Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→April 2011: nominator withdrawal
archive 6
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==April 2011==
==April 2011==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anaheim Ducks/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wallkill Valley Rail Trail/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/archive5}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wonder World Tour/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arado E.381/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Wau/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Wau/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Livonian War/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Livonian War/archive1}}

Revision as of 00:24, 16 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 SandyGeorgia 00:24, 16 April 2011 [1].

Anaheim Ducks

Nominator(s): Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:00 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the article in question meets the criteria to be a featured article. It's been quite awhile since i've seen a sports related FA and with the article well sourced and formatted, i believe it meets. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:00 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, suggest GA or PR - not to be discouraging, but you might want to consider WP:GAN or WP:PR, as the article does not seem to meet the FA criteria at this time. Large sections of the article are unreferenced (a good starting point would be to have at least one citation per paragraph, usually more), there are a number of one-sentence paragraphs and other prose issues, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Nikkimaria. This appears to be a way off the mark; there's a lot of referencing still needed here. As noted above, every contentious or factual statement needs citing in reference to a reliable source, and to be done consistently and clearly. There are plenty of citation templates available which will make that job a lot easier. Good luck. Seegoon (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm afraid that I too have to agree with Nikkimaria's assessment. In many ways it's a nice article, but it's very obviously insufficiently cited to meet the FA criteria, or even the GA criteria for that matter. Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal – Agree with the others that the level of referencing isn't close to what a featured article requires. My advice is to add citations to the whole article, pruning what can't be cited, then take it to peer review to gain outside views before another FA or GA attempt. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:24, 16 April 2011 [2].

Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)

Nominator(s): Red marquis (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... Actually, I need help figuring out what I need to do in order to get this to FAC status. I know your rules state that I should go through Peer review first but it's been there forever. They just don't seem interested in helping me. Anyway, the article recently passed GA nomination, if that helps convince you guys to take a look. Thanks in advance for your time. Any constructive criticism is appreciated. Red marquis (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Just looked over the GA assessment of this article and I had similar problems when I nominated Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death) a few months back so I believe I may offer some suggestions on how to improve this page. Simply put, it needs a healthy section on its Development, Composition, Release (+cover art and formats subsections), Promotion and singles, more extensive Critical reception section, Accolades (if it had any) and finally, a brief synopsis section on the Grotesk Burlesk Tour. Charts and certification is already completed. To achieve FA status, we'll just have to add a Recording and production section under Development." Well, i saw this sentence at GAOG album page... so, i believe we already have everything in the article, because the recording and production section is already in there. User:Salgado96 (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry but im opposing this article. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assessment Lakeshade. Could you expand on your points (ie. where I violated MOS in references and dates, where I overlinked and where in the lede I failed to reference) so I could address them immediately and retain GA status as well as possibly achieve FAC status. -Red marquis (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I didn't upload File:Marilyn Manson - Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death).jpg but how is it not correctly licensed? -Red marquis (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I promoted this article to GA, which has seemingly caused some dissent here. If I've missed the mark, I apologise; for what it's worth, I believe it was ready for GA, but perhaps a little short of the stringent criteria of FA. I've contributed to it enough that I don't feel distanced enough to comment on its readiness for FA, but there was literally no grace period between it passing GA and being nominated here. Despite that, it's not a long way off and I can only wish luck to Red marquis. I believe the shortcomings (CK)Lakeshade pointed out have been addressed, and there's not a lot more that can be done to it. Seegoon (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time, with no comment on the process or the article's GA status. Here are some examples of concerns:

  • Per WP:SAMPLE, "samples should not exceed 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter". File:Marilyn_Manson_-_The_Love_Song.ogg, for example, is 30 seconds from a 196-second song - 15%, and thus too long.
    • fixed.
  • "A decade on, it is still scathingly relevant" - this quote from the lead is not sourced there and does not match the sourced version later in the article. Please check it and other quotes for accuracy and verifiability
    • fixed.
  • Article as a whole includes way too many quotes, and too many very long quotes
  • WP:MOS edits needed - hyphens and dashes, italicization issues, WP:OVERLINK, etc
  • Needs copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow. Some examples of problematic phrases: "It would finally be worked into shape in his aforementioned former home during his confinement" is awkward and repetitious; "December 16, 1999 which announced that the album is now progressing" uses an incorrect tense; "other critics found larger cracks within their assessment" is awkward and unclear
    • I've addressed that ones you've listed but I need you to help point them all out to me. I've been looking at this article for so long, it all looks the same to me. I need a fresh pair of eyes. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs to be more accessible to lay readers. For example, what is "DisinfoCon 2000"? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:24, 16 April 2011 [3].

Wallkill Valley Rail Trail

Nominator(s): Gyrobo (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of two rail trails created from the former Wallkill Valley rail corridor. The shorter, southern trail was promoted in January, and I think this article is ready to join it. There's a nice photo of a medium-sized tree growing between two railroad tracks, so you might want to read this article just to see it. Gyrobo (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for feedback: Gyrobo, your last two FACs were carried a very long time because of prose issues. I hope this has been well copyedited before nomination? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read it and give feedback, but don't want to get into another big back-and-forth. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I requested a peer review back in January, and I also got some feedback during an attempted A-class review. Prose wasn't identified as an issue – and unlike my previous two FACs, this one only covers (roughly) the last 20 years in terms of history, and coverage is fairly comprehensive. I'm anticipating a review similar to this. Thanks for reviewing, Truthkeeper88. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I've done a quick scan of about half the article and again am seeing MoS errors and problems with flow. Before spending the time on a full review, I suggest strongly that Gyrobo review MoS before bringing another page to FAC, and that the changes Finetooth suggested in the peer review be incorporated. I would have brought up those points here, again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What changes did Finetooth suggest that I haven't incorporated? --Gyrobo (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said I didn't want to get in a back-and-forth. Finetooth is a good reviewer and some of the changes haven't been made from what I can tell by looking at the PR. Also you need to fix MoS issues on the page. And, more importantly, you need to know what the MoS issues are instead of bringing to FAC and have others tell you. I'm sorry if I'm being harsh, but reviewing takes time, and I'm very picky (and I don't like being made to feel bad for being picky). Finally, am recusing myself based on this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion along this line continues at User talk:Truthkeeper88#Vagueness. Regarding this article, I am not aware of any outstanding issues from the article's previous reviewers, and Truthkeeper88 has not described any specific errors in the article, for me to address. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry Gyrobo, I haven't looked at the PR but I agree with Truthkeeper that MoS, among other things, needs work. Here are some specific concerns:

  • Image sandwiching, all over the place - some of it is because I have an odd screen size, but there are a lot of images here
  • Wikilinking issues - overlinking (ex. motor vehicles, dogs), repeating links (ex. See also, which should not include any links already present in article text),
  • WP:SEEALSO gives some latitude in what can be placed in See also sections, and I believe that the companion trail is so important to the topic that it warrants mention in that section; and without its presence, the portals would be either in an empty section, or moved to External links. I removed some links to animal articles, but I thought those links were appropriate given that the section was about animal and plant species. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy-editing needed: typos ("Wallkill Valley trials"?), grammar issues ("The Wallkill Valley Rail Trail was the 17th rail trail created in New York state,[24] and it became a National Recreation Trail in 2007."), awkward and unclear phrasings ("The idea of converting the former corridor to a rail trail was first considered in a 1983 environmental report commissioned by the town" - this is the first sentence of a new section, which town are you talking about?), etc
  • Inconsistencies in reference formatting - be consistent in whether you provide retrieval dates for weblinks to print-based sources, in whether you provide publisher locations, etc
  • I believe I've taken care of this; all online sources except the books have accessdates. Regarding location, I have made that available in all cases where the location was known, and where the template supported it. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I've been asked for a full review. Instead I'll post a selection of problems I see:

