Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archive 1
archive 3
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==July 2011==
==July 2011==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)/archive4}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chesham branch/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Meat Boy/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mario/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mario/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Better Than Today/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Better Than Today/archive2}}

Revision as of 14:30, 21 July 2011

July 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 Karanacs 14:30, 21 July 2011 [1].

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

Nominator(s): Red marquis (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... It's been ready for a long time. It's just been unfairly allowed to go into limbo. Red marquis (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I appreciate you've put a lot of work into this article and are becoming frustrated, but I don't feel this article currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

  • WP:MOS issues: inappropriate bracketing of ellipses, overlinking, etc
    • Please point out where I bracketed ellipses inappropriately. I believe I've already fixed that issue a while back and skimming over the article again, I couldn't find where I might have missed.
  • File:Holy_Wood_mercury_logo.jpg: who holds copyright to this image?
  • "It was released on November 13, 2000, in the United Kingdom, on November 14, 2000, in the United States and Australia and on December 5, 2000 in Japan through Nothing and Interscope Records and marked a return to the industrial metal style of the band's earlier efforts, after the modernized glam rock sound of Mechanical Animals" - split, check for others
    • Addressed. Please check for anymore errors. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another example: "Growing speculation in the national media and among the public led to their music and imagery, among those of other bands as well as other forms of popular entertainment such as movies and videogames, being blamed for inciting Harris and Klebold to kill their classmates;[1][8][9][10] however, later reports would contradict these allegations and point out that the two not only were not fans of the band but considered them "a joke"." Check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album was meant to be electronic in its nature, albeit executed in an acoustic fashion by recording live instruments as opposed to using acoustic guitars" - unclear, check for others
  • Multiple inconsistencies in reference/citation formatting. Some examples: ranges must use endashes, not hyphens; should distinguish between "p." and "pp."; be consistent in what is italicized when; etc
Please list them all. I'm interested in finally addressing whatever other issues the last 3 FACs didn't mention over the week. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, all what? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "some specific concerns". I'm guessing you've found more. List them down so I could address them one by one. -Red marquis (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article looks terrific. Definitely FA worthy. --Hockeyben ✉ 00:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When did you read the article, btw? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To Nikkimaria (or to any other potential reviewer/s), I've addressed all of the issues pointed out above. If there are any other, please note them down so I could fix them. Otherwise, does this finally pass FAC? -Red marquis (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose At >130kB, surely this would be the longest album FA (?). I think a lot of the text can be pared down for a more digestable and professional read:

  • Too many long quotes: there at least two in every section (blockquotes or quoteboxes), with Concept having four. This is a little excessive, and disrupts the flow of the article. It also causes repetitiveness: Altamont is mentioned twice.
    • I agree that there may be excessive quoting but they are all necessary. You have to remember that this is a concept album that deals with a highly controversial topic. So removing any of them would completely hinder the reader's understanding of the album's myriad ideas or Manson's thought process when he was coming up with them. All of which are important here. At the risk of further sounding like a quote-whore, I'd like to quote the article's copy-editor User:Chaosdruid who I think gave me the best justification when I queried him on the topic of excessive quotations: "I understand that there were comments about the amount of quotes but, as this album generated such a lot of press and many of the comments span a ten or more year period, I do not think that there are that many to cut out (if any at all). Many points raised by the opponents of the themes and the timing of the album, as well as the Columbine topic, are better answered by Manson himself - perhaps this is why there was a view about over-quoting." -Red marquis (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations: While citations are a Good Thing, using them like "[3][30][31][42][51][53][54][55][60][62]" and "[3][30][35][54][55][56][57]" is annoying for the reader. You only really need the one, authoritative cite in most instances.
I'll go and fix this. -Red marquis (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking: common English words such as celebrity, iconography, news media, evolved ... don't need to be linked. Please audit throughout.
  • Level of detail: you often don't need a date-month-year level of detail for dates, just a month-year will do. The biggest offender of this is the Promotion section, which reads like a day-to-day log of the band's activities in October and November. Remember that every major album gets promoted with shows and performances, so reading this stuff in such detail is probably not going to be very interesting for most people. All this also applies to the excessively detailed release information of Singles.
    • I actually agree about your point on the level of detailing for dates but doesn't MOS discourage use of vague dating (ie. "early/mid/late February of 2000" or "Spring of 2000")? I was under the impression that Wikipedia wanted THAT level of anal thoroughness. -Red marquis (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm trying to find where it is mentioned, but the general principle is that specific day dates aren't necessary unless that particular day is noteworthy for context. Month and year should suffice in most instances. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

