. Kirk (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have contacted User:Spacini, who is a published Kentucky historian. He is checking with a professor in Henderson, where Brown was during the war, to see if he can come up with anything. I'm not far from Henderson myself, so hopefully I'll be able to access anything he comes up with. Spacini opines: "Given [Brown's] second marriage in 1860, which produced eight children, I suspect that he simply attempted to remain neutral, raised his family, and practiced law." Based on what I've turned up about Brown and others related to him and the fact that there is no obvious mention of his activities in the usual places, I agree with Spacini's conclusion. Hopefully, his friend will turn up something more concrete soon. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Check this out (page 102, 345) - not sure it answers the NGA question, but at least it gives something in between 1861-1866.Kirk (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's what Spacini and I have come up with so far. Powell says that Brown was in Elizabethtown practicing law before the war. Levin says he didn't move to Henderson until after the war, but the account from Stovepipe Johnson that you cite above calls Brown one of the city leaders of Henderson who greeted Johnson when he got there. A quick glance over the chronology shows that Johnson was in Henderson sometime between the Battle of Shiloh and the Newburgh Raid, which would put it sometime in early 1862. There is also this idea mentioned by the NGA that he was a cavalry colonel at some point, but this receives no elaboration anywhere else and is quite unlikely. However, Robert Ireland does explicitly state that Brown became disenchanted with the Union and held Confederate sympathies throughout most of the war, which would be consistent with his welcoming Johnson to Henderson and the Congress' refusal to seat in him in 1867. Apparently, the record of his activities during this period is scarce and contradictory. I can add a footnote stating such to the article, but it seems unlikely that we will have a definitive answer. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this answers my original questions. Put in where he lived, what he was doing and the NGA Cavalry Colonel part with the citation, along with his meetings with confederates and then put your concerns with the sources in some notes.Kirk (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Switching to oppose. Kirk (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Its closer now but the note needs citations; I'll check back tomorrow. Kirk (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I might be able to cite the part about Confederate service being a good thing in Kentucky politics (or I might not; haven't looked for one yet). Not sure how to cite that there are sources that don't mention his service, and no published source explicitly says that the claim is dubious; they just don't mention it at all. This is just my observation (and Spacini's, who is a published historian) from being more familiar than most with this subject. I could just make the note say "Some sources claim Brown served as a cavalry colonel during the war, but provide no elaboration. Most sources make no mention of this service, however." Would that suffice? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The NGA says he was a confederate cavalry colonel; its a reliable source you can cite. Since you did enough research to find some holes, put the speculation stuff in notes and if one or more sources says something else specific, cite the specific difference in the note. If a lot of sources don't mention something, instead of an inline citation you could just mention the author's name(s) but I actually don't think there's a policy on this exception. Most editors pick the thing that is cited more in the article and the dubious thing in the note, so in the note put the colonel stuff. Avoid weasel words like 'Most sources' or 'Some sources', be specific. I'm bothered a half dozen historians and their editors all thought his civil war service (or lack thereof) was an optional part of their biographies! Kirk (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Bibliography: For the first entry, the article title is "Brown, John Young, (1835 - 1904)" and this format should be used.
• Be consistent with the citation formats for refs with multiple authors. For instance there is "Hughes, Schaefer, and Williams", but also "Tapp" instead of "Tapp and Klotter".

Otherwise the sources look reliable and the formats are all OK. Spotchecks not possible. Brianboulton (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Both fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead comments. There are definitely some problems with the article's lead.

• Which state did Brown represent during his first term in the HoR? It is conceivable that he may have represented one state before moving to Kentucky.
• "He was first elected to the House in 1859, despite his own protests that he did not yet meet the constitutional age requirement." What age was that?
• The first paragraph of the lead seems intent on explaining curious yet somewhat trivial details about Brown's congressional career. What did he actually do while serving in the HoR?
• "Having already alienated the free silver faction of his party, he backed "Goldbug" candidate Cassius M. Clay Jr. for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in 1895. However, the death of Brown's teenage daughter in 1894 and the murder of his son by the husband of the son's adulterous lover in 1895 ended his interest in the gubernatorial race and his own senatorial ambitions." The rest of the lead is in chronological order. Why does this break the continuity? Also problematic is the massive number of details being crammed into the second sentence. I suggest rephrasing to "Having already alienated the free silver faction of his party, he backed "Goldbug" candidate Cassius M. Clay Jr. for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in 1895. However, the deaths of two of his children ended his interest in the gubernatorial race and his own senatorial ambitions."
• "Republican William S. Taylor won the election by a small margin, but after considerable legal wrangling, he was unseated, and Goebel was declared the winner. Goebel was shot..." It seems a bit silly to have a sentence in the lead that mentions two people who aren't Brown. I suggest trimming all of this down to simply "After eventually being declared the winner of the election, Goebel was shot..."
• "Powers was convicted by a partisan jury, but later pardoned by Governor Augustus E. Willson." This statement is not supported by the body of the article.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:16, 6 April 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 03:27, 8 April 2011 [3].