  • Consistency in spelling - cross country or cross-country?
  • As a reader, the sentence early in the lead with all the numbers makes my head hurt
  • The infobox is overly long and distracting
  • This sentence needs a rewrite: Passing through a variety of habitats, the trail is frequented by many types of birds and animals.
  • "History" section - sorry, but as a reader I'm totally lost.
  • Seems to be over cited - have a look at WP:CITEBUNDLE
  • Prose is choppy in places
  • See WP:MOSIMAGES regarding text squash
  • Haven't a clue what BOCES is and am forced to link out to find out about it - if it's an acronym, then explain in the text
  • Final para in the "Recreation" section is a bundle of factoids - what does shale outcrops have to do with bicycle shops? Shale should be linked and outcrops probably not necessary to link
  • In my mind, parking is associated with general sights, like the outcrops, because both are landmarks (and splitting them would create a one-sentence stub for the outcrops). And I think "outcrop" itself is an unfamiliar enough term to link. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #10 has two photographs in the book and nothing about the subject, see page 10.
  • Ref # 11 I believe should be on page 8 - see the link above
  • Ref # 12 fails source verification - nothing about Conrail or selling in this edition of the book. If it exists in another edition, then the source should be changed

I've only read through the first few sections. Have only checked one source, not looked at referencing, images, or for copyvio. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 10, 11 and 12 are all for Mabee's 1995 book, not the 2003 book. If you're looking for a good story, I'd definitely recommend Listen to the Whistle. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ISBN for refs 10, 11 and 12 links to the book I looked at. I don't know whether or not it's a 2003 book, but if it's incorrect it should changed. That book doesn't have the information cited by those three refs. Nevermind, clicked the wrong ISBN. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently having Internet connectivity problems at home, so it may take an additional day or so to address these issues. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My connection is back up, I fixed some issues last night, and I'm going to work on the rest tonight. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Only scanned the article briefly and found a few quick things.

  • New Paltz and Gardiner: "to fund several rail trail–related projects." Dash should be a regular hyphen here.
  • Remove comma after Sojourner Truth?


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:24, 16 April 2011 [4].

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Nominator(s): Tærkast (Communicate) 17:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I bring you one of the most controversial films of all time, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. "Who will survive and what will be left of them?" I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it stands a good chance of passing this time round, however, should this prove not to be possible, it's OK, because I will work at it until it does. Tærkast (Communicate) 17:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, article revamped while at FAC, unclear if issues are resolved, previous comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've watched all of the changes to the article since the FAC started. I don't believe that there were any real significant changes, and what was changed (even if you view it as significant or not) was for the better anyway. My support still stands.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - IIRC correctly a source review was done before the restart; I haven't checked the particulars of that review, and am only evaluating the article as it stands. Also, spotchecks not done

  • Why include only one author for a work that only has two?
  • Multiple problems with reference formatting and consistency. Examples: page ranges must use ndashes always; be consistent in whether "p." is spaced or not (ie. "p.1" vs "p. 1"); be consistent in what is wikilinked when
  • Should provide page numbers for non-weblinked newspaper articles
  • Make sure you're using the right kind of cite template, or at least choose consistently. For example, one reference to Texas Monthly uses citebook, while another uses citejournal
  • Find some way to distinguish visually between citations to the two Muir 2002s
  • Don't duplicate cited sources in External links
  • When citing to a video/audio source, it's generally a good idea to cite a specific time or time range to make verification easier
  • Be consistent in whether second authors are listed first name or last name first
  • Page number(s) for Farley?
  • Be consistent in what you call things. For example, is news.bbc.co.uk "BBC News" or "BBC News Online"?
  • Ref 96: don't repeat volume number
  • What is IGN? Spell out or link potentially unfamiliar acronyms
  • Was this originally from another source? Who is the author?
  • This should be cited to the original source
  • What makes this a reliable source? This? This? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will deal with it. IGN doesn't stand for anything. The last couple of refs aren't of paramount importance, should I use Vendorsites for DVD releases? And a Film Threat is notable--Tærkast (Communicate) 11:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the Halloween ref, it's the official Halloween site, there doesn't appear tobe any author. For Film Critic.com, author is notable, the site is owned by AMC, and Film Threat is also a notable site, owned by Hamster Stampede, but I could remove it. I could also remove the Kim Newman Film Reference, but it is a useful site. For the home video releases, they are only there for talking about release and stuff, don't know what other reliable sites could be used.--Tærkast (Communicate) 12:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability" and "reliability" aren't (necessarily) the same. Could you justify your use of these sites with reference to WP:RS and related policies/guidelines, or cite a previous FAC or RS/N discussion where these sources were accepted as reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine I'll remove most of those sources, and replace the DVD sources with Amazon or whatever. Don't really know what reliable sources to use for home video releases. I'm sure the current other sources will suffice, will try and find some more--Tærkast (Communicate) 13:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need for an apology. Duly noted--Tærkast (Communicate) 13:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've given it a go, with Reception, Themes and Post-Release still pending. I request the nominator to consider trimming down the Post-release section to about three tight, interesting paragraphs; right now it excessively details home-video release dates and comic-book publication info (redundant to the TCSM comics article). It also repetitively discusses all the sequels and remake ever produced when, surely, a couple of summarising sentences would suffice?
Another idea: how about making it another sub-section of Reception, by discussing the ensuing TCSM franchise in a couple of paragraphs?—indopug (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not too bad. I'll see what I can do.--Tærkast (Communicate) 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that if it does not directly relate to this film then it should be cut and put on the franchise page (if it's not already there). Comics that are based on Part 3 have no place here. I think the reviews of the other sequels are better left for the franchise page as well. I think that a lot of times these older films with sequels get their pages turned into mini franchise articles because the actual franchise articles suck and don't cover the information well. That is no longer the case with Friday the 13th, Halloween, or A Nightmare on Elm Street and that is slowly not being the case with the TCM franchise page. So, things that occur in 2005 that are a better relationship with the remake than to this page should be removed. It helps to trim the fat off of this page and move things to a more appropriate location.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cut it down some, but I'm wondering if I cut too much? Thoughts Taerkast and Indopug?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine, next thing to tackle is home video. What we need to do then is decide the structure of the post-release section.--Tærkast (Communicate) 18:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bignole, the complete removal of comics info means the reader get no idea that the film spawned off a multimedia franchise (unless there's something about that elsewhere that I missed). Sequels: I don't think naming all the sequels chronologically is useful either (and redundant to the TCSM navbox below). Instead, with the help sourced critical analysis, could you write something more general and over-arching about the five sequels: "Starting with TCSM 2 (1986), the film spawned three sequels in the 1980s and 90s. Each of these featured ever-increasing amounts of gore and horror, but received a critical mauling and far lesser commercial success than the original. 'Snarky quote by critic'. <Summarise last two films similarly>."
Unrelated: the Australian Classification Board paragraph, can you confirm that all the info is backed by the cited sources?—indopug (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all the info is backed by the Classification Board as per the sources.--Tærkast (Communicate) 19:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not find "frequent and gratuitous violence of high intensity" in the sources (which are all ACB certificates in that paragraph—or have I overlooked something?).—indopug (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the ACB does not appear to state it. Removed, I wish it did though, the BBFC usually does theirs, but that's the UK film board.--Tærkast (Communicate) 13:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question becomes, "What spawned the other media?" Obviously, all these derived come back to this first film, but that does not mean that this film directly spawned any of those comic books. In this case, from what I can see, this film did not spawn any of that. We have talked about, in the lead, how this film spawned a franchise, but no comic book directly relates to this film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it appears that all of that information will need to be removed because whatever was sourcing it is now gone. The sources for each individual citation are all reverting to a single overview page on that website and not providing any of that information anymore. So, unless it can be refound, it's going to have to go.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

Some sample idiosyncracies I've found:

  • Roger Ebert is notable. Wikilink him.
  • Why omit the name of Ebert's journal, but include all the other critics' publication names?
  • Why mention the lead actors of just one of the five subsequent films?
  • Why wikilink second incidence of "remake" in the space of seven words, but not the first?
  • What's the difference between a remake and an official remake?
  • Was there no book version of the film?
  • Slightly bothered by US-centric approach to box office takings, per WORLDVIEW. Are there no statistics for worldwide box office for films from the mid 70s?
  • First use of "MPAA" in both Lead and body copy (not just former) should be explained
  • PG and R should be wikilinked. I've never heard of an R rating.
  • Was the limited cinema release in the UK during that initial year or, as the text seems to flow (but makes less sense logically) after the BBFC ban?
  • Why explain an 18 certificate, but not PG and R?
  • "the word "chainsaw" became outlawed in titles" Just in the UK?
  • "splats of real animal blood" is "splats" a quote? If not, it's awfully colloquial for an encyclopedia article. If it is, put it in quote marks.