—indopug (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article needs a great deal of pruning, and it needs to focus on its purported subject, the album. The number of serial citations is both absurd and potentially misleading. For instance, there's a fairly long quotation in the Guns, God and Government Tour section that's attributed to two sources. Why two? And what does this: "The Denver show also provided the backdrop for Manson's interview on America's climate of fear and culture of gun violence in Michael Moore's 2002 documentary film Bowling for Columbine. When Moore asked what he would have said if he had the opportunity to speak to the students at Columbine High he replied, 'I wouldn't say a single word. I would listen to what they have to say and that's what no one did.'" have to do with the album? Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fatuorum, while I agree that there is still a lot of room for improving my prose, how is that quote not a part of the album when addressing Columbine (and, by extension, of the social issues faced by thousands of angry "outcast" high school students) IS one of the main reasons it exists in the first place?
I'd hate to think that anyone's motivation for opposing its FAC really comes down to a simple dislike of the way Manson defended himself via the points it raised or of its thesis central thesis of linking Columbine and the way people gorged themselves on that news item to Jesus Christ and religion. That's his opinion, which he has every right to express on this record. I will not gut it out. -Red marquis (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion that this overly long and rambling article needs to be pruned back to give it some much needed focus is hardly likely to be changed by your suggestion that I have opposed because of some personal antipathy towards Manson, who I really couldn't care less about in truth. Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to suggest that you, specifically, have some sort of personal agenda against the guy, Fatuorum. I apologize if I appeared to be personally attacking you. I wasn't. However, some people within and without Wikipedia have told to me that I shouldn't be surprised if the sort of ideas contained within the article would meet resistance. I'm simply stating, in general terms for anyone on this site, that I would not cut them out to appease anyone who might not like them. Personally, I'm simply trying to document the ideas expressed relating to the album. I think they are all important to give a proper understanding of it and a gauge by which it can be judged.
Also, as I mentioned above, I agree with you that the article needs some rewrite to make it more concise. I apologize to other editors if I haven't done so yet. It is not stubbornness on my part. I've just been busy IRL. Rest assured, I have no intention of ignoring or disregarding all of the problems you've raised. I will address them all quite soon. -Red marquis (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
just out of personal curiosity Malleus, what do you think needs to be pruned to give this article focus? Where does it ramble and stray from its subject matter? -Red marquis (talk) 13:17, 21 July 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 Karanacs 14:30, 21 July 2011 [2].

Chesham branch

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 12:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Chesham branch (aka "that thing in the top corner of the tube map") is one of those curious anomalies which has no good reason to exist, but whose incongruousness people take for granted because it's existed for so long. It was opened in the 19th century as the first stage of a railway line from London to Birmingham and Manchester. The route was promptly changed, leaving the completed section of the original route as a small isolated stub of railway serving a single town. Despite being neither (a) anywhere near London nor (b) underground, a string of quirks of ownership meant that instead of becoming part of British Rail it ended up as part of the London Underground, who spent 70 years unsuccessfully trying to find a pretext to get rid of it.