---

Luke Schenn

Nominator(s): Canada Hky (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Following not very closely on the heels of my successful FAC for Nikita Filatov, I present his draft classmate Luke Schenn. After a very helpful GA Review and Peer Review, I would appreciate any further input at this higher level of review. I believe I have addressed all the issues I am aware of. Stability for a young, active player was noted during Filatov's review so I have kept an eye on Schenn's article over the course of the season (which is almost complete). Aside from my edits to improve the article and address issues, there have been less than 20 edits during that time. I'll be around to address any issues, and appreciate any and all comments. Canada Hky (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done yet, will do later if no one else does

• Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs

  Added, thank you. Canada Hky (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Some minor inconsistencies in reference formatting. For example, "The Sports Network" is sometimes italicized and sometimes not

  Removed italics from "The Sports Network" for all uses. Canada Hky (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• What makes this a reliable source? Who is the author? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  Admittedly, it probably wasn't. I believe the replacement source from Marketing Magazine is of higher quality. If not, I could remove the info entirely. Thank you for your help with the sources. Canada Hky (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Spotchecks turned up a bit of overly close paraphrasing: "the same school which produced fellow NHL players" vs "the same school which produced fellow NHLers". Nothing egregious, but I didn't check everything, so might be worth checking. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

  I'll take a look, thank you. Canada Hky (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

  I rephrased. Can you clarify - did you check one thing, and find one instance, or did you do a few checks, and turn up one instance? Canada Hky (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

  I checked about 2-3 links, and that was the only thing that stood out in those. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – Haven't reviewed this in detail yet, but on a quick peek I notice that the lead is small for a potential featured article. It's one paragraph for an article that is not that short (I've seen ones that are quite a bit shorter here). I recommend aiming for two decent-sized paragraphs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

  Good point, I have expanded the lead. I focused the first paragraph on his playing career, and then the second paragraph about his playing style and off-ice details. Canada Hky (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  Looks much better. I need to give this a full review at some point. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment -- the article uses the term "defensive defenceman". I've linked it by redirecting the term to stay-at-home defenceman. I guess this would be somewhat of a question to reviewers not familiar with ice hockey, but which one sounds better? Defensive defenseman is somewhat repetive but both terms are equally used, perhaps "stay-at-home" a bit more than the other. Maxim_(talk) 00:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

  I have left it as "defensive defenceman" for now, but would like to hear other opinions. I tried to add a quick explanation in the text as well. "Stay at home" seems more like jargon, which I think is more difficult to understand. Canada Hky (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• In the lead, WHL needs to be defined after the first use of Western Hockey League, just like what is done for the NHL.

  Fixed.

• All-Rookie Team could be linked in the lead. I'm not in favor of too much linking, but that seems worthy enough.

  Fixed, I didn't realize there was a page for it.

• Junior: Hyphen needed in "then Rockets" where Shea Weber is first mentioned. I also think "fifth ranked" could use one in the middle. Places needing hyphens are something worth checking for in the rest of the article.

  Fixed, a quick scan didn't show any other obvious cases. If anyone sees one, please let me know.

• I find this bit quite repetitive: "during the 2007–08 season. Also during the 2007–08 season." At the very least, you could change the second part to "during that season" or similar.

  Adjusted the second sentence to "Later that same season..."

• Comma should be placed after "director of the Central Scouting Bureau". This will create a nice bracketing effect. While you're at it, how about another one after "who originally held the seventh overall pick"?

  Fixed.

• Professional: Period needed after "against Carey Price of the Montreal Canadiens".

  Fixed.

• Playing style: Minor point, but I'd drop the comma after "He believes he is at his best".

  Agreed, that sounded really awkward.

• Personal life: "In February, 2010". Again, I don't think the comma is desirable.

  Agreed there as well.

• Reference 4 appears to be from a newspaper; this should be noted in the cite. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

  Adjusted to include the newspaper. Thank you very much for your comments!! Canada Hky (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Is the Maple Leaf logo copyrighted?

  I would presume so. My knowledge of copyright matters is fairly non-existent, so I will cede to any experts on this one. I've just been following other hockey / sports FAs that picture the players in their uniforms. Please let me know if there is anything that I should do here. Canada Hky (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Captions that are not complete sentences should not end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed, thank you. Canada Hky (talk) 02:59, 5 April 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 03:23, 8 April 2011 [4].

---

Tintin in the Land of the Soviets

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has attained GA status and seems to fit all of the criteria for FA inclusion. It has been a featured article nomination before, and the suggested improvements that were put forward then have since been acted upon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for publishers
• Always use ndashes for page ranges
• Sources originally published in a foreign language (where you're citing the translation) should include information on the original publication, as well as the translator's name
• Assouline is in Bibliography but not Footnotes
• "rendered socially and politically acceptable in the climate of the Reaganite repopularisation of the 'Cold War' and the final push towards the demise of the Soviet Union" - check accuracy of this quote

I encourage you to work on reducing the number of direct quotes included in the article. I would also suggest you find a third party to copy-edit the article, because I still see multiple grammatical and spelling errors, and instances of awkward or unclear phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions; I have acted on most of them. I have ensured that all footnotes refer to the locations of the publisher, and that Assouline is in both the bibliography and the footnotes. I have also checked the Theobald quote and can confirm that it is accurate. I have cut down on the number of direct quotations, although could remove more. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

From what I can tell via GBooks, the wording of that quote is inaccurate - would you mind rechecking? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Repolarisation" not "repopularisation". Wow, I completely missed that. I'll correct it in the article. {Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)}

Right, I have gone through the article and added in ndashes for page ranges. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

Comment - I'm a big fan of the Tintin books (and anything by Herge), so I may try and look at this from that viewpoint (the article looks very interesting). I have a copy of this book, which I think is one of the 1981 facsimile reprints, and I think I have the 1989 translation as well. One question I have is whether the 1930 originals are rare and worth anything to collectors? You hint at this with "As The Adventures of Tintin became more popular in Western Europe, and some of the rarer books became collectors items, the original printed edition of Tintin in the Land of the Soviets became highly valued." But do any of your sources actually give examples of the values they were trading at, or what they are worth now? The only other initial comment I have is that from looking at the sources you've used, it looks like you've covered all the major Tintin sources, including some very recent ones, but would you be able to confirm this (i.e. did you consult all the major sources on the topic)? Carcharoth (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest Carcharoth. To answer your question about market prices regarding collectable editions, none of the sources used in this article discuss them, and I am unaware of any that do, although it would not surprise me if some obscure (probably French-language) collectors guide did discuss them. Where one earth I would find such a guide, I'm afraid I have no idea. To answer your second point, there are two books which I do not have access to, and which also offer some information on the subject: Michael Farr's Tintin: 60 Years of Adventure (1989) and Philippe Goddin's Hergé and Tintin Reporters: From "Le Petit Vingtieme" to "Tintin" Magazine (1987). I doubt that either of these works offer any valuable information that the many later sources do not, particularly as Farr has gone on to write several books since the aforementioned one. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