--Dweller (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will deal with those. As for the question of the book, no, there isn't a book version of the film. It's not based on anything. The word chainsaw did become outlawed just in the UK yeah. As far as I'm aware, there are no worldwide box office statistics for this film at all. PG rating is linked in the lead. I don't think the ratings are of ultimate paramount importance, and the overlinking of such things should also be considered.--Tærkast (Communicate) 15:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dealt with most of thse issues, but perhaps archiving might be a good idea now? I mean, I don't want it to happen, but my time will be taken up with RL quite soon, so that might be something to think about.--Tærkast (Communicate) 21:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, leaning support. Steve T • C This is a fine article, into which a lot of effort has obviously gone, and I hope you can get it over the line. While giving the article a light copy-edit yesterday evening I began listing issues in my sandbox, but it looks like someone spotted that and has resolved at least a few of them. Only a few items remain:
    • The "Filming" section doesn't get off to a gripping start, with two pieces of information that don't seem all that relevant (my emphasis): "The primary filming location was an early 1900s farmhouse located on Quick Hill Road near Round Rock, Texas, where the La Frontera development is currently located. The house was later moved to Kingsland, Texas, restored, and turned into a restaurant as part of the Antlers Hotel." Or if they are relevant, they're certainly less important that what follows about principal photography, which should be the focus. Might these work better relegated to the "Notes" section?
    • In "Post-production: "David Foster, producer of the 1982 horror film The Thing, arranged for a private screening for some of Bryanston Pictures' West Coast executives, and received 1.5 percent of Vortex's profits and a deferred fee of $500."—I may be wrong, but that seems to be saying that Foster received a 1.5 percent stake and $500 just because he arranged that screening?
    • In "Critical response": "In his 1976 article ... Stephen Koch mentioned that he felt the sadistic violence in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre to be extreme and still unimaginative."—I'm not sure what the "still" is indicating here, as it implies a return or reconsideration of opinion. Is that the case? If so, perhaps beginning, "Revisiting the film in a 1976 article ..."?
    • "Later, critics began to praise the film for its artistic qualities and effectiveness."—its effectiveness at what?
    • The second paragraph in particular has a couple of quotes that feel more like what you would see on a poster than an in-depth summary of what these critics thought about the film: "a punishing assault on the senses"; "a backwoods masterpiece of fear and loathing, Texas style". I'm not saying they should be removed, but perhaps the last one at least could be trimmed or paraphrased?
    • "Noted reviewer Rex Reed"—as opposed to the other, non-notable reviewers, such as, er, Ebert? Seems weird to single him out. The fact he has a link should be enough to indicate his notability.
    • "The film currently has a 90% overall approval rating from critics on film aggregate review website Rotten Tomatoes, with an average score of 7.7 out of 10. This is based on 40 reviews collected between the years 2000 and 2009."—OK, so hands up, I was going to scream blue murder at your use of Rotten Tomatoes, as it does not offer an accurate reflection of the critical reception of films released before 2000, per WP:ROTTEN. Then I spotted that last sentence, and all was right with the world. If I have a suggestion, it's that you should perhaps explain what a "90% approval rating" is, as well as how the average score is arrived at. Perhaps, "Review aggregate website Rotten Tomatoes reports that 90% of critics give the film a positive review, with an average score of 7.7 out of 10" or something along those lines?
    • In "Cultural Impact": "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, considered one of the greatest and most controversial horror films of all time ..."—do you think it might be helpful to say by whom here, and when? I had to click down to the cites to see that this is long after the film's release. The first cite is a 2011 poll of the public by the BBC, and that's probably fine, but I'm wondering what the second, See No Evil: Banned Films and Video Controversy (2000), says exactly. Are Kerekes and Slater reporting on a critical re-evaluation, or again on public opinion?
    • "Ben Cobb of British public service Channel 4"—a likely jarring description of the service for any UK readers. You already introduce Channel 4 in a previous section, with a link, so it's probably unnecessary to say exactly what it is.
    • "Bill Nichols commented, '[it] achieves the force of authentic art, profoundly disturbing' and was 'far more than personal, as the general response it has envoked [sic?] demonstrates.'"—this doesn't work grammatically; however I can't figure out what it's supposed to be saying, especially the last part, so I'm not sure how to fix it.
    • "Christopher Null of Filmcritic.com said, 'In our collective consciousness, Leatherface and his chainsaw have become as iconic as Freddy and his razors or Jason and his hockey mask.'"—it may be useful to link to those characters' articles for those readers unfamiliar with them. It's frowned on a little to link within quotes, but is permitted in the MOS for instances of necessary clarification.
  • And that's all the weather! Feel free to ignore or rebut my issues/suggestions. I have this page watchlisted, so no need to ping. All the best, Steve T • C 21:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Steve. Will deal with those in due course.--Tærkast (Communicate) 22:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've taken care of most of them. As for Forster, yes, it's true, he did get a 1.5% share just for screening the film.--Tærkast (Communicate) 12:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry about the delay in responding; I plum forgot to check back in on this, even though I know how frustratingly slowly a FAC can sometimes seem to proceed. I'll look over your changes and revisit my comments tomorrow evening (UK time). All the best, Steve T • C 22:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Struck some. Back shortly after another read through. Steve T • C 20:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Think it's OK now? I'm off on the 10th, will be back on the 30th, anything could happen between now and then, which is what worries me.--Tærkast (Communicate) 20:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The change to the Bill Nichols bit is better, but it's still not quite right. The second half of the statement doesn't link very well with the first. Essentially, it's saying, "Bill Nichols commented ... and was 'far more than personal, as the general response [to the film] demonstrates.'" How about something along the lines of, "Bill Nichols commented, '[it] achieves the force of authentic art, [is] profoundly disturbing and far more than personal, as the general response [to the film] demonstrates."—which more explicitly links the statement to the first. Steve T • C 20:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, and thanks so much for your comments.--Tærkast (Communicate) 20:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Tærkast (Communicate) 20:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the last. I'll give it another read and see if I'm happy to support yet. Steve T • C 21:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can see a considerable amount of thoughtful work has gone into this since the previous nomination, but the number of prose problems I found in the lede alone makes me concerned. I'll just address those for the moment:

  • "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is a 1974 American independent horror film directed by Tobe Hooper, who co-wrote with Kim Henkel."

That last verb needs an object: "it", or "its screenplay", or "the screenplay".

  • "It stars Marilyn Burns, Edwin Neal, Paul A. Partain, Jim Siedow, and Gunnar Hansen, who respectively portray Sally Hardesty, Franklin Hardesty, the Hitchhiker, the proprietor, and the main antagonist, Leatherface."

I assume (i.e., hope) there is some good reason that "Hitchhiker" is capped while "proprietor" is not, but whatever it is, it's not good enough to justify this glaring stylistic inconsistency.

