Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archive 5
archive 2
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==May 2011==
==May 2011==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dreaming of You (album)/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Broadband Network/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aldermaston/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aldermaston/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dragon Quest/archive3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dragon Quest/archive3}}

Revision as of 14:14, 3 May 2011

May 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 14:14, 3 May 2011 [1].

Dreaming of You (album)

Nominator(s): AJona1992 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because an editor has fixed prose errors that kept the article from being passed as a "GA" and "FA". I have expanded and fixed grammar errors as much as I could do. If there are any more concerns please let me know and I will try my best to fix them. AJona1992 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've fixed the formatting of your nomination - you seem to have edited the material above "please don't edit anything above here". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me about that. Thanks for fixing it for me :) AJona1992 (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I came across that, however, I can't find which citation is it so I know where to replace it. If someone can tag the ones as "deadlink" it would be helpful for me to quickly find the sources (knowing theres more out there) so I can get this situated. AJona1992 (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - you've done some good work on this article, but I still don't feel it meets the FA criteria

  • "Throughout her interviews, Selena stated that the album was going to be released sometime in 1994. Selena was questioned by many of her fans and interviewers about the album's release date; however, following the release of Amor Prohibido, she stated that the album was still being developed." - source?
  • You've got both one-sentence and huge paragraphs - try to find a happy medium
  • WP:MOS edits needed - WP:HYPHEN/WP:DASH, WP:OVERLINK, etc
  • What is considered a "major" crossover?
  • This article's prose has improved, but it could use further copy-editing for grammar, flow and clarity. Some examples: "During a lunch break in 1994, Selena began crying due to the pressures of the press about her album to Jose Behar", "everyone in the world is saliently asleep", "generates influences of '80s synthpop, electro and fast Rock song"
  • Make sure that the wording is neutral and avoids colloquialisms and informal tone
  • Reference formatting needs to be cleaned up - make sure everything is consistent and includes all the required info. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have fixed the ones you specifically asked. For your last question, are you asking me to delete the ones that aren't in use (e.g. dui, date, author name). Which sentences are you referring to and what do you mean by "medium"? AJona1992 (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article fails at least points 1a, 1c, 2c and 3 of WP:WIAFA. I know you've put in a great deal of work to this article, but it still needs more, particularly on the prose. I know you've been told this before, and you've tried to sort it, but I really think you need help from someone else. A few examples of issues:

  • "Vibe stated that the album was a brief recap of her cumbia flavored, Tex-Mex excellent poignant glimpse of the path the album was taking at the time of its release."
    • Vibe should be in italics.
    • Vibe didn't write the review, Ed Morales did.
    • The sentence is an extremely close paraphrase of the source material (and a copyright violation); it needs either to be substantially rewritten in your own words, or presented as a direct quote.
    • In what I presume is an attempt to avoid copyright violation, you've removed one or two words which makes the sentence awkward and difficult to understand.
  • "Los Angeles Times placed the album number one of their top ten albums of 1995."
    • The Los Angeles Times
    • I can't see in the source where it says the album was "number one of their top ten albums of 1995". It seems to be saying something different.
  • "While Behar thrived for his plans into action, SBK Records prepared Selena with experienced music producers who head-geared the entire project."
    • I'm not sure what "thrived for his plans into action" means, or "head-geared" in this context.
  • "It's lyrics is driven about a women who is being captivated and controlled by her partner."
    • Its has no possessive apostrophe
    • Lyrics is plural
    • "driven about"?
  • At Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music samples), it states that non-free samples should be "10% of the length of the original song up to a maximum of 30 seconds" File:Selena-DreamingOfYou-wiki.ogg is 34 seconds long, File:Selena 06 Missing My Baby Dreaming of You.ogg is 35 seconds long, File:Selena - Only Love.ogg is 31 seconds long
  • The reference currently at #76 says "Patoski page 187". Not only is this stylistically inconsistent (compared to eg. "p. 144" in #18), there is no other mention of a Patoski in the sources, so I have no idea what this source is.

Sorry, but this appears to be far from being GA standard still, let alone FA. --BelovedFreak 10:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Why is it closing? I'm still working on fixing the issues that Belovedfreak has written. AJona1992 (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have fixed all issues that Belovedfreak was kind to enough to address here. I also added a "Further Reading" section to identify the two books that I had used in the article for other editors to know what "Patoski Page 187" etc., is about. I have reduced the time length that WP:MUSICSAMPLES identifies for length maximum. Like all other updated versions, it may take up to an hour for the samples to play the their new versions. If there is anything else that needs to be addressed please do so here. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 18:11, 3 May 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 14:14, 3 May 2011 [2].

National Broadband Network

Nominator(s): -- d'oh! [talk] 03:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article meets FA criteria. -- d'oh! [talk] 03:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the rollout just beginning and with the NTU being custom-made by NBN Co photos of the unit is very limited. I know its not a solid reason so there will be no dramas if the image is removed. -- d'oh! [talk] 01:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the hardware is available to the public? I'm not certain the use of a non-free image is appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I take your point. -- d'oh! [talk] 02:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • It says "One 2.5Gbps fibre cable". I recommend this be revised to 'One fibre-optic cable with a bandwidth of 2.5 Gbit/s'
  • It says "2.3GHz". It needs a space before the unit name.

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- d'oh! [talk] 01:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the technical content looks solid enough, there are problems with the presentation of this article.

  • The lead is supposed to be a broad summary of the article's content. Here, we have 700 or so words of considerable detail from the outset. Since none of this is cited, I assume that the same detail is given in the article. That's a waste of words. The lead needs to be rewritten in broad summary fashion, observing the guidelines of WP:LEAD. This should reduce the lead length by about half
  • Images: It is odd that, with only two images amid a sea of prose, you have positioned them in a way that breaks anoher MOS guideline, by squeezing the prose between the two. The non-free inage will probably have to go, which will solve that problem. But I strongly recommend that the other image, your own excellent chart, is promoted to the lead. That would give the article a much more attractive first impression,
  • Retrieval dates: I haven't carried out a sources check, but it seems you have not added retrieval dates to your online sources. This is a FAC rquirement.

I have not had time to read the article thoroughly, but the above points will, I believe, need to be addressed before the article can be considered for promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead was cut in half, the non-free image was dropped and the chart was promoted. Although I didn't add the retrieval dates because the sources are news articles, reports and investigative reports which all has there own dates, so having a retrieval date is redundant. -- d'oh! [talk] 10:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - while I appreciate your efforts on this article, I don't feel it currently meets the standard required for promotion to FA status. Below are some examples of specific concerns:

  • Given the length of the article, the lead is still on the long-and-detailed side
  • WP:MOS edits needed - "%" should be spelled out in article text, WP:HYPHEN/WP:DASH, etc
  • Article needs copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow. For example, "two Ka band satellites is due to launch by 2015, although an interim satellite is due to launch in July 2011" - grammatical error, repetition
  • WP:OVERLINK - don't wikilink very common terms like business
  • This article could be more accessible to non-specialists. For examples, what is a "Heads of Agreement"? What is the role of the ACCC?
  • Ref 3: formatting
  • Magazine and newspaper titles should be italicized
  • Multi-page PDFs need page numbers
  • Regarding retrieval dates: online news stories are frequently updated or corrected, so the retrieval date isn't redundant. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have done the formatting, overlink and some copy-editing. Explaining "Heads of Agreement" and ACCC will go outside the scope of the article, which is why they are linked (or should be linked, ACCC link was lost during the lead cut down). I will take a day to do a copy-edit and fix the cites, but could you go into detail on why ref 3 is not formatted correctly? Also I could have missed it but I do not remember putting in magazine or newspaper titles, so could you point them out? -- d'oh! [talk] 15:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Punctuation on ref 3, titles in references. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I am still missing the the issue as the punctuation is set by the {{Citation}} template. Although e.g The Australian is a newspaper it is also an online website, of which the latter is used as a source. -- d'oh! [talk] 02:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you perhaps using a different template for that ref than for the others? It doesn't match. The website is also a work and should be italicized - it's an online publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all of your concerns about the article, please let me know if you still have them.[3] -- d'oh! [talk] 04:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great comments so far and please keep them coming as they are very helpful. -- d'oh! [talk] 04:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. Thanks Lightmouse (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—not well-written. Encouragement to improve this, because then my hope is that you'll go around improving other articles in the telecom/communications field, which are appallingly written. Here are issues just in the lead, indicating that the prose throughout needs to be transformed. Who else in the area is a word-nerd? Do you know how to locate such people?
  1. I've fixed the worst typographical clangers in Open-access network, and added copyedit tag to that and related articles.
  2. So, hyphens, please, and initial caps only where it's a title, not just spelt-out abbreviation (not "Retail Service Providers", for example, or "Point of Interconnect"—these are just bad habits repeated from engineery text ... sorry, I'm not being rude to the nominator—unless these things are pointed out, it's easy to be swayed).
  3. gigagitS per second? Pipe needed?
  4. It's under construction, not just planning, isn't it?
  5. MOSNUM: numerals for two-digit numbers. 12
  6. "Layer two" services ... don't know, but I'd have thought "Layer 2": it's really odd otherwise.
  7. "election-promised NBN"
  8. If it really is in Australian English, why "canceled"?
  9. the owner of ... then remove "being".
  10. Remove comma after "Tasmania".
  11. "with services going live in July 2010, while the trial services on the mainland went live on 19 April 2011." -> with live services from July 2010; the trial services on the mainland went live on 19 April 2011.
  12. "The first wireless services are planned to be delivered from mid-2012, while two satellites are due to launch by 2015; however, the RFP for the fibre rollout was cancelled as the prices were "unacceptably high", but another options are being explored." Ref tag for the first claims? Try to avoid "while" as a connector. "to be launched"? However then but? Another options? This is not good.
  13. one of the fathers of the Internet ... reference? Who's doing the recognising? And it's an s, not a z, in AusEng. Could you adjust your Windows Word settings so you get a spellcheck variety tab each time you open a document?
  14. IT ... hardly needs to be cited as an abbreviation, it's so common. Which businesses? Comma after "of the Internet". What survey, when?
  15. "the Labor, Greens and independents support the project while the Coalition oppose it"—remove "the" or insert "parties" in the correct place. "opposeS".
  16. "The Coalition's main objection is the use of government funds, instead arguing for less government intervention to achieve the same benefits." The two clauses don't match grammatically. What is the subject?Tony (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For #4 see the talk page, the rest I have fixed up in the lead and — where I could spot them — in the body. I will go through the body again later day to fix any I missed. — [d'oh] 15:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — [d'oh] 07:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't quite understand why common words such as "infrastructure" and "election promise" should be linked. I had a go at that sentence, which was clumsy, so please check what I did (I don't think I got it right).
  • I see spaced eM dashes — like that — which need to be either unspaced, or spaced eN dashes – like that.
  • Canceled, US spelling, is still there ... And further down, "labeled".
  • Generally it's overlinked now. And there was a comma splice that I fixed.
  • THE owner of the. Didn't I point that out above? And when was their review? A year, please? More explicit timings in the background ... even just a few.
  • "the network aimed to reach 98 per cent of the population with access sold under uniform prices with an allowance for providers to sell access to the market with different technical advantages such as access speeds and quality of service." Isn't it people who aim, not networks? "The aim of the network was to" is idiomatic. Then "with ... with"; that word often has a comma before it, too.
  • "third-parties"—it's not a double adjective, so no hyphen.
  • I've never seen so much nowrap template; it's ok, I suppose, but makes it a thick forest to hack through in edit mode.
  • This is almost indigestible: "A heads of agreement was signed by NBN Co, the Australian Government and Telstra in June 2010 to provide compensation for the gradual decommissioning of the existing copper network; estimated to be worth A$11 billion to Telstra and benefits NBN Co by the transfer of existing customers, eliminating a wholesale competitor and providing access to existing infrastructure." It should be a comma, not a semicolon. But the sentence is too long anyway, so why not allow the semicolon by making the second part a stand-alone sentence? "... network; this was estimated to be ...".

Everywhere I look, more needs doing. Tony (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. note — [d'oh] 11:36, 3 May 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 16:38, 1 May 2011 [4].

Aldermaston

Nominator(s): matt (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria for featured articles, and is modelled on a number of existing FA for places. A lot of feedback has been given on the quality of the article, including two peer reviews and a successful good article nomination. A number of MOS improvements have been made since the GA review, and other general content edits have added to the quality of the article since then. matt (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Driveby comment: I am not convinced that File:Aldermaston Petrol.png meets the NFCC. Yes, it's an important subject worthy of discussion in the article, but the image does not add a great amount. Obviously, I would have no objection to the use of the image if it was demonstrated to be free, but, until then, its use will have to meet the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Citations to web sources need access dates
  • Ref 15, 16, etc: page(s)? All citations to multi-page works should generally include page numbers
  • Ref 21, 82, 141: which APC 2007? Check for others
  • What is AONB? Spell out or link potentially unfamiliar acronyms and abbreviations
  • Missing bibliographic info for Aldermaston Parish Council 2005
  • No footnotes to BBC Berkshire 2007a, Berkshire Family History Society, check for others
  • Use a consistent template for Further reading
  • Bartholomew 1887: any further bibliographic info available?
  • Birmingham UK or US? Where is Slough? etc. If you're going to include counties, do it for all UK locations outside of London
  • Why do you include full first names in Further reading but not Sources?
  • What kind of publication is Campbell 1982?
  • Publisher for Caiger-Smith 2009?
  • This link appears to be broken
  • Be more consistent in what is italicized when
  • What makes this a reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Image captions should meet same standards for prose, consistency, MoS, verifiability, etc as article text
  • File:Berks-West.png - what source was used to create this map? Is it based on a pre-existing image?
  • File:Aldermaston_Petrol.png - FUR could stand to be elaborated. What is the date of creation of the video, for example?
  • File:Aldermaston_population_nokey.svg - what data source was used to create this graph? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other than the large clue provided by its name, the body of the article does not explain what AWE does. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. matt (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through the article again, I think relegating AWE to a mention in an "other business" subsection of Economy downplays its role in the local economy far too much. The place name is synonymous with the nuclear facility, just like, say, Sizewell or Heysham. According to the AWE website, it employs 4,500 directly and 2,000 contractors. In a place with a resident population of less than 1,000 that is dominant to say the least. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A look through the top parts showed problems that should definitely have been fixed by now. I suggest a thorough cleansing and renomination.
  1. 927 people? Sure that's not 929 or 923 now? Too exact, per MOSNUM. Nearly a thousand would be better, but when? "as of 2011"?
  2. Very blue at the top: why not unlink "South East England", since "Berkshire" will contain a link to that broader target anyway? The infobox region, country, sovereign state is like a taxonony, or a postal envelope: do we really need so much low-value information, given that the more specific items are linked and there's an inset in the map?
  3. I still object to the miles first, km conversion, in UK articles. The BBC has gone over to km: why this old-fogy resistance to change? Please don't quote at me the prescription for utter mess that pervades road signs etc in the UK at the moment: we don't have to stoop to that. [this is a personal comment, not actionable in terms of the FAC process; and I'm sorry to be rude ... don't take it personally.]
  4. MOSLINK says try not to bunch up links, and link to the most specific item: why not link just the second, more specific item? Who is going to rush to the article on the US Airforce when reading this article? "United States Air Force XIX Tactical Air Command".
  5. "Radiocarbon dating on a number of postholes and pits found in the area show activity from 1690–1390"—remove "found". Does "a number of" add anything to the plural "postholes"?
  6. Possibly The remains of wheat ... (where there's an "of" to the right, put a "the" to the left ... doesn't always work, but usually).
  7. "Before the 1066 Norman conquest of England the land and properties of"—comma after "England"?
  8. Tense: "Before the 1066 Norman conquest of England the land and properties of Aldermaston had formed part of the estates of Harold Godwinson, the Earl of Wessex, who would later become King Harold II of England." I'd be inclined to remove the "had" and make it "who later became".
  9. "remainder of the reign"—ayn ayn. Try "rest of" to remove what Fowler called a "jingle".
  10. World War I: linked twice in the space of three seconds. Why at all? It's rather too broad to be useful, and if a reader doesn't know what it was, they should go to bed and read for a year before emerging.
  11. "Of the 100 men from the village that served in"—were they robots? "who".
  12. Remove one word: "with many lots being purchased by their occupiers"
  13. See MoS on section titles: "Post-war" what?
  14. "village valued the village's" Tony (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tony – I'll have a proper look through your suggestions when I've got more time. Which points are you referring to at the top which ought to have been fixed? I'm still working on the image (to find out whether it's PD or not, and whether it can be justified as fair use) and have removed it for the time-being, but I've gone through all of Nikkimaria's points to touch stuff up. Thanks, matt (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a quick zip through your points and done some changes. Cheers, matt (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, my points are only examples to support my view that the whole text needs a run-through. Is there someone else in the field who's a word-nerd and can c-e it with the benefit of strategic distance? Tony (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It has a table titled "Historical population of Aldermaston" containing blue text. This makes it look like it contains links. I tried clicking on them to see where they went but then realised they were just aesthetic. I suggest the blue is converted to black.
  • It says "The confluence of the rivers is approximately 0.6 miles (0.97 km) north of the village." and "The Butt Inn, is located approximately 1.25 miles (2.01 km) north-east of the village". As is common on Wikipedia, the term 'approximately' is followed by an apparently precise statistic. This creates an apparent contradiction. In any case, it's excessive precision to say '0.97 km' and '2.01 km' for the distance between a village and a river, or a village and a pub. The apparent precision should be reduced and/or the term 'approximately' removed. It's probably enough precision to quote the distances as 1 km and 2 km.
  • It says "Post-World War II. During the 1940s..." The text relating to the 1940s doesn't belong in that section. The section titles could do with a review. Perhaps the date related theme of 'Middle ages' could be continued and replace 'Victorian era' with '19th century' and replace 'Post-World War II' with '20th century onwards'.
  • I don't know what the term 'Toponymy' means. It's only used once and no explanation is provided. Is a plain English term available?

Hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 23:22, 26 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 16:38, 1 May 2011 [5].

Dragon Quest

Nominator(s): 陣内Jinnai 17:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to get this or DW article as a FA before the May 25th anniversary for TFD. The article has gone through a recent FAC and failed, but did have some support already. There was concern about the use of general references in the article, which I'd like to address here.

Do to its length, I've moved my long-winded speech on general reference use to the article's talk page so it doesn't bloat this nomination.陣内Jinnai 17:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image and deadlink review
Article has two images; both with good and proper fair-use rationale. No deadlinks.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I began reading the article, I wondered this could possibly be considered an FA, but as I read further I realized all the important information was there; the organization of said information is just really wonky for me. Discussing common elements between games before discussing the history and impact of the series, or even introducing the games themselves, seems really odd to me. I think someone who knows little or nothing about the series would be completely lost if he read the article from top to bottom. I am curious why this structure was chosen. I am leaning towards oppose on those grounds alone, but I do not believe this is a fatal flaw. I would be happy to take a crack at reorganizing the article a bit, but don't want to step on any toes. Indrian (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was changed after a request by David Fuchs during the last FAC. Since video games typically discuss the gaemplay elements and plot first, and DF requested the change, its my opinion that this request better mirrors the general VG article structure.陣内Jinnai 03:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I disagree, but nothing will be served by a couple of editors going back and forth on what is at the end of the day a relatively minor structural change. Consider my concerns satisfied then. Indrian (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - With all the efforts going into the article, it looks good for FA status. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would it be possible to replace the Dragon Quest III image with something that perhaps depicts more content? I think that it may be best to use something with a background or more graphical detail such as the image used in Dragon Warrior or an image from recent games. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not beholden with that image so long as the rationale is the same, but do you have an idea?陣内Jinnai 15:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd imagine that the one used in Dragon Warrior would be better; has more detail, illustrates just as much, and the image itself is an icon of the series. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the fact that this battle image also has a landscape for a background and not a black screen. Other than simply looking better this concept is as far as I know something that every game in the series has used since the 5th game. That means that this picture will also be more reflective of the battle screens that the more recent games has used as well as the remakes of the older games. Personally I would used the other image.--76.66.182.228 (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry. The prose is below FA quality and the article needs an overhaul. It is difficult not to compare this to Halo 3, which is professionally written and engaging even to readers such as me, who do not play these games. I am reluctant to give examples because the tendency is often to address them alone. But since opposition must be actionable here are a few:

  • From the Notes section: "In every game except Dragon Quest VI the blue slime is encountered in the first overworld area with monsters—in Dragon Quest VII the first overland area has no monster encounters—the players explore." The entry between the emdashes is redundant and should be replaced with "that". "Monster encounters" also sounds wrong.
  • Here the logic is wrong, "The lack of save points and the general difficulty of the battles were included with the intention of adding a sense of tension." Absent concepts such as "save points" (whatever these may be) cannot be included.
  • This is strange, "The first four Dragon Quest titles..in their North American localizations". What does "North American Localizations mean?
  • Here we have "localizations again, " In May 2008 Square Enix announced localizations of the Nintendo DS remakes of Dragon Quest IV".
  • "before they beat the game"? Win the game?
  • "leveling requires grinding"? "levelling"?

I think the article would benefit from a fresh pair of eyes. Graham Colm (talk) 10:07, 30 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 16:38, 1 May 2011 [6].

Abraham Lincoln

Nominator(s): Guy546(Talk) 17:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is a great article about a great president. I have contacted top contributor Carmag4 about this and he has approved of me nominating this. I have put this through a peer review and everything put up has been fixed. The last nomination has no consensus and no opposes. Thanks. Guy546(Talk) 17:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:FFA, has been on main page

Coemgenus part one

Fair enough. Here are some comments:

Nikkimaria

Source review spotchecks not done

Coemgenus part one and a half

A few more comments

Resolved comments. I was concerned by the overuse of short quotations throughout the article. I am quite pleased with the solutions that Carmarg and I were able to come implement, and have since moved my resolved concerns to the FAC talk page to avoid clutter. Also, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to those who have so clearly poured their efforts into this most vital of articles. Cheers! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Brad

Comments

Coemgenus part two

More comments:

Still more comments:

  • In the last paragraph of "1860 election" the sentence with the phrase "the Confederacy was an established area," is awkward, especially that clause.
  • In "War begins," I'd link David Herbert Donald and mention that he's an historian.
  • In the last paragraph of that section, "angry secessionist mobs" could probably lose the "angry". Mobs are usually not happy.
    • Fixed.
  • Also in that paragraph, Merryman asked Taney for a writ of habeus corpus, but it doesn't say whether he issued it.
  • In "Assuming command...", the first sentence is awkward. I'd suggest "Lincoln was faced with an unprecedented crisis, and he responded using unprecedented powers that no President had previously wielded." Doesn't have to be that exact language, but something on those lines would work better, I think.
  • The clause about mourning Willie seems out of place in the second paragraph.
  • "Lincoln's efforts to rein him in were futile, and he was given another command in November. This decision, in part, prevented the secession of Kentucky while incurring the violence in the North." I'm not sure what's going on here. Fremont's radicalism kept Kentucky in the Union? I don't have Donald's biography at hand, so I can't check it out for myself (I read it, but years ago) but if that's what he says, I guess it's OK. It's just a bit unclear from the sentences.
  • The fourth and fifth paragraphs could be combined -- they're both short and both on foreign policy.
  • In the sixth paragraph, I just hate the word "numerous" where "many" could do the job. If you think that's crazy or out of line, leave it be, but I think simpler words sound better. Again, just a suggestion.
  • In the same paragraph, hyphenate "well defended".
  • In the last sentence of that paragraph, you might mention that the idea of controlling the Mississippi came from Winfield Scott and that Lincoln benefitted from Scott's advice early in the war. Then again, if you want to save space, feel free to leave it out.
  • That's it, more later. Despite these comments, I'm enjoying the article so far. --Coemgenus 14:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more comments:

A few more:

Anythingyouwant

Comment - Thought I'd wander over here from the Frank Buckles FAR. I've been stuck on my iPhone the past few days, and this thing is too small for such a huge subject as Abe Lincoln. So, I'll just make a few tentative comments for now. Possibly the most stirring line ever uttered by any incumbent US President was the one about the "better angels of our nature". You quote it, but why not a blockquote? Incidentally, I think he signed off on Yosemite, the world's first national park? Maybe worth mentioning, maybe not. Same goes for these factoids: patented inventor, born same day as Charles Darwin, had symptoms consistent with Marfan's Syndrome, like Washington has no living descendants, Teddy Roosevelt watched his casket go through NYC. Anyway, please consider doing the angels blockquote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considerations with respect to blockquote – the use of block quotes has not been urged up to this point; if we do one quote, we'll undoubtedly have to do many others. We are already up there in article size. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Patented inventor is included. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can add link to his birthday. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marfan's syndrome - Donald indicates the evidence was not sufficient to conclude AL had it. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies. See Yosemite_National_Park#Yosemite_Grant and sources cited therein. There is continuing speculation about whether Lincoln suffered from various disorders, and plans are afoot to find out for sure. See Newsweek. Regarding blockquotes, another option might be a quote box. If there is consensus about the one or two greatest sentences he ever uttered, then there would be no obligation to treat other quotes equally, IMO. By the way, here's a reliable source giving Lincoln and Darwin joint credit for ushering in the modern world. No pressure to include any of this, they're just ideas for you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yosemite Park added with cite. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on a nice big desktop computer for a little while, so will try to give this article a quick read.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent)Okay, I know you have been waiting in suspense for my comments.  :-) I'll start now with the lead....