• Comment I was hoping to find some extra info in the fr.wiki but the article is kind of disappointing. Still, the "Dessin et narration" section has interesting bits that could be used to expand some of the current content. I can translate if you want but I just checked and Google Translate does a reasonable job. The problem is that the French article is poorly sourced. Still, I think that, for example, additional commentary on the (crappy) drawing style might be in order, especially given the fact that the drawing was incredibly consistent after Tintin au Congo. Pichpich (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't know if we'd be able to simply import unreferenced information from the French language Wikipedia page into here. If such information is published in an English-language source, it can be included here, but currently I am unaware of any such books. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC))

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Captions should meet same standards for prose, MoS, etc as article text
• I'm confused by the FUR for File:Tintin_in_the_Land_of_the_Soviets_pane.JPG. The lead says that an English translation was not published until 1989. If that's the case, then how can this 1930 image, scanned from the "original book", be in English? If this iamge is in fact from the 1989 translation, then the FUR needs to be amended, and the case for "historical significance" is quite a bit weaker - it won't be the first panel ever to feature Tintin, but the first in English. Also, you should note on the image description page who holds copyright on this image. Same issues exist to a lesser extent in File:Bolshevik_elections_in_Tintin.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made the changes necessary on the two images' pages. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

Oppose - I was reluctant to do this earlier, but no substantial third-party copy-editing has taken place during this FAC, and there are still multiple problems with prose and MoS issues. Here's a sampling:

• "The plot revolves around the young Belgian reporter Tintin and his dog Snowy, who travel, via Berlin, to the Soviet Union, to report back on the policies instituted by the Bolshevik government under Joseph Stalin. However, an agent of the Soviet secret service, the OGPU, attempts to prevent him from doing so, consistently setting traps to get rid of him" - first sentence is plural (presumably Tintin and Snowy), whereas second is singular (presumably Tintin)
• Wikilink potentially unfamiliar terms such as Tintinologists on first occurrence, but don't link very common terms and don't link the same term more than once, especially not in close proximity (see WP:OVERLINK)
• "Tintin is blamed by the Berlin police but escapes to the border of the Soviet Union. Brought before the local Commissar's office..." - as a reader, I'm very confused by this point. He's blamed by the police for the explosion or for being a bourgeoisie? What's a Commissar, and how did he come to be brought before one?
• "Several Bolsheviks then come to arrest him during the night, when he manages to scare them off by dressing up as a ghost. Falling into the sewers, he is pursued by Bolsheviks and tries to get out of the Soviet Union, but is eventually caught and arrested. Threatened with torture by two Chinamen, he again escapes by travelling underwater in a diving suit" - again, very confused. I realize that you don't want to overwhelm the article with plot summary, but in that case it might be necessary to remove rather than add detail - for example, is "Chinamen" important here?
• "Then sneaking into a secret meeting of a group of Bolsheviks, he learns that all the Soviet grain is being exported for foreign propaganda purposes" - phrasing
• MoS edits needed - quotes incorporated as part of a larger sentence should not be capitalized, don't use contractions, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the suggestions, I've gone through and made the necessary changes. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:33, 7 April 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 03:08, 8 April 2011 [5].

---

Economy of Iran

Nominator(s): SSZ (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the FA criteria. According to the Library of Congress, no such article exists in any language. Thank you in advance for your review. SSZ (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I have not read beyond the lead, but am concerned that this lead is cluttered with multiple citations, sometimes in strings of three and four. The purpose of the lead is to summarise broadly the content of the article. It should not be a repository of detailed facts; these should be in the article itself, and should be cited there. At present the lead looks unwelcoming to the general reader, and I recommend that it be redafted in accordance with WP:LEAD. I am proceeding to a sources review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. SSZ (talk)

Sources comments: The article is well-referenced, but some basic attention is required to citation formatting. You probably need to look at the sections in WP:CITE which deal with how to format citations. You might consider whether the use of citation templates would be helpful. Particular points to note:_

• The title of the book, article or web page should be included in the url to create the link, but not the author's name, nor the publisher or journal/book title. I have reorganised Ref 23, so that you can see what I mean.
• The general order for a citation is: author (if known), date or year, title (with link if online), publisher, issue number (for journals, if known), page numbers (if known), ISBN (for books published after 1970), last access date (for online citations).
• Titles of journals, newspapers and books should be italicised
• For journals, give date of issue (not just the year) and, if possible, issue number. Give page numbers wherever possible
• For newspapers, always give the date, not the year, and the page number wherever possible
• Where authors' names are known they should be given in the order surname → forename (subject to linguistic convention).
• Where access to an online source is via a subscription, use the (subscription required) template to signify this. Ref 25 is an example of such; there are likely to be more.
• If any of the refs are in languages other than English, this should be noted also.

In addition to the above, a number of links appear to be not working: Refs 154, 155, 156 and 158. Possibly others. A thorough overhaul of reference formats and links is advised. Brianboulton (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. SSZ (talk)

Comments by User:A. Parrot (mainly on prose)

The text is mostly well-written, though there are a couple of strange errors (noted below). I'm not that knowledgeable about economics and mostly can't speak to the article's accuracy, but there are a few points that concern me. For example, the prediction that the tourism sector's percentage of national employment will jump from 1.8% (in 2010) to 10% only five years later seems awfully optimistic. The source is a researcher for the Iran Travel and Tourism Organization and should therefore have access to good information, but might the organization have a tendency toward over-optimistic forecasts? Do you know of any other possible sources that could disagree? Similarly, there's the prediction (pointed out in the last FAC and still present) by Goldman Sachs that Iran will become one of the world's largest economies, which could be problematic if Goldman Sachs has any vested interest in Iran's development. I think you should look over your sources again and consider if any of them might have reason for making inflated claims. For those that might, consider alternative sources—and if you can't find alternative sources, state in the text where the information comes from (as you have for Goldman Sachs).