  • "Although it was marketed as a true story to attract a wider audience and to provide subtle commentary on the political climate at the time..."

The grammatically logical connection between the sentence's first clause and its last is not conceptually logical: "It was marketed as a true story to provide subtle commentary on the political climate at the time." The connection made between the marketing and the intention (I presume Hooper's intention) to make a subtle comment about the era's political climate is both unclear and unsound.

  • "...its overall premise is entirely fictional."

"Overall premise" is redundant and "premise" appears to be the wrong word. "Plot" or (since "plot" appears in the next sentence) "story" or "narrative" seems to be what was meant.

  • "PG" is unquoted and glossed with its unabbreviated form. "R" is enquoted and glossed with its official definition.

Appearing in the same sentence, these are, again, rather glaring stylistic inconsistencies.

  • "...numerous theaters later withdrew the film from release after concerns from viewers regarding its violent content."

Doesn't parse. Could go with "...from release after viewers voiced concerns about its..." Or with "...from release in response to complaints from viewers about its..." Or with "...from release after viewers complained about its..."

Given all the attention that's been paid to the article, I was expecting that the lede--the section that almost always receives the most attention--would be virtually flawless at this point. It is far from that, raising serious questions about the prose quality of the rest of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DCGeist (talk • contribs)

Just archive this nom. Please. I'll be going on holiday, and don't have time to fix all this stuff. One problem after the other, with differing opinions amongst editors. There's no satisfying everyone, but it seems I'd have to in order for this article to ever pass. Archive, please.--Tærkast (Communicate) 09:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I've also taken into account the nearly 3 month time period of this FAC, so it may be best to archive now.--Tærkast (Communicate) 09:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scrap that, I'll see what I can do in the time I've left.--Tærkast (Communicate) 12:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that it's two months, not three :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two months, you say? Ah, it is correct. Thanks Sandy.--TaerkastUA (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've been working my way through the rest of the article, and (for the most part) the prose is in much better shape than I anticipated after reading the lede—just light copyediting needed, which I've been doing. The math here doesn't add up:

  • [Post-production:] "A film production group, Pie in the Sky, donated $23,532 in exchange for 19 percent of Vortex's half of the profits. This left Henkel and Hooper with a 23.5 percent stake, and the remaining 18 percent was divided among 20 cast and crew members."

Nineteen percent of 50 percent equals 9.5 percent. That leaves a total of 40.5 percent for the Henkel-Hooper partnership and the cast and crew members. What you have—23.5 percent and 18 percent—adds up to 41.5 percent. I do not have access to the two sources from which the data derives, so I don't know if the information in one or the other was mistranscribed in the composition of the Wikipedia article or if their numbers do not add up due to an error in one or the other. Please double-check the sources and emend the data or gloss the mathematical discrepancy as appropriate.—DCGeist (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember working on this section back in October diff . MAB owned 50% and Vortex 22.5% and Pie in the Sky 9.5% and the cast and crew 18%. So the only thing wrong is Vortex did not own 23.5 as you say but 22.5. --Diannaa (Talk) 17:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Release (caption box):] "The film which you are about to see is an account of the tragedy which befell a group of five youths, in particularly Sally Hardesty and her invalid brother, Franklin..."

Does it actually say "in particular" or "particularly"? If the error is in the original, it needs a [sic] here.—DCGeist (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • [Release:] "After the initial release, including a one-year theatrical run in London, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was banned in Britain, largely on the authority of British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) Secretary James Ferman. It saw limited cinema release due to the actions of various city councils, and later received an 18 certificate (indicating that it should not be seen or purchased by a person under 18) by the BBFC.... The BBFC passed The Texas Chain Saw Massacre for release in 1999 with no cuts."

Very confusing. What does "largely on the authority" mean? Did someone higher up have to approve his decision? How did it see "limited cinema release due to the actions of various city councils" if it was banned? (The "cinema" there is, of course, redundant.) Was it, in fact, not exactly banned? When precisely did it receive an "18 certificate" and how does that relate to the 1999 development when the BBFC passed it "with no cuts"? Did the version that received an 18 certificate have cuts? What certificate did it receive in 1999?—DCGeist (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

City councils don't actually have to listen to the BBFC, which is why it was given a limited release. The BBFC rated the film "18" when it passed it in 1999. I'll make that clear. Thanks, --Tærkast (Discuss) 09:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The edits didn't make clear why the text was mentioning twice that it received a BBFC certificate. So I looked at the source for the first instance—not only did I discover that the BBFC gave it an 18 certificate just once, in 1999, which shouldn't have been difficult to make clear, I also discovered that the claim that it "saw limited cinema release due to the actions of various city councils" was unfounded. One city council granted it a license...in 1998. I've made that correction.
A problem remains:
  • "Censors attempted to edit the film for the purposes of a wider release in 1977 but were unsuccessful."
This is unclear and dubious. Who are these "censors" who failed to make a cut that satisfied (presumably their own) censorship board? Do you mean the filmmakers or the film's British distributor? We wouldn't refer to either of those parties as "censors". And what is meant by "wider" release? We've established that after the ban, there was no release in Britain for over 20 years, right? The source for this claim (Ruth Petrie's Film and Censorship: The Index Reader) is not available for viewing on Amazon and has only snippet views available on Google Books—I did try to verify, at least, that the book included a reference to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and found none. Unless you (or another editor) actually have this book in your possession and can edit the line in question as needed based on the supposed text of the cited page (p. 156), the line should be eliminated entirely.—DCGeist (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Just to say. I'm off tomorrow (the 10th) for 3 weeks, so I will probably not be able to check in. I sincerely hope this FAC ends well. Thanks, --Tærkast (Discuss) 19:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Regretfully. I just checked the source for another claim that seemed oddly phrased, and found that the information there was wildly misrepresented in our article. I made the correction, but that's two sources eyeballed, two major errors found—and a third "source" looking very shaky. All in just one section. I wrote in the last FAC that "rigorous vetting of all the cites and the claims based on them" needed to happen. It clearly hasn't.—DCGeist (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out the sources in question? I'm sure a few could be removed, which shouldn't be enough to stop this FAC from passing.--Tærkast (Discuss) 09:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think generalising one section to the entire article makes it representative of the rest of the sources. Misinformation can be a problem yes, but not of such that it needs to fail. It can be easily fixed, but as it's up to me, unfortunately, I don't have time to fix it up. 3 guesses this will be closed by the time I return.--Tærkast (Discuss) 09:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:24, 16 April 2011 [5].

Wonder World Tour

Nominator(s): ipodnano05 * leave@message 04:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the article meets the criteria to become a Featured Article in Wikipedia. It has already been been granted Good Article status and received a peer review in the past. And, I think it's ready now. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 04:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • File:Wonder_World_Tour_poster.png - FUR needs some work. "The image is significant in identifying the subject of the article, which is the song." - no, the subject is the tour, not the song. "The image is used in the article section giving a visual description of the poster released for the tour." - no, it's in the infobox. "The image has a brief description that identifies the image, notes the source, and provides attribution to the copyright holder." - no, you don't tell us who has copyright. Also, licensing tag is incorrect, as this is not an album cover.
  • Done
  • File:Miley_Cyrus_-_Wonder_World_Tour_-_Breakout.jpg - need a more informative description than "A teenage girl singing" (as for other images with similar description). Also, who holds copyright for the stage design and props (like whatever that big thing behind her is)?
  • Not necessarily true - images can be erroneously transferred or uploaded to Commons without being free. I'm not sure of US copyright laws surrounding stage design, which is why I'm not opposing over this issue, but it's still something you should look into. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what Nikki means is that a photo of a copyrighted work (like the stage) might not be "free" under one of the quirks of American copyright law. I'm a copy editor, not a copyright lawyer, but I don't see anything in the design that's original enough for copyright to apply, with the possible exception of the motorbike. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Comments Hi there. I'll leave a longer review later, but I'm reviewing the lead for now. Here's what I have for you so far:

"The Wonder World Tour is the second concert tour by American recording artist Miley Cyrus, in order to promote her second studio album Breakout (2008) and first extended play (EP) The Time of Our Lives (2009)." This sentence doesn't really make sense. There should probably be something before "in order to", like "she began the tour in order to".