  • I would delete "greatest constitutional, military, and moral crisis". This is highly debatable, considering the founding era, and defeating the axis powers (and some might even say that the country is presently in its greatest moral crisis). I suggest below adding some stuff to the lead, but this is definitely something that can be removed without any problem. So: "He successfully led the country through the American Civil War, preserving the Union while ending slavery and promoting economic modernization." Certainly, promoting economic modernization in the 1860s was not some huge crisis that dwarfed the Great Depression.
  • You say "Lincoln closely supervised the war effort, especially the selection of top generals, including Ulysses S. Grant." I'd expand this slightly to say what's so special about Grant: "Lincoln closely supervised the war effort, especially the selection of top generals, including his most successful general, Ulysses S. Grant."
    • We need to be careful here - potential conflicting POV's over who was the "most successful" general. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. And yet something should be said to briefly distinguish Grant from all the others. Following are some quotes from Google Books:
(1) "Grant was Lincoln's military alter ego"
(2) "Grant was Lincoln's favorite general"
(3) "Grant was Lincoln's friend and Lincoln's heir"
(4) "Grant was Lincoln's favourite general"
(5) "US Grant was Lincoln's greatest general"
(6) "Grant was Lincoln's only general who consistently won victories"
Would one of those work?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll find a descriptive term from AL; that should do it. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Used the facts. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facts can sometimes be useful in a pinch.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say, "He defused a confrontation with Britain in the Trent affair late in 1861." I'd rephrase to give the readers a clue why they should care: "He defused the Trent affair in 1861, which had threatened to bring British recognition of the Confederacy."
  • You say, "Just six days after the decisive surrender of the commanding general of the Confederate army, Lincoln was shot and killed...." I'd explicitly mention Lee (you mention Grant twice in the lead): "Just six days after the decisive surrender of Confederate commander Robert E. Lee, Lincoln was shot and killed...."
  • You say, "Lincoln has consistently been ranked by scholars as one of the greatest U.S. presidents." Please modify to something like this: "Lincoln has consistently been ranked by scholars as one of the greatest, if not the single greatest, of U.S. presidents." See Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States.

Cheers, maybe more comments later about the rest of the article, if time allows.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There, now, that wasn't so painful, was it?  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I appreciate the changes to the lead. The Yosemite edit was nice too, but feel free to remove it if you think best. I think it's okay, but there are counterarguments.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:I would like to flag something else in the lead. Lincoln's use of "patronage" when he was president is mentioned not once but twice in the lead, which may be excessive, especially because "patronage" doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the body of the article, except in reference to him seeking a position in the 1830s (as head of the General Land Office which later helped establish protection for a certain forested area in California). I decided to be bold, and have edited the article like this to solve the problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Carmarg4 (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*(Undent) I'd like to continue making a few comments now and then as I'm able. Consider this material in the article:

The family belonged to a Separate Baptists church, which had high moral standards and opposed alcohol, dancing, and slavery,[10] though Thomas, as an adult, never joined a church. Thomas "enjoyed considerable status" in Kentucky, where he sat on juries, appraised estates, served on country patrols, and guarded prisoners. By the time his son Abraham was born, Thomas owned two 600-acre (240 ha) farms, several town lots, livestock, and horses. He was among the richest men in the area.

This is confusing, because if Thomas didn't join a church, then you can't say the family belonged to a church; better to say that the churchgoing members of the family belonged to such-and-such church? And why quote "enjoyed considerable status"? That's not quoteworthy, and no source is discussed, so why not rephrase without quotes: Thomas had considerable social status (or something like that)? And at the end it says Thomas was the richest man in the area. What area?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*"His family and neighbors considered him to be lazy.[21][22] Lincoln avoided hunting and fishing out of an aversion to killing animals.". His entire family, including his step-mother? Vegetarian?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*"house girl" seems like an odd term.

*Tad's cause of death? The causes for two other brothers are given.

*Robert committed his mother to a mental hospital, but she got out, right? Maybe you could briefly indicate that it wasn't for the rest of her life.

*"Lincoln's connections in Lexington could have accelerated his ambitions, but he remained in Illinois.". The word "accelerated" seems amiss here. Maybe "helped satisfy"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In 1834, he won election to the state legislature after a bipartisan campaign, though he ran as a Whig.". This is very confusing. In what sense was it bipartisan? If he was a Whig, did he reject some Whig positions in favor of the other party's positions?
  • Caption says "filmed Lincoln in 1860". How about "photographed"? No movies back then.
  • "derived no rights from the Declaration of Independence or Constitution." I'd cross out Devlaration of Ibdependence here, because it never was a source of legal rights, and as to natural rights the Declaration simply recognized existing inalienable rights rather than conferring any rights.
  • "though strong in his disagreement with the Court's opinion, was as a lawyer unequivocal in his deference to the Court's authority." This is incorrect. In his first Inaugural Address, for example, Lincoln explained that the "eminent tribunal" could not control an entire political issue. And on June 19, 1862, Congress prohibited slavery in United States territories, overturning Dred Scott. Lincoln signed it. (Please keep in mind Lincoln's reaction to Taney's order regarding habeas corpus.)
  • "(Mark 3:25)". Would a footnote be better here than a parenthetical? Or maybe, "then delivered his famous speech, beginning with a quote from the Book of Mark".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like it as is but will change it if you can't live with it. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It depends. The parenthetical is within quote marks. Did he say it parenthetically, or is the parenthetical ours? If he didn't say it, then it may be a problem, but there may be easy solutions, not limited to the ones I suggested. The way it is now makes it seem like he said it parenthetically, which I doubt he did. Maybe brackets instead of parentheses? It's totally up to you whether to leave it as-is. I already stated my support anyway for making this a featured article. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. I thought differently after reading your reply. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hatnote includes this: ""Abe Lincoln" redirects here. For the musician, see Abe Lincoln (musician).". I'd delete all of that, so that the hatnote simply refers to the Abraham Lincoln disambiguation page. We don't normally use hatnotes to list everything that redirects there, so why do it here? And Abe Lincoln (musician) is listed at the Abraham Lincoln disambiguation page anyway. I just think the hatnote is now too big and therefore off-putting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*The United States did not suddenly become a singular term as a result of the Civil War. For example, the 13th Amendment (banning slavery) uses the plural form, and the singular form was sometimes used before the Civil War. The singular form really became prevalent in the 20th century. Here is an article about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt

Comment The amount of evaluation of Lincoln, surely something required for a man who is, at worst, our second-most prominent president, is surprisingly small. While there is some mention in the lede of scholars ranking of Lincoln, there really isn't much analysis, and what there is seems a bit hagiographic. Lincoln remains controversial for such matters as the suspension of habeas corpus. I think you've got to have some sort of evaluation of Lincoln, which at least mentions historical controversies regarding Lincoln. I can surely understand this is a path you may be reluctant to go down, but I hesitate to call the article comprehensive at the present time. Also, are you certain on your capitalization of Administration? Those being said, I have not studied the article in depth but it is an excellent effort and a great improvement on what used to be there. I haven't decided whether to formally review the article, but I surely hope such an important article is promoted. You will forgive us all if we cut you no breaks. I surely will not support unless I am convinced of the article's worthiness given the importance of the subject matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These observations are quite valid. I myself have indeed made it a priority to stick with the facts – AL is a powerful draw for POV's and the article does push the limit on size. We certainly are remiss if we don't at least mention a controversy and provide references for further research. That said, for an encyclopedic work, what better compliment than a reader begging for more, assuming you give them a map. I welcome your help to improve the article. Where is the "Administration" you referenced? Carmarg4 (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Habeas corpus suspension is a very complex, touchy, legal matter and it may be best to merely say here that Lincoln suspended the writ even though Taney told him not to. The clause in the Constitution says: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." It doesn't explicitly say that only Congress can suspend the writ in those circumstances. But, the clause is in Article One, which perhaps suggests that only Congress can suspend the writ, or that preferably Congress rather than the President would do so, or that perhaps there is a higher standard of proof when the president does so. And then there is the issue of whether Congress approved of what Lincoln did, by passive acquiescence, or by affirmatively recognizing existence of rebellion. And you also have to consider whether Congress and the President can ever team up to suspend the writ, if the courts are open for business. These are very thorny issues.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have provided a link to the article on habeas corpus in the "War begins" section for readers wanting to delve further. The question is whether we should discuss the issue further in the AL article. I recommend against it – to do so potentially makes the article overwhelming to the average reader. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I lean against further covering it in this article, because it's such a thorny, complex, touchy issue. But, if it is covered further in this article, I would hope that the basic points I mentioned would be included. Many scholars often say that Lincoln had no problem violating or overstretching the Constitution in this case, and they argue that therefore violating or overstretching the Constitution is fine. But there is an equally good argument (alluded to in my previous comment) that what Lincoln did was constitutional.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, were there world enough and time, I would love to help out. But I have enough trouble finding time for my own projects, unless I want a 5 a.m. editing session every night and to surrender the few remaining hours of sleep. This article recounts well the events of Lincoln's life. But is it truly complete without what I have stated above? Don't focus exclusively on the habeas corpus issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is some dirt on Lincoln. He had some racist views. Yes, he wanted to end slavery, but he also said a lot of stuff about white superiority, right? Was that for show? I don't know. If so, then maybe he wasn't as honest as everyone says. The other dirt is that he was a rich lawyer for the railroads, not some poor defender of the innocent humble individual, and the latter image was a lie. I don't know how true that is either. But that's the primary dirt, as far as I know.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking for dirt, although certainly some of the things he said during the debates with Douglas don't make for swell reading, especially the debates in Southern Illinois. I'm looking for at least some evaluation. I will say that writing such sections is not fun and I personally dislike doing so. Still ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Administration" is third to last paragraph of the General McClellan subsection.
  • I'm a bit concerned about the images and captions, but this shouldn't be much trouble. The image showing Lincoln dead and in the arms of Washington is dated 1860 in the caption and January 1865 on the image page, obvious problem.
The stamps mentioned in the article surprise me, as they are not particularly important, you might do better to look at the four-stamp series of the sesquientennial in 1959, or state that he was depicted on a stamp for the first time in ... (I think it's 1866) and some interesting fact to follow. Also, I surely would think it would be worth mentioning that Lincoln was the first person to be honored with a regular-issue US coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, three stamps is excessive. They have far more to do with postal history than with Lincoln's biography. I'd take out at least two of them, if not all three. --Coemgenus 19:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to leave one, leave the 1866.