The body isn't over-referenced like the lead, although there are a lot of passages supported by two references. If any of those double refs are unnecessary to support the statements, cut one. (I know it's hard to find the right balance.)

Smaller things:

• In the "History" section, could you say why Iran suffered capital flight in the 1970s?

• In the "Five-year socio-economic development plan" section, it says Iran is in transition to a market economy, but doesn't say what it's transitioning from, and people need to click on the link to find out. It's better to say it outright. Consider doing the same when "transition economy" is mentioned in the lead, although at least the implication is clearer there. You should probably also mention in "History" when the economy became centrally planned (after the Revolution?)

• In the "Economic reform plan" section", you link "nationwide distribution of goods and services" to the "Retail industry" section of Industry of Iran. This kind of non-intuitive link is generally discouraged. The larger problem, though, is that you don't say what the plan is going to change about the nationwide distribution of goods and services; it makes it seem like Iran doesn't have such a thing right now.

• In "Centralization and privatization": "Following the cessation of hostilities with Iraq in 1988, the Iranian Government declared its intention to privatize most state industries in an effort to stimulate the ailing economy." Why was it ailing? Because of the war?

• Same section: "Cooperative companies… will be operated in accordance with Islamic criteria." "Islamic" is a very broad term. If this means according to shari'ah law (or the ayatollahs' version thereof), say so. If the "Islamic criteria" are not something easily linked, you may have to state some specifics in the text.

• In "Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps": "the IRGC maintains a monopoly on smuggling." They defy their own government's laws to smuggle? That would surprise a lot of people, and should probably be stated a little more explicitly.

• In "Trade unions": "Employing personnel on consecutive six-month contracts is illegal." Why this type of employment specifically? Why six months as opposed to other lengths?

• In "Agriculture and foodstuffs", the list of products mentions "fruits (including citrus)". Why mention citrus specifically? Is citrus especially numerous or profitable?

• In "Manufacturing": "social learning loop" sounds a little jargonish, and the link that comes with it does not immediately explain the term. Could this concept be expressed more clearly within the bullet point?

• In "Construction and real estate": "a sharp rise in inflation and a credit squeeze caused the boom to." A word is missing here.

• Same section: "and one of the prime investment targets of well off Iranians as tangible." I can't tell how "as tangible" fits into the sentence.

• In "Tourism and travel", the caption for the photo of Mount Demavand should say what the mountain is. If space is an issue, you can drop the second sentence of the caption, which is also in the body text.

• Communications and IT has a "citation needed" tag.

Done. SSZ (talk)

Images

• Captions should meet requirements for prose and sourcing - copy-edit needed on these, source material not supported by the text, check WP:MOS issues
• Images in File:Privatization_Iran.jpg are blurry and pixelated
• File:Iran-electricity.gif - source link is dead
• File:Privatization_Iran.jpg and other images that include buildings in Iran need licensing checked - per this Iran does not have freedom of panorama
• File:Ira_world_GNI_percapita.PNG gives its source as "modification from Wikipedia" - this needs to be explained. What is the base map for this image, and what is its copyright status? From what source was the data used to create this map derived?

Oppose unless/until these issues are addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. SSZ (talk)

I did all the tedious work (and less tedious one). However, if you think I missed something, please be bold and do it yourself :) SSZ (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. You obviously put a lot of work into this article, and I would like to support it. At present, however, it feels like a collection of facts about the Iranian economy rather than a comprehensive picture of the Iranian economy. Just to name a few examples: in "Labor and welfare" it says that more than two-thirds of the population is under 30, but it doesn't elaborate on how that relates to the economy; in "Personal income" it says that primary school-level enrollment is nearly 100%, but doesn't say how that affects personal income. Those facts that are clearly relevant to the sections they're in often feel disconnected, with no flow between them or indication of how they interrelate. I hope that you keep working to improve this article, but I don't feel it's ready yet. A. Parrot (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I regret that you compare an article on the economy with an article on society. Please see economy of India which was promoted FA in 2005 and please tell me whether you have a similar or a different standard? Moreover for any subject, you must have a sum of basic knowledge that cannot be contained in the subject itself and which need to be mastered before reading the article. What you refer to in your comments is directly related to that point. In the same manner, I cannot explain what a tire is made of in a an article about Mercedez-Benz or give the meaning of the verb "to be" in a book about Shakespeare. SSZ (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

My objection is not that the article is too technical, nor did I compare it to any other. My problem is that, while facts are abundant, there is too little connection between the facts. I can guess generally how school enrollment relates to personal income, but a featured article shouldn't make me guess. The underlying reasons for some things are missing, too. Clearly there's a large black market in Iran, but why is it so big? The lead says that contraband is a problem, but the body doesn't elaborate on how it is a problem. The facts and figures are impressive, but there needs to be more overall analysis of the economic system.

The link to the old version of Economy of India shows how much FA standards have changed since 2005; its grammar and referencing would never pass today. It's difficult to compare articles from that far back. A. Parrot (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. SSZ (talk) 23:38, 5 April 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 03:05, 8 April 2011 [6].

---

Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)

Nominator(s): Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because of the same reasons for the last time (see archive one). The article is well-organized, and as complete as it is possible. Thank you Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC).