"in order to prevent the extensive ticket scalping that occurred during Cyrus' previous tour." This is another sentence that doesn't make much sense. I understand what the meaning is, but it sounds as if she's trying to prevent the ticket scalping that already occurred. Perhaps you could say something like "ticket scalping similar to what had occurred during Cyrus' previous tour". Also, perhaps you could add a wikilink for "ticket scalping". We both know what it means, but others (especially from other countries) might not.

"an organization devoted to fight against cancer." Should be: "an organization devoted to the fight against cancer" or "fighting cancer".

"The Wonder World Tour was described as part of Cyrus' transitional period" Not a big deal, but I would say "has been described".

"all of which bared different themes" Again, not a huge deal, but I would say "each of which had a different theme"

The second paragraph of the lead used "Cyrus" a lot. Maybe replaced a few of those with "she"

"The Wonder World Tour was financially successful despite the financial recession that was present in 2009." Maybe remove the word "financially" to remove some redundancy.

"It was able to sell-out all European dates in ten minutes and mark the largest attendance at The O2 Arena in London, England." Should be "marks".

"During the first leg of the tour, one bus overturned several times in a highway." Should be "on a highway".

"but multiple theories for it exist." I think "yet multiple theories exist" sounds a little better.(sorry, forgot to sign)-RHM22 (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks good! I'll leave you a review for the rest of the article later.-RHM22 (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: I'm still not finished with this review! I apologize for my slowness. Anyway, I'll try to get to the rest of it tomorrow. For now, here are few more comments in addition to the miscellaneous minor fixes I made throughout.

Development:

"The Wonder World Tour was titled accordingly because of its diversity in themes and styles." "Accordingly" doesn't seem to be in the proper context here. Maybe something like "The Wonder World Tour was so named because..." or "Wonder World Tour was chosen as the title because..."

  • Done.

"The reason for the prior to occur was because..." sounds very awkward. Maybe something like "the reason for this was..." Later on in that sentence, it says "Cyrus felt more confident as a vocalist to perform stunts and use props while singing.", which I don't understand the meaning of. Did you mean that using props made her feel more comfortable on stage? If so, I would suggest rewording it as such: "Cyrus felt more confident while performing stunts and using props during her performances."

The first part was done. In regards to the other part, not really. What I meant is that, since her voice grew, she became more confident as a vocalist. Therefore, she was able to use props while singing. Before, she did not want to use props because she didn't feel she could do that and sing at the same time. Am I being clear? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ideas were given by different people and experimented during filmed rehearsals to filter which ideas would make the final cut." This is also awkward. Maybe something like "Ideas were suggested by different individuals and were tested during filmed rehearsals in order to decide which would make the final cut." Also, it might be a good idea to explain who the people are that gave the ideas (employees, friends, planners etc)

I would, but the interview just says people. It doesn't specify. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's fine then. There's nothing you can do if your source doesn't say anything else!-RHM22 (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"tractor-resembling car" sounds extremely awkward. I'm not sure what to replace it with, but it looks very odd in there.-RHM22 (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about car that resembled a tractor? I don't know. They both seem awkward to me. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a tough one. Was it a car made to look like a tractor? If so, maybe something like "a car altered to resemble a tractor" might be better.-RHM22 (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. That's basically it. I changed it. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Ok, my review is finished. I fixed several minor typos and grammar stuff, but I do have two more suggestions for you.

Bus accident

"Bumped up" seems incredibly informal, especially for an FAC. It should probably be "injured" or something like that.

  • Replaced with "suffered minor injuries"

"Zilio was later able to return to work on the Wonder World Tour with some injuries and a bit rattled, but in fine condition." Maybe something like "Zilio was later able to return to work on the tour, despite some minor injuries."

  • Reworded

Also, maybe something like "Bus incident" would be a better header. It's not a huge deal, but "incident" just sounds better to me. It's your call on that one.

Nope, it's fine the way it is.-RHM22 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments:

My biggest problem with the article is the multitude of images of Cyrus performing. They're nice photos, but it seems like there are too many of them and a number of them are not really in the relevant sections. Maybe replacing some of the ones of her performing with some photos of the other people discussed in the article would help to even it out a little bit.

I'm sorry but there are no free images of the personnel. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 02:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I copyedited the entire article, but I still think it needs a good once over from another set of eyes. Perhaps it would be a good idea to leave a request with the Guild of copyeditors and see if anyone over there would like to give it a check.

  • I'm a decent copy-editor (and MoS wonk), but somewhat pressed for time. If you could be more specific about what you feel needs attention, I'll do what I can. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm not certain that there's any one section that could use copyediting, just a once over of the whole article in case I missed anything (and I'm sure I did!) For instance, "Cyrus" is repeated a lot throughout the article. I fixed a few of them, but there are still some that look awkward when replaced with "she", so I left those alone. Someone else looking at the article might not think it necessary for it to be copyedited, but there a few interruptions in the flow to my eye.-RHM22 (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's it!-RHM22 (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article reads good now, and though I still think it could use a minor copyedit, I believe it should make "the climb" to featured article!-RHM22 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Nitpicks.

  • Non-print sources should not be italicized (e.g. MTV News, CNN etc)
  • Done.
  • See Ref 7
  • Done.
  • Ref 21: The source appears to be the recording of a song, yet the text cited to it seems to be mainly about Miley Cyrus's various changes of clothing. How does this work?
  • Ref 9: "MTV. Viacom"; Ref 25: "MTV. Getty Images". Why the difference?
  • Ref 35: Why the use of parentheses? - and "retrieved" rather than "Retrieved".
  • Done.
  • Ref 40: "retrieved" lower case
  • Done.

Otherwise sources seem to be OK, though I have not had time for any significant spotchecking. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Not too bad, mostly minor prose issues

  • The poster's FUR needs improving; "To provide a visual companion to an informative article" isn't really a good enough reason to use non-free content
    • Done.
  • "The tour was made" → The tour was held
    • Done.
  • "It began in September 2009 and concluded in December 2009, visiting cities in the United States and United Kingdom; thus, the Wonder World Tour became Cyrus' first world tour." - don't like the use of "thus" here as the two parts of the sentence aren't really related. Also maybe change "world" to "international"
    • Why doesn't it relate? It covered the United Kingdom, a new territory for her. Her last tour was also international because it covered Canada. This covers another continent and that is usually referred to as a "world tour". -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The current wording is slightly confusing as when I read it I thought it meant her first tour. Maybe I'm a bit thick, but it may be a good idea to stipulate that it was her first world tour but not her first tour?
  • "The full-length concert film was released on the limited, deluxe edition of Cyrus' third studio album" - no need for comma
  • "furthering her distance from Hannah Montana franchise" - needs a "the" before Hannah
    • Done.
  • "including Cyrus' then-active Twitter account" - remove "then-active"
  • Per MOS:CAPTION - captions that are full sentences require captions, those that are not do not
    • Done.
  • "the average rehearsal period is about three months" - for Cyrus? For pop musicians?
    • Done.
  • why is the Best of Both Worlds Tour linked in "Development"?
    • Done.
  • "It consisted of a rectangular main stage, which features staircases that elevate the center of the stage, a narrow runway, and a B-stage that runs the length of the main stage and connected to the main stage by the runway" - changes tense multiple times
    • Done.
  • "Cyrus noted that it's" - don't use contractions except in direct quotes
    • Done.
  • "multi-screen, video units" - why the comma?
    • Done.
  • "The structure of the video panels was designed by Jammal Sims" - do not need his first name as you have already mentioned him
    • Done.
  • "to go airborne" isn't flash prose
  • "asking them to bring their "hopes, wishes, and dreams."" - quotes should be followed directly by a ref
    • Done.
  • "Because it came along late in the design process, the main elevator was not built to handle the weight of the car" - I don't think you have mentioned any car before this (I may be wrong). Explain "the car"
  • "silver, flowing, evening gown" - no need for commas
    • Done.
  • I suggest you give the article a read-through and copy-edit it. I can give more examples for you to fix, if you wish.

Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Some more comments:[reply]

  • Unlink Trace Cyrus in the synopsis as it is linked beforehand
    • Done.
  • "[i]f there was any worries that Miley Cyrus" → "if there [were] any worries that Miley Cyrus"
    • Done.
  • The picture in the 'Bus accident' section is inappopriate here
  • "One person, Bill "Uncle Bill" Douglas, a 53-year-old of Austin, Texas, died at the scene of the accident" - mention his role in the tour
    • Done.
  • The 'Opening act' section should be in the 'Setlist' section (maybe a subsection?)
  • Who published the press release ref (#3)?
    • Done.
  • It is unclear that ref 14 is a video (I found out in the cite template). Is the video available online? How are readers able to access the video?
  • Ref 46 is a press release - use {{cite press release}}
    • Done.
  • Allmusic ref (#47) - Allmusic does not need to be italicised
    • Done.

Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibly oppose. I see a real problem with the boxscore references. Only two reference is used to justify them, but they neither have any issue date, nor any publication date. Furthermore, I have access to Billboard and can say that WW tour is present in 10 different issues. So that whole table fails WP:OR. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to do about it, quite frankly. I trusted that someone had added them with correct references. I don't know how to add it, nor do I have a subscription to Billboard magazine. I'm sorry, but can you please help? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can help, but it will take hell lot of time, something I dont think/not sure the FAC will cover. I think you know my present condition Ipod, hence... It really takes time to search billboard.biz archives. Note to you for future references, always ask editors like me or Eric—people who have access to archives—to check these things. — Legolas (talk2me) 12:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god, I had forgotten. I'm so sorry. I'll ask Eric for hep myself. I don't want to put a burden on you. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:24, 16 April 2011 [6].

Arado E.381

Nominator(s): Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 02:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel that it meets the citeria for featured articles, and because I have resolved all the issues raised in previous WikiProject A-class reviews and the previous featured article candidacy. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 02:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Former FAC here Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 02:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • Provide complete page range for Albrecht in its bibliography entry
    • Done
  • Spell out "Publishing" in MBI
    • Done
  • UK instead of England
    • Done

Images

  • File:Arado_234%2B381_parasite_aircraft.jpg - any further information on copyright status? Source link does not discuss author or copyright holder
    • Well, that's where it came from, if they don't have anything, don't ask me for anything.
  • File:Arado_E.381_I_3d.svg and File:Arado_E.381_I_3v.svg - are these drawings based on existing images or sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey WikiCopter, just letting you know I removed the templates you added above - per the instructions at the top of the FAC page, those shouldn't be used here. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per standard disclaimer, after giving Wikicopter the stink-eye in the first FAC. I reviewed this at the A-class review, and there's only been one edit since then. - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks for the stink-eye earlier (though it probably was justified). I didn't edit since the ACR since I didn't think I needed to do much. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 06:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 12:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the work you're doing responding to concerns. I have been weakly active the last week, I hope to speed up this week. FAC Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 21:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Comments a quick run through...

  • "Kleinstjäger" should really use the {{lang}} template for screen-readers. It's easy, free, and makes no visible change to most of us, but does tell the visually challenged that this is German.
    • Hiya RM. I need some educating on this one. If a blind person has trouble deciphering Kleinstjäger without the lang template, won't they have trouble with Luftwaffe, Flugzeugwerke and Messerschmitt? If they can't understand German, will it make a difference how the screen reader pronounces it? If they can, couldn't they follow links to the German Wikipedia? And most important, I think: if their screen reader knows that all the words are in either English or German, and can't figure out which, shouldn't they get a smarter screen reader? Google can generally pick the right language out of hundreds; choosing between two shouldn't be that hard. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey Dank. Well, the thing that stuck out in my mind was that, a little further on, we have [[Ministry of Aviation (Germany)|Ministry of Aviation]] ({{lang-de|Reichsluftfahrtministerium}}) which gave me a clue that the lang template was known and could be used. I'm far from an accessibility expert and unfortunately my stock expert (User:RexxS) has been offline a few days now, but I guess it boils down to whether FAC pay too much heed to WP:ACCESS or not. I don't have all the answers, I suppose all I'd like is some kind of consistency throughout the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • At MILHIST (except for just a few writers), we're generally not mentioning the foreign word unless the foreign word is used extensively in English sources. I'm very dubious that English sources would prefer "Reichsluftfahrtministerium" to "Ministry of Aviation"; would it be satisfactory to delete that German word and its lang template? - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arado Ar 234" could be linked in the lead.
    • Done.
  • "but the plane was cancelled" not keen on "plane", perhaps, "the development was cancelled".
    • Done.
  • "[3][1][4]" any reason why these citations shouldn't be numerically ordered?
    • Done.
  • You have parasite fighter in the infobox but that's not used in the lead, perhaps be clearer?
  • "exploited the Luftwaffe concept" suddenly Luftwaffe is italicised (it wasn't in the lead or the infobox..)
    • Done.
  • "The level of g-forces envisioned" shouldn't that be "the levels of g-force envisioned"?
  • "Arado E.381/I, Arado E.381/II, and Arado E.381/III. " not sure you need this, why not just "the marks I, II and III"?
  • "cancelled" is good BritEng, but "realized" is definitely not. Which WP:ENGVAR are you using?
    • Both are fine in AmEng. This is AmEng.
  • No need to continually re-bold the name of the aircraft.
    • Done.
  • Image in the specification section has no caption.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: RM's talk page says he's away, and I'd rather not ping him if he's busy. I'm reasonably sure we dealt with all his concerns. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did ping him, no reply. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments

Can you tell us a little more about what you want, Kirk? - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; In the lead, something like 'A parasite aircraft was a fighter aircraft carried by a larger aircraft, almost always a bomber, and was generally used to protect a bomber formation from fighter attacks and was preferred to a separate fighter formation because of X' I don'know the answer to X.
Somewhere in the article, explain they were first used with Zepplins and expand on X. Also, someone thought this was a good use of scarce resources: why?
More on this - my scarce resource comment is something I gathered from this statement in the lead section: ...eventually abandoned because of a shortage of Ar 234 mother ships and a lack of interest from the Ministry of Aviation. and those statements aren't supported in the body anywhere which is a problem. Also, the lead mentions twice the project was cancelled. Kirk (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also don't understand why the Arado Ar 234 was being used for this purpose; the article explains the bomber interception mission but the original idea of parasite fighters was for protecting bombers and the Arado Ar 234 was too fast to be intercepted by fighter aircraft, and weren't being flown in formations so why did they need parasite fighters? Or was this only to intercept bomber formations so in which case why use expensive Arado AR 234s? Hopefully this helps. Kirk (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, guys. Sorry I didn't get to this earlier. I would have replied on Wednesday, except some people (privacy refuses to let me disclose their identities) shut off the computer as I was about to submit. Afterwards, I went to Spokane, Washington and Couer d'Alene, Idaho. In fact, I'm still here. Here in Eastern Washington, I'll have relatively limited access to the internet, so excuse me if I don't get back for a week (plans to get back by the end of the next week).
AHEM. Now on to the FAC buisness...
X is expanded, please review. I don't remember that the Zepplins were used with this aircraft. Where are these aircraft mentioned as a good use of scarce German resources? To understand why the Germans used Ar 234s as the launch aircraft, go ask the Germans. The sources I used do not mention why. Yes, these aircraft were used to shoot down the enemy bombers, not the enemy fighters attacking their home plane. Sorry if I sound a little confusing, but I have limited time and have to run through all of the GA reviews I'm doing. FAC Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 04:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I crossed off the things I had above with the exception of the why part, which I expanded to address your concerns.Kirk (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the parasite aircraft article was better I wouldn't have had as much problem with your limited description - this aircraft was more of a parasite interceptor fighter instead of just 'fighter'; the role being intercepting bombers instead of fighters attacking fighters attacking a bomber formation but I doubt your sources made this distinction. Overall, good work!Kirk (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is balanced. It's not often that I see one-paragraph leads, but I think in this case it works just fine. Thanks for the good work and speedy responses!