I do not have the time to do a formal review, I'm sorry, you're getting stream of consciousness. I'll try to keep giving you more if you find it helpful, though I may switch to the article talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we'll get some input from a philatelist or two on these "sticky" issues. Carmarg4 (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I think I would not quibble too much about Mystic were it not for the fact that on the source page, there is a clear and obvious error, 13c is stated instead of 15c. That makes me wonder how much editorial review these things get.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In defense of the Mystic Co., maybe it was a .13c stamp; need I remind you of the Inverted Jenny? Sorry, I been at this FAN too long. Carmarg4 (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to feel licked here.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the redefining Republicanism section contains an excellent start for discussing Lincoln's legacy (which is nothing to do with statues). Perhaps it could be mentioned that before the ACW, "United States" was a plural noun, afterwards a single noun.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest deleting the word "final" in "final surrender" in the lede. Lee surrendered only his army. He could not surrender other remaining Confederate forces, and even though his was the main force, bits and pieces of conflict continued I think as late as June.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably redundant, but I won't make an issue of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was following your suggestion - that there were later informal surrenders by smaller units. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd delete "formal". It is a bit redundant anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The stamps are still in the article and the coin is not. On another note, at present, the article seems to end rather weakly.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see them now - just the one. They are like flypaper. You have any detail on the first coin so I can find it. For me the article has been a daily. (I will make a note.) Carmarg4 (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 7 in Lincoln cent should do you. I wrote it, so I stand behind the accuracy and it is a FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed ending. At least a tad, with very recent sesquicentennial proclamation by Pres.; also the proclamation serves as a good ref. for the change in the country's name. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is better. I'll keep reading. But you can't leave it uncited like that. You'll get opposes "just because".--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the cite needed? I apologize - I have a bad head cold and may not be focusing too well. Carmarg4 (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last sentence of the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Again, on the comment about the article lacking analysis: I drafted a small piece to add to the article, in an attempt to address this concern. After doing so and sleeping on it, I must say, as I originally did, that I am still most uncomfortable with adding more analytical content to the article. The article does include some analysis - in the Redefining republicanism section and in the Religious and philosophical beliefs section. The article is supposed to be encyclopedic in approach. The better method I believe is to direct the reader to the multitude of analytical sources for further reading, which I think has been done. There is also the concern over the size of the article (we are even now discussing additional factual detail in the nominations/appointments area.) As the reviewer has said, there is an inestimable amount of analysis out there and if we start down that road, many voices will want, and then will have the right, to be represented. The matter will then quickly morph into a POV issue. Perhaps there will be additional comments on this - none at this juncture. I will keep the small attempt at a draft of analysis on my talk page if wanted. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

MOS review (not a prose review) per standard MOS disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries.

Before bringing this back to FAC, please consult all significant contributors and procure a spotcheck for sourcing and paraphrasing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 1 May 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 16:38, 1 May 2011 [8].

Airbus A330

Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 07:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this article has experienced rapid expansion from late-January to mid-March, during which I added large additions of text and improved the article in general; when I said "I", I meant other Wikipedians offered myself assistance, namely users Fnlayson, Bzuk, Brianboulton and WhisperToMe (please forgive if you're not mentioned). As such, I nominated the article for FA status, during which it thoroughly and contructively criticised; I'd also like to thanks to the good guys at GOCE (TransientVoyager and Grapple X), who greatly contributed their effort. In the end, the nomination failed.
During the last two weeks, the article has remained stable. Today I'd decided to re-nominate the article at FAC. I hope many people will partake in this process, and, with my fingers crossed, Airbus A330 will be the next Featured Article. Thanks in advance! --Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 07:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Watch for small formatting errors like doubled periods
  • Wouldn't really matter, would it?
  • Ref 5: page numbers?
  • Looking for book. Done
  • Ref 42: more specific location than USA?
  • Done
  • Ref 46: retrieval date?
  • Done
  • Ref 47: page number, publisher?
  • Link is there not to back anything up, since caption has nothing controversial.
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when, what is italicized, etc
  • What is "Seattle PI"?
  • Where is MBI? You've got at least two different locations for it
  • Done
  • Be consistent in how you name things. For example, will you call it Reuters India or in.reuters.com?
  • Done
  • Use a consistent date formatting
  • Still using both Airbus S.A.S. and Airbus
Airbus S.A.S. is used for references because that's the company's official name; the shortened "Airbus" is used in the article itself.
  • Ref 113, 124: press release from who?
  • Done
  • Done

Image review

  • Captions should meet same requirements for prose quality, sourcing, etc as article text. For example, "The Trent 700 was Rolls-Royce's first effort in supplying powerplants for Airbus." should be sourced; "The undercarriage fully retracted." needs editing for grammar, as it's not a complete sentence
  • Done
  • Some stacking of images
  • It depends on your monitor's resolution.
  • File:F-BUAJ-Airbus-A300B2-1981.jpg - France does not have freedom of panorama, and this image includes buildings
  • Done.
  • Added source. The logo is not 100% clear.

Note: Ref #101 is a deadlink (404). --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 15:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • User Fnlayson fixed it.
The first support for Airbus A330. I really appreciate it, user Fnlayson :) Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 03:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't read the entire article and unfortunately probably won't have time to finish, but a few quick comments:

  • The quotebox at the bottom of the "Background" section should be reformatted as a blockquote - it's awkwardly formatted and the font is too small to read, at least on my screen it's formatting in tiny font.
  • Done
  • A quick scan shows some prose problems. For example - "The A300B9 was joined" - it's not a person and can't be joined, and also passive, needs rephrasing
Done, anything else?
  • "The B9 would offer the same range and payload as the McDonnell Douglas DC-10, but would be 25 percent more fuel efficient,[8] and would therefore be a viable replacement for the DC-10 and Lockheed L-1011 TriStar.[9]" - three instances of "would" in this sentence
  • Done
  • "The specifications also revealed the large underfloor cargo volume that could hold five cargo pallets or 16 LD3 cargo containers in the forward, and four pallets or 14 LD3s in the aft hold;" - "also" probably not necessary because nothing has been revealed yet. And do specifications reveal or show?
  • Done

Haven't gotten any further, but I'd suggest finding an independent copyeditor. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is solid. After a brief review, which can now be found on the FAC talk page, I am satisfied with the article's lead. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:04, 30 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 16:38, 1 May 2011 [9].