Query - This is a question I find myself having to ask of almost all music-related FACs: aside from the Billboard articles, have you made sure to consult all non-web sources that might be available? I'm primarily thinking of music periodicals here. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sincerely, I have to say no, I haven't. Recently, Adabow gave me five links I didn't see and I check them ASAP, so, I think I'll have to make some research at GBooks. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely focus on looking from material from magazines that don't host print material online: NME, Mojo, Q, Uncut, stuff Rolling Stone might not have, and so on. It also might be beneficial to ask around on Beyonce fansites to see if anyone has seen any articles that might be useful sources. I doubt there's anything available in book form at this point, so the mags look to be the one area you need to focus on source-wise before we can proceed further. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in my country (excepting for Rolling Stone) those magazines as far as I know don't exist, so it would be really difficult to me to find their information. I'll try to find all the relevant information online. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Images/Media

• Captions should be grammatically correct and meet WP:MOS rules

The images/media themselves are properly licensed, and those under fair use have appropriate FURs. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you mentioned the period thing, so I removed them. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Dabs and deadlinks No dabs, one deadlink found and tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the dead external link. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It was really dead? I mean, it was the official Youtube video and for something I don't know it tagged it as dead when it was never dead, and VEVO is not internationally received. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I used to be able to view the SME video, but today it said it was unavailable in my country. I think that Vevo on YouTube is available worldwide. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Copy-editing needed throughout to eliminate redundancies and improve prose:

• "According to Simon Cowell, agent of British singer Leona Lewis, the writers originally created "Halo" for Lewis." → "According to Simon Cowell, the writers originally intended "Halo" for his client, British singer Leona Lewis."
  • Changed. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• "According to Ryan Dombal . . . reported by him": two attributions in one sentence.
  • Changed. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Not sure of some of the sourcing; for eg: a tabloid for musical analysis.
  • Nor WP:EL nor WP:REFERENCES ban or prohibits "tabloids". Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• "As stated in the music sheet published at Musicnotes.com by Sony/ATV Music Publishing" is a comically long disclaimer for something as obvious and non-controversial as "'Halo' is a love song featuring a R&B and pop production".
  • Changed. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• The bit from "When Knowles delivers the lyrics..." is simply incomprehensible.
• The body begins with the dry "'Halo' was written by ..." - but we already know these facts both from the lead and the infobox. Is there a more interesting way to say this? Maybe you can delete that opening sentence completely and begin with Kidd's interview and origin story.
• The Composition section is extremely clunky and verbose. I suggest Slts#Composition as the gold standard to aim for.
• he worked with Knowles because "she’s Beyoncé! Once I heard the song, I had to do it" - this is an encyclopedia, puh-lease.
• The Promotion and covers section leaves me utterly perplexed, as do such sections in all new pop-song articles. Why the need to discuss every show where she performed the song? I fail to see how anybody outside of a hardcore Beyonce fan would need to know that "She also performed the song at The Late Show with David Letterman after an interview on April 22, 2009. The next day, she performed it at NBC's Today."
  • Sorry for being a fan, but it is part of the song's promotion. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As always, the above is only an indicator of issues, not a comprehensive list. A throughout review is needed and hopefully you can find a good independent copy-editor is sufficiently interested in the article to see it all the way through.—indopug (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, mostly on sourcing

• Referencing format is quite inconsistent, needs serious attention
• Did she really write her own album notes?
• Ref 9 - given that this is a digital download, can you provide an external link to the download page?
• What makes this a reliable source? This? This? This? This? This?
• Agree that this article needs thorough copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, in that order:
  • Could you be so especific in which sources?
  • No, but there's no name of who wrote the album notes.
  • According to some users, Musicnotes is not a reliable source, but the music sheet itself is.
  • And what don't?
  • I've requested to a GOCE member some help here. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 03:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I can't really point to a specific source that's poorly formatted, simply because I can't tell what the "correct" formatting is here. For example, compare refs 21 and 22 - they're from the same source, but the formatting is quite different.
    • Then don't include a name, because it looks from what you've got now as if she did write them
    • I'm not questioning the reliability of the sheet music, I'm just asking for a link
    • Some of those are blogs, are potentially published by non-experts, are published by sites with a less-than-stellar reputation for fact-checking...is there one in particular you're unsure about? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, I'll check this throughout the article.
      • Removed.
      • OK, I'm refactoring it: the site itself (Musicnotes) is not considered as reliable (I really don't know why), that's why there's not such link.
      • I removed sputnikmusic link, Yahoo! link is reliable (we've discussed this at We R Who We R FAC), Top40 is published by the NY Times and Courcelles told me that the reliability of those links depends in the reputation of the individual author. I believe that Lamb's crediability is good enough for Wikipedia. For Mahalo.com, I believe that the article asserts why this website is reliable. For the other two links, I'll check reliability ASAP, and remove/replace them if possible. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
        • This Yahoo! link has a different author - do we know what his credentials are? About.com is, per Courcelles at the We R FAC, "in best case scenarios, barely reliable, and often not reliable at all". You'd have to make a much stronger case about Lamb's credibility. I looked at the article on Mahalo - "Mahalo.com's approach is similar to that employed by Ask.com in 1998"? That makes me question its reliability more, not less. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Mahalo removed, and I'll keep Yahoo! and Lamb links, in that order: I don't know why we have to know Carter's credentials. Working for Yahoo! is enough crediability for anyone. Furthermore, we are not "checking" credentials of every author of every FAC, are we? For Lamb, working nine years for The New York Times, do you need more? Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 03:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Lamb's comprehensive career in writing about music makes him reliable. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:47, 7 April 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 03:02, 8 April 2011 [7].