  • The lead should, at the very least, mention the fact that the Arado E.381 came in three different flavors.
  • "Had the Arado E.381 been completed it would have been carried aloft by and launched from an Arado Ar 234 carrier aircraft to attack Allied aircraft, but the development was canceled." This leaves the reader wondering why the project was cancelled, a question that isn't answered until the end of the second paragraph. I suggest rearranging the lead material to inform the reader of the reasons for cancellation shortly after this sentence.
  • I think the most interesting/unusual feature of this design was the prone orientation of the pilot. This should definitely be mentioned in the lead.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great suggestions. I tackled two of them with this edit. For your middle point, I need to see how Wikicopter responds to Kirk's points. WC, as you know we've got a lot of German-speakers in the project with access to German sources, you might want to ask around. - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Kirk and Cryptic: Fixed; I also tweaked some awkward wording. FAC Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 20:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now on comprehensiveness grounds and lead clarity. I know very little about airplanes, and what I know about WWII details came mostly from other FAs, which may make me a good person to review this article.

  • Lead issues
    • I got lost on the second sentence of the lead. Had to reread that a few times to make it gel in my brain. I would recommend reorganizing this a bit. I'd mention it's cancellation first and then go into the would have beens...
    • I assume the comparison to the Messerschmitt Bf109 means something....because I have no idea what that type of aircraft is or why we'd compare its crosssesction. Is the Bf109 the biggest? the average?
    • Might be important to have the info about 3 possible designs at the beginning of the lead and not the end.
      • Above all done.
  • " Luftwaffe's concept of "gaining a tactical advantage by placing excessive stress on the man in the cockpit"" - huh? Why was placing excessive stress on someone a tactical advantage? Can this be fleshed out a little more?
    • Rennenberg and Walker says so. Argue with them.
  • Is there any information on why Arado and the others designed these. Did the Luftwaffe solicit them specifically? Was there a general call for a specific type of aircraft and Arado decided to participate? Did Arado already have a history of developing new planes for the Luftwaffe?
    • Sources on the way. Not sure.
  • Were parasite fighters common? Was this a new concept?
    • New concept. Clarified.
  • How many rounds of ammo was normal to carry? I see the "only" 45 and wondered.
    • Thousands. 60 could have been sent on its way to the enemy in a second or two.
  • Was the design not completed, or was the design not implemented? If they weren't completed, do we know what wasn't done?
    • I don't get your concern.
  • Were the other companies also designing parasites for the Ar 234s?
    • Not sure. Is this important, or just curiousity?
  • What was supposed to be done with the aircraft - and the pilot - when the plane landed?!?
    • Glide down, reuse (what else? Germany is strapped for resources, reuse is best).
  • Was there a height/weight requirement for the pilots? Since the bulges were located in specific spots, I wondered if there had been thought to how big the pilot would have to be.
    • No info.
  • Did the mark 3 have a hatch on the side and on the top? That's how i interpreted this, but that seemed excessive
    • I guess so. I'm not sure. Sources are on the way as above.
  • In the Mark II section, the fuselage is given in standard units first; everywhere else it's metric first
    • That's how it was given in the sources.
  • Did the process get so far as to let Arado eliminate some of the other competitors? Did they get close to being chosen as the final provider, or did the process not get that far?
    • It wasn't a competition.
  • What happened, if anything, after the project was cancelled? Were the designs just shelved? Was any part of this used in other aircraft? Was there anything revolutionary about the design that was carried forward elsewhere? Karanacs (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sorry to come to be a Jonny-come-lately, but I don't think this is quite the finished article yet. There appear to be some gaps/inconsistencies in the narrative, and the prose needs work in a few places. Some examples:

  • We're told in the Development section that the aircraft had room for "only forty-five 30 mm (1.2 in) rounds" (why "only"?), yet in the very next section that's apparently gone up to 60 rounds.
  • "The Mark II had similar features with the exception of having a larger overall size and smaller fins." Similar features to what? The Mark I? I'm not overly fond of "with the exception of" either.
    • Sorry I'm getting frustrated, but two late opposes can be draining... I noted that it is similar to the Mark I. I don't know why you don't like "with the exception of." What else could we say?
      • Your frustration is understandable. But my concern is with the quality of the article, and whether I believe it meets the FA criteria; the sentence is awkward. What about something like "The Mark II was similar to the Mark I, except for being larger and having smaller fins". (You don't "have" a size, you are a size.) Malleus Fatuorum 04:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As pilots could only enter from a hatch above the cockpit, the pilot would have had to enter the E.381 before it could be attached to the carrier Ar 234C and had no way to escape in case of an emergency." Presumably this is saying that the pilot had no means of escape while the aircraft was attached to its mother ship? But what about when it was in free flight? Could the pilot escape then? If not, then to suggest that the reason the pilot couldn't escape was because of the attachment to the carrier isn't correct.
    • Well, if that's what my sources say, what can I say? It doesn't say anything about free flight or gliding. I could assume that the aircraft could not be evacuated only when it was attached, but would reviewers allow that?
      • My point is that your ordering of the facts implies that pilots had no means of escape because the aircraft was mounted underneath its mother ship, but that's clearly not the case once it's in free flight. Malleus Fatuorum 04:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Arado E.381/II section is written very choppily.
  • "The aircraft's straight wings had a blister for a single MK 108 30 mm (1.2 in) cannon and 60[8] rounds." Why is the citation after "60" rather than at the end of the sentence? It's also rather unclear. The wings (plural) had a blister (singular)?
    • Blister underneath wings underneath fuselage. Cite fixed.
  • "... the fuselage deepened in the form of a hump which extended to the tail, which housed a single MK 108 cannon ...". Awkward.

Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fixed.

Comments—I have no knowledge of the subject matter, but my instincts say "lean oppose" because of the lack of polish, and concerns about comprehensiveness. I hadn't read the comments above before reviewing, so please forgive if I'm repeating. Sasata (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "…designed by Arado Flugzeugwerke in December 1944" the main article text does not mention when it was designed
  • "Each of the three proposed designs" what 3 designs? There's not enough context yet for this to be in the second sentence of the lead.
  • link Allied
  • "It was designed with a rocket engine to quickly close and fire on American and British bombers." I didn't know one could use a rocket engine to make designs. Or, (in an alternate interpretation), I was unaware that rocket engines could be used to "Close and fire" at enemies. Also, why is this sentence in the lead thrice reffed? Is it not cited in the article?
  • "… approximately a quarter of the cross section of the Messerschmitt Bf 109." What's the relevance of the comparison to this particular airplane?
  • link fuselage (earlier), point blank range
  • "According to their "specific design philosophy"" why do these three words need to be quoted?
  • "This is because the aircraft was cancelled, due to a lack of funds, mother aircraft Ar 234s and a lack of interest by the Ministry of Aviation[1][2][2][7][8]" clunky and confusing sentence; no fullstop at the end; ref 2 is cited twice
  • inconsistent display of units: "30 mm (1.2 in) rounds" vs. later "5-millimeter (0.20 in)"
  • what's a blister?
  • "… and 60 (other writers say 45) rounds[4][6]." discrepancy in # of rounds has already been mentioned; put punctuation before citations
  • why are the specs for only the E.381/I given? How about a comparative table showing the differences between the three versions? (as in the Spanish Wiki)
  • for consistency, should specify the publication states for Albrecht (2002) and Green (1971)
  • fix the doublestop at the end of Ford (2000)
  • why doesn't this article have the longitudinal section diagram shown in the Spanish Wiki article?
  • the Spanish version of the article gives some interesting data about resources needed for production that isn't included here
  • aren't there any German-language sources which have more information?