The Autobiography of Malcolm X

Nominator(s): — GabeMc (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC), — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Protonk (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because after a GAN and two peer reviews, we believe it is worthy of FA status. — GabeMc (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Sources were generally okayed at the last FAC. Few changes: some more citations have been added, along with an additional source. Brianboulton (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images were also okayed at the last FAC, I don't think there've been any changes since. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question/Comments:
    • What does "...has been a consistent best-seller since its 1965 publication" mean? I mean, how are you determining it has been a best-seller (especially since it "returned to the best-seller lists in the 1990s"), and how are you defining "consistent"? Does your source offer details?
    • "Haley's contribution to the work is unique" The adjective "unique" is kinda empty and WP:PEACOCK-ish here.
      • Perhaps I am not being direct enough. This phrase needs to go. His contribution was not unique in any greater sense; ghostwriters pretend to adopt their subjects' voice all the time. And if he is unique in the sense that he was the only ghostwriter working with X, then the observation is trivial.
        • I'll be a bit direct in response. Unique may be the wrong word, but there is an abundance of research and criticism on the exact relationship of Haley to Malcolm. He was not a traditional ghostwriter nor was he a co-author, and the scope of their collaboration remains a subject of discussion. In that sense there is a great deal which is "unique" about his contribution. It is difficult to read the article and conclude otherwise. Protonk (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You said it is "...difficult to read the article and conclude otherwise". Well, that's kinda my point, and I see it as a flaw rather than a feature. There are stretches of text that are not direct quotes and... may be cited, I don't remember, but I was under the impression that they weren't... and those stretches... just kinda... lionize Haley without saying who said it, and (here's the worst part!) without putting any distance between Wikipedia and that praise. It's OK to say "Person A said Haley rocks, person B said Haley is a saint, person C said Haley walks on water, then turns it into wine after he steps on it". That's OK, so long as those people are WP:RS etc. But the text of the article seems to frame a narrative... in Wikipedia's voice. I hope I can explain this: I'm not knocking Haley. I'm expressing a feeling that Wikipedia is adopting a stance on Haley. Wikipedia has no voice.• Ling.Nut (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll step back a bit and say it is just as difficult to read the source material and conclude that the relationship between Malcolm and Haley was typical for a subject and a ghostwriter. I'm sympathetic to the claim that wikipedia shouldn't adopt a voice but I don't have any good solution apart from undertaking a "he said, she said" strategy. I'm less sure of the stance that the sources or the article are hagiographic--saying Haley's role was unique among ghostwriters (or some other flavor of the same claim) isn't saying that he is a great guy. It is simply an attempt to flesh out why and how the piece (AMX) adopted the voice it did. There are sections in the article describing Haley's attempts to censor AMX, to refactor Malcolms statements in order to preserve what Haley saw as a strong personal narrative and sources (namely Manning Marable) which plumb the depths of what book may have been written were Haley less intrusive. Their efforts are stymied by a lack of comment or cooperation from the heirs of either Haley or Malcolm. Without any secondary source gaining unrestricted access to the original marginal notes or letters of either man it is hard for a conclusive statement to be made. We are just doing our best to describe the "state of the art" in the sourcing today. Protonk (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • On a tragic note the author of a recent book on malcolm X and Haley, Manning Marable, just passed away. His newest book (Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention) is likely to be a great source for the article. I'm sad to see the profession lose him. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All throughout this article, there are patches of text that... seem to have a voice. These may be adopting the voice(s) of one or more source(s)..? It seems especially glaring since there are other patches that are kinda bare-bones and rat-a-tat-tat.. sorry if this vague and unactionable. I'm thinking aloud here. Your thoughts are invited. • Ling.Nut (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Consistent best-seller": The source says "Given the compelling story The Autobiography of Malcolm X tells and the best-seller status it has enjoyed since publication in 1965, its passage to film would seem to have been a fait accompli long before "X" billboards hyping Spike Lee's much-anticipated film began popping up all over New York and beyond." The book has experienced strong sales throughout its history; according to a biography of Betty Shabazz, she was receiving royalties equivalent to an annual salary,[10] and she was only getting half of the royalties! In the early 1990s, the book actually returned to The New York Times Best Seller list. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll think about how this can be reworded.
    • "intentionally subsumed his authorial voice"... I don't think "subsumed" is the word you are looking for here.
    • On the Side of My People: A Religious Life of Malcolm X By Louis A. DeCaro, Jr. p. 4, haley edited his work with the assistance of Murray Fisher, associate editor for Playboy • Ling.Nut (talk) 06:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not gonna fly my colors just yet, but I can feel myself leaning toward Support. I have to type quickly without double-checking my thoughts but... There doesn't seem to be enough mention of the controversy about the accuracy of some details of Malcolm's life. Who said it? Where? The Summary section feels skimpy, especially since the second paragraph might need to be moved elsewhere... It might need to list all chapters and give a one-sentence summary of each, following the style of others (Bloom I think it was)... The critical reception part... I see very good references there but... something feels missing. Is there mention of the controversy in the WP:LEDE? If not, it must go there... The writing is much better than many other FACs and I feel myself accepting it more... It may be a while before I log in again. • Ling.Nut (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with the comments about the critical reception completely. My fear is that there are no great sources which take to task the reviewers or attempt to stitch together a general picture of critique and reception. Protonk (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see a response to several (indeed, most) of my comments. Is silence disagreement, or...? • Ling.Nut (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the changes since the last FAC, I have a couple of comments:

  • "The influence that The Autobiography of Malcolm X can have on the perspective of its readers has often been acknowledged." My problem here is that the article seems to assume at the outset that the book has been influential (which it undoubtedly has) and then only look for acknowledgement of that fact. The article should seek to establish that it has been influential first. Perhaps something like "Several critics have noted the influence that The Autobiography of Malcolm X can have on its readers", and then you let the quotes do the talking (thinking aloud here).
  • A similar tense problem to last time: "Charles Solomon writes", "Howard Bruce Franklin described", "Concise Oxford Companion to African American Literature credits" (the latter two in the same sentence). To me, it seems clumsy.

Just some thoughts. Apterygial talk 23:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made that edit. I don't agree with your opinion that "The influence that [it] can have... has been acknowledged" assumes influence, while "Several critics have noted.." does not. I was trying to escape the tedium of repeated sentence structures... However, if you dislike the wording, WP:SOFIXIT. The structure of the sentence is not a key issue... As for the tense problem, I agree, and was thinking about what to do with that. • Ling.Nut (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll agree my alternative wording is not much better, but my point still stands. Similar to your point above, Ling.Nut, that the article has adopted a voice. It's certainly not a major point, but if any of the noms can offer an alternative wording, I'd be happy to hear it. Apterygial talk 03:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give an example of a source which would establish the influence of the book but not fall into the category of searching for acknowledgement of influence? Protonk (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with that change. It's not a major point, but I think it's preferable the article says the book was influential (with a cite and supporting points) rather than noting that its influence has been acknowledged. Apterygial talk 23:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns have been addressed, and after three FACs the article deserves promotion. Apterygial talk 23:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I found a few things to fix, but not much; good job. Feel free to revert my edits.

  • Although "contemporary" is commonly used by historians to mean "of the time", it's more likely to mean "modern" to most readers. I went with "of the day" and "of the time"; feel free to improvise. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not on board with the present tense in "In 1990, Charles Solomon writes ...", but I understand that some people prefer a certain kind of consistency.
  • I'm fine with "bell hooks" lowercase, since her name is generally written that way in the press and in our sources, but Ms. hooks (ms. hooks?) hasn't yet succeeded in overturning the rule that sentences begin with a capital letter. If you'd prefer to lowercase her first name, then rewrite the sentence so that "bell" isn't the first word.
  • Support per standard disclaimer. I don't know much about literary criticism, so I can't comment much on the narrative. - Dank (push to talk) 12:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query - are this article's editors aware of this, and do they think it warrants mention in the article? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Marables' book was published *very* recently. And I (at least) haven't bought it yet. Protonk (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm reading Marable's book. The article cites an essay written by Marable in 2009 and a 2007 interview. I don't expect the new book to include many revelations concerning Malcolm X's autobiography that Marable didn't discuss in the 2009 article, which I can provide if you'd like to see it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - apologies for not reading this sooner. I think it's fairly strong, and quite well written, but I do have some comments:

  • Lead - the first sentence is too stuffed and hard to chunk. Consider splitting into two sentences?
  • six and a half - prob. should be hyphenated
  • The second paragraph of the "Summary" is more a description of genre. Either retitle the section, or split out into a separate "Genre" section
  • block quote in "Construction" - use single quotes inside the block quote
  • Should "Malcolm X: The Art of Autobiography" be in italics? Is it a book or an essay? Also, the first sentence of "Narrative presentation" is attributed in-text to Widemand but is cited to Wood
  • "Two Create One" - title of book or essay in a collection? If a collection the citation should to be fixed to reflect that
  • Consider adding topic sentences to begin the paras. For example the "Collaboration" section leads with a title making this sentence hard to follow without context: "In Making Malcolm: The Myth and Meaning of Malcolm X, Dyson criticizes historians and biographers of the time for re-purposing the Autobiography as a transcendent narrative by a "mythological" Malcolm X without being critical enough of the underlying ideas"
  • Identify the authors - who are they? scholars, critics, etc?
  • "Collaboration" - integrate the block quote and add introduction
  • "The collaboration between Malcolm X and Haley took on many dimensions; editing, revising and composing the Autobiography was a power struggle between two men with sometimes competing ideas of the final shape for the book." - this could be a topic sentence to begin the section?
  • Single quotes in the quote box
  • "Haley played an important role in persuading Malcolm X not to re-edit the book as a polemic against Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam at a time when Haley already had most of the material needed to complete the book, and asserted his authorial agency when the Autobiography's "fractured construction" " - this is already explained in the "Construction" section and feels redundant, unless somehow the two are combined
  • "Collaberation" is very stuffed - either needs subsections or trimming back. I'm thinking the page almost over-emphasizes the collaboration to some degree. Either Haley's involvement should be trimmed back, or more added about Malcolm X's contributions. For example, how and when were the interviews conducted?
  • Why did Doubleday cancel?
  • Was it a bestseller in the sense that it consistently made the bestseller lists, or did it sell well?
  • Link Newsweek
  • Tense problem here: "Newsweek also highlighted the limited insight and criticism in The Autobiography but praises it for power and poignance" - tense shift
  • However, Truman Nelson in The Nation lauds the epilogue as revelatory and "skillful amanuensis"
  • Same sentence: should it be "a skillful amanuensis"?
  • In 1968 film producer Marvin Worth commissioned a screenplay based on The Autobiography of Malcolm X from novelist James Baldwin; - rewrite to something like: "In 1968 film produced Marvin Worth asked novelist James Baldwin to write a screenplay based on ...."
  • Link to Lee's film
  • Can the film adaptation section be combined with the legacy section, or somewhere other than where it is. It doesn't seem to fit in the "Publication, sales" section.
  • Overall I think some of the blockquotes can be trimmed down and maybe even moved into quote boxes. I've done this to an extent with The Sun Also Rises and I think if the quote won't fit in a quote box then it's too long. Also, having the blockquote in the text forces the reader to wade through it - but I tend to skip them altogether.

Generally I think with a bit of reorg, this is in pretty good shape. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of making the recommended changes. Wood is the editor of a collection of essays, several of which are cited here. That's why statements attributed to Wideman and Rampersad, for example, are cited to pages in Wood. Would it be better if we cite the essay in the footnote as well? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked to see if you're using citation templates or not. If citation templates, then put the essay title in the chapter parameter and fill in the editor parameters and it will format correctly. At any rate, it needs to be cited to the person who did the writing, not directly to the person who edited the collection. I'll go check your citation methods and report back if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the citation for edited volumes is pretty standard outside wikipeda but I have no way of knowing how standard it is within wikipedia. We can cite it within text as "Wideman says" but the footnote is going to point to Wood (or Wideman in Wood). Protonk (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely familiar with the citation style you're using, but it should be formatted similar to this one I've done freehand: Aldridge, John W. "Afterthought on the Twenties and The Sun Also Rises". in Wagner-Martin, Linda (ed.) New Essays on Sun Also Rises. Cambridge University Press (1990). ISBN 0-521-30204-8

Hope this helps. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The citation style isn't one I would have chosen either, but I'll add chapter titles. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be back later to continue, but I've made many of the changes you recommended. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be making more of your recommended changes later and tomorrow. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I read this book fairly recently, so was interested in the article. Thoughts on the first few sections:
  • It begins with an incident during his mother's pregnancy - seems almost deliberately vague. Either describe the incident or just say "it begins during his mother's pregnancy"; don't leave it mysterious.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, the "summary" section could probably be expanded a little. There's also a slightly jarring change of tense in the final sentence where it suddenly changes to say Haley "summarized" whereas previously the book "documents" and "addresses".
Fixed jarring change of tense. — GabeMc (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article describes Haley's description of Malcolm X's final days as an "epilogue", which suggests it is at the back, but certainly in my version of the book this section came first. Is this unusual or is there a slightly better word to describe the section?
The Peguin edition places the epilogue at the front, but the first edition had it at the back, as an epilogue. — GabeMc (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • signed a contract to limit his authorial discretion in favor of producing what looked like verbatim copy - any more info on this? Did the contract really tell him to write something which looked like verbatim copy (which seems odd)?
I'm hoping I can find time to look through the second half of the article soon. It looks good, with perhaps just a little tightening needed. Trebor (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"signed a contract to limit his authorial discretion in favor of producing what looked like verbatim copy " the second half of the article should make this clear. Failing that the afterword by haley mentions this specifically. Protonk (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • It says "purchased the original manuscripts of The Autobiography of Malcolm X for a sum of $100,000". I think it would be more plain English if it replaced 'purchased' with 'bought' and deleted 'a sum of'. Not a big deal, just my minor comment.
Hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jakob.scholbach (talk). I should say right at the beginning that I'm not at all knowledgeable in this field, in particular I have not read the book. I'll try to review the whole article in steps. Already now, though, there are many things which are unclear or don't read smoothly, so I'm sceptical. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • The lead section suffers from a fundamental problem, namely that it does not summarize the article adequately. I have not yet read the whole article, but a quick glance at the table of contents shows, e.g., that "Legacy" is not at all covered by the lead section. As a simple rule of thumb, I suggest that the lead reflect each section roughly proportionally. So, the lead needs a thorough overhaul anyway, but I'm still giving some more detailed comments:
The "Legacy" section is summarized in the last paragraoh of the lead, i.e, "brilliant, painful, important book", "... one of ten "required reading" nonfiction books. A screenplay adaptation of the Autobiography by James Baldwin and Arnold Perl provided the source material for Spike Lee's 1992 film Malcolm X." — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • you keep repeating dates ("published in 1965", "between 1963 and 1965" but it is unclear from the lead when M.X. died). Might try a more streamlined handling of the various dates. For example, why do you consider "published in 1965" so important that you include it in the first sentence?
Clarified that Malcolm X was killed in 1965.
Why shouldn't the article mention the book's publication date in the first sentence of the lead? — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contemporary scholars" is unclear: what time do you refer to
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have regarded" ?? why "may". Did they or did they not. --- After reading the article, this is a bit clearer. Still, the wording is a bit confusing.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Malcolm X ..." This sentence is very long and reads a bit clumsy, especially the end.
I think this is fine, and your opinion is not actionable. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We read "modern scholarship tends to regard him as an essential collaborator who intentionally subsumed his authorial voice to allow readers to feel as though Malcolm X were speaking directly to them". 6 verbs in one sentence, multiple relative clauses? This clearly is actionable. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Haley's proactive censorship" is vague and unspecific. In what way did he "censor" the manuscript? (For example: did he reinforce the antisemitic material or did he tone it down?)
Censorship implies Haley toned down the antisemitic material versus reinforcing it. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph you have tons of dates. It is unclear to me why they are important. In comparison to the coverage of other sections in the lead, this is overly detailed.
There are three dates in the paragraph, one as an example of a contemporary review, one to show it's influence 30 years later, and one to inform the reader of Spike Lee's 1992 film, again, as an example of the book's legacy. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "epilogue" footnote looks quite ugly and is also not necessary, I believe. If you consider the footnote important, consider merging it in the lead. Otherwise merge it somewhere in the main text.
The "epilogue" footnote was written to satisfy another FAC reviewer who pointed out that their UK copy (Penguin), places the epilogue at the beginning of the book. Nonetheless, the name of Haley's chapter is, Epilogue. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

  • You mention a couple of things covered in the book. I keep wondering what is maybe not contained in the book. From Malcolm X I see that he had a family. Is this not covered in the book? More generally, to get a sharper picture I think it is important to contrast the content of the autobiography with other biographies.
Jakob.scholbach, you admit to not having read the book, so why assume the summary is not adequate? — GabeMc (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't assume that the summary is not adequate! I'm just wondering "hm, he had a wife and six daugthers" (according to Malcolm X), is this not contained in the autobio? If it is in the autobio, then you might want to add this (unless, say, it is very briefly mentioned in the book)? If it is not in the autobio, you also might want to point out that he didn't cover his family life in the book. After all, that's something one would expect in a typical (auto)biography.
  • "74-page epilogue". I feel the 74 pages are overly specific, especially since page numbers change in every edition and I as a reader of the article don't even know how long the book is in total.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I overlooked this earlier, but there is still "These comments became the 74-page epilogue" somewhere else. I'm not saying you should remove this, but being this specific all of a sudden just pops out. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