---

Eazy-E

Nominator(s): CrowzRSA 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is very close to meeting the criteria, and only needs a bit of attention from FAC reviewers to be a FA. It is a fairly short article, I know, but this is really all the information on Eazy-E, since he only lived to be 31. In November 2010, before I started working on the article, it looked like this, and needed a lot of work to meet even the B-class criteria. Now, it has surpassed GA requirements and I believe it meets the FA criteria. Thank you, CrowzRSA 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose on sourcing at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• In general, citation formatting needs cleanup for consistency and accuracy. For example, I think there's a typo in the first ref
• Use a consistent date formatting
• Newspapers should be italicized
• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
• What makes this a [[WP:RS|reliable source]? Also, where do you see a reference to Pareles in the biography?
• Date for ref 11?
• Retrieval dates are not required for weblinks to print-based sources, but if you use them you must do so consistently
• Spell out or link potentially unfamiliar acronyms like RIAA
• "Up for Discussion Jump to Forums"?
• Allmusic or AllMusic or allmusic?
• Be consistent in how multiple authors are notated
• Greenwood or Greenwood Publishing Group? Check for other naming inconsistencies
• Refs 29 and 30 lead to the same site, but are formatted completely differently. Also, why not cite this to the original publication?
• Ref 7: volume/issue number? Check for others
• Ref 33: title?
• Combine identical refs
• Ref 49: retrieval date
• Why is "While Knight had sought an outright release from Ruthless Records for Dr. Dre, the JDL and Ruthless Records management negotiated a release in which the record label would continue to receive money and publishing rights from future Dr. Dre projects with Death Row Records, founded by Dr. Dre with Suge Knight" cited to ref 31 twice? That site doesn't really support most of the sentence
• Spotchecks found some instances of material unsupported by the source used to cite it. Some examples: "he openly associated with other Crips"; "co-found Ruthless Records with Jerry Heller"; "executives Mike Klein and Jerry Heller sought assistance from the Jewish Defense League"; "this provided Ruthless Records with leverage to enter into negotiations with Death Row Records over Dr. Dre's departure". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: no dabs, one dead link found and repaired. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:03, 3 April 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 02:57, 8 April 2011 [8].

---

Juliette Binoche

Nominator(s): Dohanlon (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is concise, clear and up-to-date. The page is factually correct, and offers very significant and interesting information beyond the basic biographical information. By using references to a very wide range of sources, the article creates an impression of the significance of the subject. Dohanlon (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I appreciate the work you've put into this article, but I don't feel it yet meets the FA criteria. Here are some examples of specific concerns:

• Per WP:LEAD, an article of this size should have at least a 3-paragraph lead
• Per WP:OVERLINK, don't link very common terms like "boarding school" and "Polish"
• Article needs copyediting for grammar, clarity and flow. Examples of problematic prose: "Following this Binoche secured her first big screen appearance with a minor supporting role in Pascal Kané's Algeria-themed Liberty Belle, following this she decided to pursue a career in cinema."; "The recurring themes of these films is"; many short choppy sentences and paragraphs
• Manual of style edits needed: italicization, hyphens/dashes, etc
• Some material is unsourced, which is especially problematic in a biography of a living person. Examples: "After this success, Binoche decided to return to France rather than pursue an international career."; "This was Binoche's first English language role and was a worldwide success with critics and audiences alike following its 1988 premiere"; "These roles may have allowed Binoche to consolidate her international position in a way Carax's film did not"
• Reference formatting needs serious cleanup - all web citations need retrieval dates and publishers, magazine citations need page numbers, etc
• Some of the sources used do not meet the reliable sources requirements. Examples: this, this (which triggered my anti-virus program), this

Suggest withdrawal to allow you to address these concerns, consider undergoing the good article or peer review process before renominating. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback. I'm not clear why the sources are not reliable as the information they cite is current and clearly credited to them. Thanks for feedback. Dohanlon (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - concur with Nikkimaria above. Too much unsourced opinion: besides the points Nikkimaria pointed out - "The recurring themes of these films is of contemporary young women exploring their sexuality, often from within an artistic milieu." or "However it is her collaboration with theatre director Scrutzler, played by Jean-Louis Trintignant, that defines Nina." Some of the sources clearly fail WP:RS - an example - this source is clearly a fan and/or self-published site. Sources need to be third-party sources that have a reputation for fact checking and trustworthiness. A self-published source needs to be by a recognized expert in the field with publications in third party sources in the field. I agree with Nikkimaria's suggestion to withdraw and suggest seeking input from both the Good Article process and from Peer Review. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 6 April 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 18:28, 3 April 2011 [9].

---

Better Than Today

Nominator(s): I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 01:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets Featured article criteria, providing a complete and interesting view on the song. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 01:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose needs significant copy-editing/rewriting throughout. The following are only a sample:

• "Pop, synthpop": that's a redundancy. I think synthpop should suffice?
  • I'm just gonna put pop. That's some of the unsourced stuff I forgot to get rid of. Done. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• "After debuting on the chart early with album downloads, it peaked on the UK Singles Chart at number 32, making it her lowest charting on that chart...". Also watch out for overuse of "song".
  • The sentence cited has been modified. Done. Considering there aren't lots of synonyms that work with "song", I can't do anything abouth the majority of it. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Copy-editing needed: "Reception for the video was mainly positive, with most noting...", "The video reflected the fashion and choreography of the performances of the song done during her 2009 For You, For Me Tour, where she first debuted the song".
  • Honestly, I don't see the error in the first sentence you cited. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• You say the song "received positive to mixed reviews" from critics, twice in the article. Does that make any sense? If it received "mixed" reviews, isn't it understood that the song was acclaimed from some critics?
  • That's what I thought too, but in a previous review I learned that a mixed review is understood as a single review with positives and negatives. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Overlinking: laser beams, microphone stand, etc.—indopug (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sure... Done. I Help, When I Can. ^[12]