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

The article was not promoted by Nikkimaria 01:04, 13 April 2011 [7].

Battle of Wau

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A minor but important battle in the South West Pacific in New Guinea during the Second World War. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NB: One disambig link is in the "For other uses" at the top. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Do we really need that long two-paragraph quote from White?
  • Spell out or link acronyms like NAA
  • Missing bibliographic information for Watson 1958, Kenney 1949, Byrd 1997
  • Need publishers for web citations
  • Bibliographic information for Yoshihara is repeated
  • Notes 24, 29: formatting
  • Be consistent in how multiple editors are formatted
  • Publisher for Yoshihara?

In general, reference formatting needs a bit of work for consistency. Haven't done spotchecks, will do later if no one else beats me to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very limited spotchecking found no close paraphrasing; however, I don't have access to many of the sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    • I know it looks like a spelling error, but Ernest Mustard changed his name to Mustar later in life. See: Diane, Langmore (2002). "Mustar, Ernest Andrew (1893 - 1971)". Australian Dictionary of Biography. Canberra: National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. p. 655. ISBN 978-0-522-84459-7. ISSN 1833-7538. OCLC 70677943. Retrieved 29 March 2011. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Image review

  • Captions could use editing for clarity.
  • The lead caption is copied almost verbatim from this source
  • File:Salamaua-Lae.jpg - any further information on this image's source?
  • File:Wau_Map.jpg - "However, not all materials in our holdings are in the public domain. Some materials found in our holdings may be copyrighted. Please note that it is your responsibility to identify the copyright owner and to obtain permission before making use of this material in any way." Have you ascertained that this specific image was created by a US Army employee?
    • Yes, it too is part of the Reports of General MacArthur. It was prepared by his staff in the late 1940s from a captured Japanese map. The reports were handed over to DOD in 1953 and published in 1966. The reports are in the public domain, as, for that matter, is the original Japanese map. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Wirraway_at_Wau_AWM128154.jpeg - caption for this image is copied almost verbatim from this source. This type of pl*giarism is quite concerning, given that as mentioned above I don't have access to many of the sources used for the article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hawkeye has a PhD in military history. These days, reviews in academia often involve gsearches to see if the candidate has ever been accused of anything nasty, and if they know he's called "Hawkeye" and they search for "pl*giarism", this will show up ... or it would have if I hadn't just edited your comment, Nikki. Please be careful with incendiary words; these days, nothing on the internet ever goes away. The word pl*giarism means, to anyone other than a few Wikipedia editors, deliberately attempting to pass off someone else's work as your own. No one who links to the exact caption that they're citing, and then submits the article for a careful image review, is attempting to pass off someone else's work as their own. Now, to the substance: the caption in the article is: "A Wirraway of No. 4 Squadron RAAF in flames after being set on fire by a near miss in the Japanese raid on Wau." Linked caption is: "WAU, NEW GUINEA. 1943-02-06. A WIRRAWAY FROM NO. 4 SQUADRON IN FLAMES AFTER BEING BLASTED AND SET ON FIRE BY A NEAR MISS IN THE JAPANESE RAID AT WAU. THE CREW, FLIGHT SERGEANT A. RODBURN AND SERGEANT A. E. COLE, SCRAMBLED FROM THE AIRCRAFT ONLY A FEW SECONDS EARLIER AND THREW THEMSELVES FLAT ON THE GROUND. COLE RECEIVED A MINOR SHARPNEL WOUND IN THE SHOULDER. (PHOTOGRAPH REPRODUCED IN OFFICIAL HISTORY VOLUME: RAAF 1939-42, PAGE 611). (RAAF - WAU5/6)." The only part that's problematic is: "set on fire by a near miss in the Japanese raid". Agreed, my sense of WP's copyright policy is that that's too much; it needs to be reworded. And I have no objection to using the word "copyright" here, that's very unlikely to turn up in a gsearch of Hawkeye's edits 10 years from now. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point taken about the wording; however, given that the other caption mentioned above is also a near-verbatim copy, I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed (although not one that should have real-world repercussions). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for being gracious about it; I regretted coming at you with both barrels, but this issue just doesn't die on Wikipedia and it's very frustrating. It affects morale. Agreed that Hawkeye needs to address this, and thanks for bringing it up. I'm not personally concerned that this is a pattern of his, based on his extensive work; I think this is a rare thing. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. A-class review is here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's possible reviewers will object to the length of the block quote; if so, I'd paraphase the first paragraph of the block quote and keep the second paragraph.
  • Don't add dashes to sentences with no commas per WP:EMDASH.
    • Except that there are still two instances in the next paragraph, where I would have used commas. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right; when there's more than one thing to fix in a sentence, and at least one of them needs input, I generally just leave it until the questions are answered. - Dank (push to talk)
  • The one instance of this that I left alone was the sentence containing "a maximum effort at the time"; I think I'd like something more specific than that. Was it all the planes available, all the crews available, or something else?
    • All the aircraft that could be made flyable.
  • Is "low clouds" or "low cloud cover" acceptable? I didn't like "low cloud", though I might not know what it means.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has withdrawn this nomination. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Nikkimaria 14:35, 11 April 2011 [8].

Livonian War

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Comments on comprehensiveness and neutrality

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)[reply]
Good enough reason to link the treaty there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]


  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • "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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]


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

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:32, 8 April 2011 [9].

John Y. Brown (1835–1904)

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Images

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments moved to talk page

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Switching to oppose. Kirk (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its closer now but the note needs citations; I'll check back tomorrow. Kirk (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Both fixed. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:27, 8 April 2011 [10].

Luke Schenn

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

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)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

Image review


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 [11].

Tintin in the Land of the Soviets

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]
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)[reply]
"Repolarisation" not "repopularisation". Wow, I completely missed that. I'll correct it in the article. {Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Right, I have gone through the article and added in ndashes for page ranges. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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))[reply]

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

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)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:08, 8 April 2011 [12].

Economy of Iran

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done. SSZ (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:05, 8 April 2011 [13].

Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)

Nominator(s): Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 04:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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."
  • "According to Ryan Dombal . . . reported by him": two attributions in one sentence.
  • Not sure of some of the sourcing; for eg: a tabloid for musical analysis.
  • "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".
  • 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."

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:02, 8 April 2011 [14].

Eazy-E

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

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)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment: no dabs, one dead link found and repaired. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:57, 8 April 2011 [15].

Juliette Binoche

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:28, 3 April 2011 [16].

Better Than Today

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

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)[reply]

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

  • "Pop, synthpop": that's a redundancy. I think synthpop should suffice?
  • "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".
  • 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".
  • 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?
  • Overlinking: laser beams, microphone stand, etc.—indopug (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:26, 2 April 2011 [17].

Introduction to evolution

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

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)[reply]

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.
  • 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 ("—").
  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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
  • 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."
  • Multiple inconsistencies in reference formatting
  • 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)[reply]

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.
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:21, 2 April 2011 [18].

Hershey–Chase experiment

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/April_2011&oldid=424290125"