  • This complaint applies to many other spots as well: you put very much in front all these literary scholars. The only neutrally formulated sentence is the first one, which gives us just 4 wikilinks. Not much. Any other sentence deals with the view of a particular person. I guess mostly it is less important who said this and that about the book? If so, consider reworking things as "Literary critic Arnold Rampersad and Malcolm X biographer Michael Eric Dyson agree that the narrative of the Autobiography resembles the Augustinian approach to confessional narrative." into maybe "The narrative of the Autobiography has been described as ..."
We mention Arnold Rampersad and Michael Eric Dyson by their full name here so that further in the article we can use just Rampersad, and Dyson, and the reader will know that these scholars have been established. — GabeMc (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "came too close to the truth" ?? what truth
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a stupid remark, but I don't understand how the rhetorical power is possibly related to the evolving character? Isn't this the power of the actual content of the book?
Paul John Eakin and Alex Gillespie are quoted and cited here, it's not their, or our fault that you do not understand what they are saying. The rhetorical power of the work is derived in part by the subject's evolving life story, i.e. disillusionment with The Nation and uncertainty in Malcolm's philosophy. — GabeMc (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, given that the book was started 2 years before his death, one is wondering how the character can possibly evolve this much. Consider fleshing this out a bit, i.e., what dramatical events took place in these two years in M's life?
Are you suggesting that a human cannot significantly evolve in 24 months? As far as, "what dramatical events took place in these two years in M's life?", this is covered in the Summary section. — GabeMc (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Construction

  • This is also a general comment and problem the article has: as far as I have read now, the possible roles a second person contributing to such a work are never clearly delineated? Basically this amounts to the questions: what is a coauthor, what is a ghostwriter, what is an interviewer? Once this is clear, it will be much easier to write this article (and for the reader, to understand). E.g. you say "Haley coauthored [...], but also performed the basic functions [...] writing and [...] editing the Autobiography". Why "but"?
That is kind of the point of the article, Haley took on many roles and he is variously attributed as the work's coauthor, ghostwriter, and editor. Per "Why 'but'?", this is fixed now. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. As I said below, I think the article would benefit if you could come up with a "definition" of the notions of "coauthor", "ghostwriter" and then explain why certain scholars regard H this or that way. Is this possible/reasonable? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which angered the activist" -- Haley or the Nation of Islam?
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Haley eventually shifted the focus" -- it is unclear what happened after this shift. Did he just keep interviewing M about his mother then?
Haley shifted the focus away from The Nation, and toward X's life story, which began with questions about his mother, but certainly the reader knows the work is not entirely about X's mother. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I was just puzzled by the jump 1st) this long quote makes it a point that MX had lots of things to say about his mother, then 2nd) the next paragraph talks about Haley's role. If the two paragraphs need to be together, I just want to suggest rounding off the quote by a sentence such that the transition to the next paragraph is less sharp. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next paragraph is awkward: first you say H. is "nominally" a ghostwriter (what does this actually mean, nominally?). Then you suggest that it was "black scholars" who defended this point. First, who were these black scholars? Given that you name any other scholar around, you should do so here, too. More importantly, there seems to be a contradiction on this "nominally" and the vague attribution to the black scholars.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "took pains" -- unencyclopedic language
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haley's contribution is "unique" -- what do you mean by that? Unique sounds weaselly.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the contract you talk about in the last paragraph the one mentioned earlier? If so, I suggest reshaping this discussion by making this a more clearly delineated paragraph. Maybe even a section "The contract"?
  • In the "Summary" section you say that the epilogue summarizes the last days, now you say that it contained Haley's view on M, as well as a description of the agreement. I'm sure it's all in there, but then you should overhaul what is written in the summary section.

Narrative presentation

  • "in order to allow readers to insert themselves into the broader socio-psychological narrative, neither coauthor's voice is as strong as it could have been" strikes me as quite vague. Come on, what should we read into "the broader socio-psychological narrative"? Also, what do you mean bei "neither coauthor's"?
  • Is the quote "You are serving many masters..." explicitly referring to MX's autobiography? From reading the quote, it looks like a general description of the traps etc. in writing a biography. If this impression is right, I suggest removing this quote since it is then off-topic, or at least too long. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wideman argues that Haley wrote [...], but he hchose to write the epilogue ..." What is meant by "but he chose": is this now a fact or is this still something that Wideman is suggesting. Also, why "but"?
  • "requiring more than the writer's prose alone" -- unclear to me. What writer are you referring to, here? The subject of an autobio or the ghostwriter?
  • "Though a writer's skill ..." -- same comment as with the other quote above.

Collaboration

  • Most of this section does not seem to be connected to the collbaroation. The first sentence does talk about it, but already the second does not. Also the lines starting with "To Rampersad, ... " is totally unrelated to the collaboration, it seems. If I'm not mistaken, this requires a serious overhaul of this whole section, possibly splitting into two (e.g., Collaboration and Myth-making or the like).
  • "Rampersad suggests that since his 1965 assassination, Malcolm X has "become the desires of his admirers, who have reshaped memory, historical record and the autobiography according to their wishes, which is to say, according to their needs as they perceive them."" -- this is not even related to the autobiography. I suggest to try to delineate more clearly what belongs in this article and what does not.
  • The quote of Joe Wood: same problem: slightly off-topic.
  • "much of the available" -- I think this shoud be "many"
  • "the fiction of the completed self" -- What do you mean by completed self?
  • "The collaboration between Malcolm X and Haley took on many dimensions; ..." is a verbatim copy of the first sentence of section 3.2.
  • The quote "'You can't bless Allah!' he exclaimed, changing 'bless' to 'praise.' " is nice, but without context difficult to appreciate. Expound it a bit more?
  • Image caption "A young Haley" -- weird wording. Why don't give the (rough) date when the picture was taken. Also, was Haley this young when he wrote the book? No better picture around?
  • Generally speaking, this section is very long. Most, including me, would say too long. More focus on the topic and, more importantly, grouping the material in a more efficient way (see above comments) would be beneficial.
  • "Andrews suggests that Haley's role expanded ..." -- this is just a repetition in your words of the quote. Maybe trim this down a bit?
  • The picture of MX and Martin Luther King is off-topic. The image caption seems to be particularly irrelevant. This article is about the book.
  • "confounding factors of the publisher" -- this is the first mention of the publisher. Consider telling its name and expound briefly (a big publishing house, notable prior publications...?)

Publication

  • "climbed 300%" -- 300% of what?
  • In the editions list, maybe remove the authors, since it is always MX and Haley? Also consider moving this list to the references section. Such a list is somehow very sober all of a sudden.
  • "Missing chapters" -- this interesting bit comes surprisingly late and it is also not quite clear why you make this a subsection of "Publication".

Legacy

  • The delineation of this and section 4 is unclear. E.g. the quote of Franklin could just as well be in section 4. Where exactly do you draw the line?
  • "Bell hooks" ??
  • "She is not alone" -- who is she?
  • Why are screenplay adaptations part of legacy? I consider this more closely related to the list of editions and the publication aftermath.

External links all need accessdates.

Oppose It should be said, WP can be happy to have this article, and I'd like to thank those who contributed to it! By and large, the article is well-written in terms of prose (except for a number of vague hand-waving expressions). Also, to an outsider it looks well-researched. I cannot judge whether it is balanced and presents the facts unbiasedly, so I'm not commenting on this. My main and most important concern with the article is that it does not succeed to convey a clear picture of this topic, at least as far as I can tell. While I understand that there are some subtleties in such a topic, most of this could be plain and easy. Most of all, I think this is because the article is not structured clearly enough. For example, we have details about the collaboration all over the place: the contract is being talked about in various places, elsewhere some facts about Haley's contribution are given, again in another section we find material on H's conversation with the publisher concerning this topic. Gauging Haley's contribution is intermingled with discussions about MX's (and his followers') building of his "myth". In some places, the article seems self-contradictory (or at least not coherently written, for example the content of the epilogue). To be comprehensive, it seems necessary to present more background: what other biographies have been written about MX, what other (comparable) co-authored autobio's have been written. How do literary scholars define/delineate the role of a ghostwriter, a coauthor, an interviewer, an amanuensis? Applying these criteria, what role did Haley take (according to the scholars, still)? Also, the article is too short on Haley's life and other work (independently of AMX). After all he is an important contributor to the thing. Also, surprisingly few quotes of the actual Autobiography are given. These could and should be used to explain the prose style of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob.scholbach (talk • contribs) 16:58, April 30, 2011


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/May_2011&oldid=427238292"