Oppose

• "accommodating and lovely and approachable and normal [sic]" - why the "sic" here? AFAICT it's correct
  • Spelling, correct. Grammar, incorrect. Still take it out? I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Agree that copy-editing is needed. For example, "After the final chorus cuts through all scenes." is not a complete sentence
  • I didn't write it like that. Had some bad copy-editing there. Done. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Text needs to be more accessible to people who don't know much about music. For example, most will not be familiar with the subscript notation for octave
  • ...which is why the musical terms are linked. I really don't know how to make the section more accessible without writing a "Music Theory for Dummies" paragraph in the section. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Manual of Style work needed - wikilinking, hyphens/dashes, captions, etc
• What makes this a reliable source? This? This?
  • Those citations are used for published opinion. You will notice that I haven't used them to verify any of the facts in the article. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Reference formatting needs cleanup - web citations need retrieval dates, I'm pretty sure this isn't the link you wanted for Idolator, etc Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • They do have retrieval dates, Piping? Done. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Since reviewers have given only samples of prose issues, and there are is other work needed, this article might benefit from a peer review first, and doesn't appear ready for FAC at this time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 3 April 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 22:26, 2 April 2011 [10].

---

Introduction to evolution

Nominator(s): M rickabaugh (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the criteria for an FA article. Introduction to Evolution was at one time a featured article, but was demoted. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2010, I have gone in and added some content to make the article cover basic genetic drift as well as the theory of natural selection as a mechanism for changes in frequency of alleles. The article is similar to its previous FA form, with modifications from myself and other Wikipedia editors. I understand that introduction articles are not particularly favored by the Wikipedia community, but the Evolution article is difficult to understand without more background in that area of biology, which is why the introduction to evolution article is necessarily. I have talked with my biology teacher, who was the author of the original article and he approves of my nomination. Thank you for considering my nomination. M rickabaugh (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Before I even begin reviewing the article, allow me to express my sincerest gratitude for your efforts to improve such a monumentally important and challenging topic. Writing an accessible article on evolution is like trying to teach squirrels how to solve a four-dimensional Rubik's cube. Anywho, here are some areas in need improvement:

• WP:LEAD suggests a maximum of 4 paragraphs. I would even be okay with 5 paragraphs for a particularly massive article, but 6 large paragraphs for a 35 kB article is definitely too many.
  • Fixed - Please review. Dramatic reduction of detailed explanation of genetic drift which is addressed in the appropriate sections.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• In most cases, only the first word of a section title should be capitalized. For example, Founder Effect should be Founder effect.
• Some of the section titles are too long. I suggest shortening Darwin's idea: evolution by natural selection to Natural selection or some such. Similarly, I suggest shortening Different views on the mechanism of evolution to Mechanism.
• I suggest removing the Summary section. While I realize that this is an introductory article, it is still a Wikipedia article, not an essay.
• The article employs spaced en dashes (" – ") to break sentences. It should instead employ unspaced em dashes ("—").

• Actually, spaced endashes are allowed per WP:MDASH. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, I had missed that note. I thought em dashes were required, but I see now that they are merely preferred (by me, anyway). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Quammen, David" is a silly name. No action needed here, I just had to point this out.
  • Noted - I will request that "Quammen" seek the appropriate documents for a name change!
• Why is Co-evolution included under Evidence for evolution? For that matter, why is it included in this article at all? This is supposed to be an introductory article, which should necessarily be less broad in scope than the main article.

From a teacher's standpoint - I have found the concept of co-evolution to serve as a concrete example of the adaptive properties of evolution that is easily grasped. Rather than evidence it should probably relocated to examples of evolution or perhaps worked int the text under natural selection as a example or some such thing. I would beg indulgence and request that the topic stay.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Image:NaturalhistoryMag.jpg, which was used being used in the Different views section, has been deleted. It should be replaced; if it cannot be replaced, I suggest removing Stephen Jay Gould from the list of awesome dudebros.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - like Cryptic, I appreciate your willingness to improve this article. Unfortunately, I don't feel it meets the FA criteria at this time

• Two dead links, one redirect to disambiguation page
• Both the lead and the ToC are too long given the length of the article
  • Fixed - as noted above under same concern raised by Cryptic C62--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Quite a bit of unsourced material - examples: "Genetic drift affects smaller populations more than it affects larger populations."; deck of cards analogy; "Dobzhansky's 1937 work Genetics and the Origin of Species was an important step in bridging the gap between genetics and field biology. Mayr, on the basis of an understanding of genes and direct observations of evolutionary processes from field research, introduced the biological species concept, which defined a species as a group of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from all other populations. The paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson helped to incorporate fossil research, which showed a pattern consistent with the branching and non-directional pathway of evolution of organisms predicted by the modern synthesis."

• The deck of cards analogy is something I thought of myself, I did not obtain it from anywhere. I'm also working on citing the other things you pointed out here. M rickabaugh (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Multiple inconsistencies in reference formatting

• Im working on cleaning these up. M rickabaugh (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Manual of style edits needed - wikilinking problems (both overlinking and underlinking), stacking and sandwiching of images, etc

I suggest submitting this article to peer review prior to attempting FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments This is a wonderful article and I absolutely agree with your comment that it is a necessary one. It is far more approachable than evolution. I don't think it is quite ready for FA but I have some constructive suggestions:

• I don't think "Convergent evolution" belongs under evidence for evolution. It is worth mentioning but it should be moved to a separate section like you did with co-evolution.
  • Fixed. I agree with you, because the subject does no offer any strong evidence for evolution.--Rebekah best (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• I think you should add a brief subsection on biogeography (the geographic distribution of species) and in particular island biogeography and adaptive radiations to the evidence section. You could use Darwin's finches from the Galapagos or the Silversword alliance from Hawaii as an example. This sort of biogeographical evidence was historically very important to both Darwin and Wallace, and if it is summarized corectly, it is still quite compelling. If you don't beat me to it, I will put something together. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I took a shot at this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• The subsection on the Hardy-Weinberg principle is worded in a confusing way (especially the first sentence). I had to read it a couple of times before I realized that the main point was that real world populations would never be in equilibrium because they could never meet the criteria. It needs to be reworded to be less confusing; this is especially important with an introductory article.

In general I hope you continue to improve the article, and I plan to help. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments The nominator for this article is my student who will no doubt gain much from this experience. I wish to clarify a statement in the rationale for nomination. Numerous authors played a role in the previous FA attempt - not just me! I operated as RandomReplicator; although I had the most edits most were correcting my own mistakes! Any feedback that would help the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2010 would be welcome on the appropriate talk page.--JimmyButler (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for now—Unfortunately I have to concur with some of the earlier comments. While the article has some wonderful material, at present it seems a little uneven and is perhaps disorganized in some places.

• The lead fails to be an accessible and non-technical summary for the lay reader. It relies upon technical terms like hereditary material, genes, allele frequencies, phenotype and genetic drift without explanation. It also has more than four paragraphs and does not properly summarize the article, per WP:LEAD. (In fact, the "Summary" section at the end may do a better job.) Please see if you can modify it to make the material more approachable for the general population.

• I am afraid you can not understand evolution, even a simplified version of it, unless you know basic vocabulary such as genes or hereditary material; however I have placed a link over Genes for those who do not understand these "technical terms" if you think I should continue adding links--as I have no room to place an explanation for each term--please tell me. .--Firekragg (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2011

  I understand. However, my objection concerns the lack of explanation of those technical terms; not the use of the terms in themselves. This is critical because this is an introductory article. Anybody looking for an introduction shouldn't be expected to already have the background knowledge needed.

  Besides, I don't think it will add too much to the size of the lead if you work the meaning into the context. For example, couldn't the lead say, "Third, there are variations among the alleles, or gene flavors, of offspring..."?—RJH (talk)

• The lead has been greatly reduced. Much of the technical terms were added when the article expanded to include genetic drift as a major force influencing evolution whereas before the emphasis was exclusively natural selection. The author was extremely diligent and careful with accuracy; with reluctance - I have gutted it. Please review to determine if both length and complexity have been addressed. Note - this is version 592 of the lead; balancing specificity without losing the audience may require compromise!--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• The first two sections of the article body are good, but then the Genetic drift section again relies upon a technical term, alleles, that has not been explained. The reader may become slightly lost here.
• I am not clear about the purpose of the "Hardy-Weinberg principle" section. The first line states the "Hardy-Weinberg principle". The second line then appears to demolish the principle by stating that equilibrium is impossible. The principle is not used elsewhere in the article, so what does it add? I think it needs to clarify why this is an important aspect of the general theory.
• The "Modern synthesis" section has no sources and appears to be an uneven mix of history with explanation. I think it needs to be reworked and should focus more on the explanation than the history.
• It seems like "Evidence for evolution" should follow the first section. I.e. first introduce the theory, then provide the evidence to support it, followed by details of underlying causes and effects of evolution.
• The citations section varies between the use of abbreviated journal names and full names. I think one style should be chosen, preferably with full names as abbreviations can be obscure to a person unused to scientific citations.
  • Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sc => Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
  • CBE Life Sci Educ => CBE Life Sciences Education
  • Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) => Trends in Ecology & Evolution (Amsterdam)
  • Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. => Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
• The "External links" section is fairly long and most appear to be of the same nature. There's already a "Further reading" section so it is not clear that such an extensive list is necessary. Please check that they all comply with WP:EXT.
• Please check the Toolbox above. You're missing 'Alt' text.

Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Re journal names: suggest you wikilink those that we have articles for, then use ISO abbreviation or full name consistently, it won't matter which to me. I corrected the format of a couple of jstor links to match cite journal documentation. Ref 14 needs an ISBN. Rjwilmsi 10:49, 2 April 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 22:21, 2 April 2011 [11].

---

Hershey–Chase experiment

Nominator(s): Jmn49114 (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because Hershey-Chase represents a significant turning point in the understanding of human biology. The results changed the world by showing the scientific community which biomolecule contained the genetic code and the basis for familial similarities. The former article was a stub and it has been significantly expanded over the last few weeks to expand on the existing article referencing their experimentation with bacterial amino acids and DNA. We added to the existing information about how Phosphorus and Sulfur molecules were used in conjunction with viruses to show the hereditary nature of DNA. We discussed the intentions and expectations of the scientists in order to clarify the benefits of discovering which biomolecule carries the genetic code. We also discussed experiments done by other scientists that support the results of the Hershey-Chase experiments. Connections were made to genetic testing and paternal tests. We will discuss applications to DNA testing in reference to crime investigation. Lastly, we explored the recent discovery of arsenic-based life forms and the repercussions of this discovery on the results of Hershey-Chase. All evidence has been cited clearly and we have edited for clarity. Jmn49114 (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Note to reviewers/delegates: this article is tagged as being the subject of an educational assignment. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

GA? PR?: might I suggest you consider submitting this article to the good article or peer review processes before trying to have it promoted as a Featured Article? I am concerned that it might not meet the FA requirements at this time. Here are some specific problems:

• This article is tagged as being under construction, which is an indicator that it is not yet stable
• Some material is uncited. It's generally a good idea to have a citation at the end of every paragraph. Also, things like direct quotes should always be cited
• The article is structured like a university essay. Check out WP:LAYOUT and look at some similar articles to get a better idea of Wikipedia's organization conventions
• I think the article could benefit from some copy-editing - some sections of prose are unclear and awkward in phrasing
• I'm guessing you've got more than one person working on this? Make sure you all use a consistent formatting for references and keep track of what's being said and how in all of the article's sections.

I wish you luck with your project, but would strongly suggest that you withdraw the article at this time to give yourselves a chance to improve it before resubmitting. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick view of the article shows that a number of your references to PNAS are not full citations. I don't think this article is ready to be a FAC yet. Rjwilmsi 10:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.