As far as I'm aware this covers every significant source. One of the sources used (Clive Foxell's Chesham Shuttle) is technically a self-published source, but it's not a typical guy-in-the-basement operation; Foxell is the author of one of the two definitive histories of the Metropolitan Railway, and self-publishes supplements covering certain aspects in more detail than can be included in the main book. – iridescent 12:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1974, but for some reason I'd left it out of the bibliography—now fixed; (adding) I see what happened now; at one point I'd used two different books by Jones, eliminated the citations to one of them but removed the listing for the other one in the bibliography.
  • Douglas Rose's The London Underground: A Diagrammatic History is published in chapbook format (e.g. one giant poster-size sheet folded up and bound into a cover—think gas-station roadmap if you're not familiar with the almost-obsolete chapbook format) and thus doesn't have page numbers as such, just a front and back. The Bucks Herald is from a clipping, which contains the date but not the page number; if that's causing a problem I can re-cite it to something else (that special trains still run to Quainton Road but it's not in general use isn't in dispute);
  • London; fixed. – iridescent 16:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I see that the GA review was carried out by David Cane, so I don't doubt the article's historical and technical accuracy. I can't support its promotion at the moment, though, because of issues relating (a) to general prose and (b) to relevance - some of the included material seems to me to be hardly related, if at all, to the Chesham branch line. Here is a fairly exhaustive list of my main points of concern:-

  • "under way" is two words
  • I don't think "(pronounced /ˈtʃɛsəm/)" is necessary; "Chesham" is pronounced as it sounds.
  • "almost three times more to buy in Chesham than to buy in Berkhamsted" needs rephrasing: "almost three times as much to buy in Chesham as in Berkhamsted".
  • Why is "Watford" a redlink? There is an article.
  • I am a bit confused by this: "[T]he line between Harpenden and Boxmoor eventually opened in 1877.[15] (The Harpenden–Boxmoor section was never completed; trains to Boxmoor terminated nearby at Heath Park Halt, and passengers to and from Boxmoor had to complete their journey by horse or horse-drawn bus.)" It would be better to clarify that the Harpenden and Boxmoor line partially opened in 1877.
  • "Watkin turned his attention to the proposal to link to Aylesbury." Link what to Aylesbury?
  • General point: the habit of inserting parenthetical asides into the text is a bit annoying. I'd get rid of the parentheses, and either absorb the comments into the text or relegate them to footnotes.
  • "As the train pulled into Chesham, it was greeted by celebratory gunfire as it drew into the town..." Note the duplication of phrasing
  • "...but a fast trains each morning..." ?
  • "The opening of the railway dramatically ended Chesham's isolation" Whose view is being expressed here?
  • Perhaps explain why the Metropolitan Railway C Class locomotives performed poorly on the London-Aylesbury line. Was it the gradient?
  • In the Opening of the Aylesbury line section, I don't think the final paragraph is relevant to the Chesham branch line (nor is much of the detail in the preceding paragraph).
  • Please consider this monster sentence, and see if you can split it, probably into three sentences: "On 30 July 1898 John Bell, General Manager of the Metropolitan Railway, took control of the Quainton Road signal box himself and refused to allow a GCR train onto MR-owned tracks on the grounds that it was scheduled to take the Great Western rather than the Metropolitan route south of Aylesbury,[74] while on one occasion in 1901 King Edward VII was travelling home after visiting a friend in Wendover; the MR signalman allowed a slow goods train to run in front of the royal train, causing the King to arrive late back in London.[75]
  • There are further issues of relevance in the Relations with the Great Central Railway section, much of which has no direct connection with the Chesham branch line but is rather more general railway history. I believe that much of this information could be summarised or left out.
  • "1915 the extremely effective Metro-land advertising campaign..." Says who?
  • "With the profits generated, the line was further electrified as far as Rickmansworth." When did this happen?
  • "...it suffered two significant accidents in this period". Not clear what "this period" refers to.
  • London Transport section. Again, the text needs to be kept on-topic. The first two paragraphs make no mention of the Chesham line.
  • "...and the line was operated entirely as a shuttle service." Not clear from the context what is meant by "the line".
  • On nationalisation, the LPTB was already in public ownership in 1948 so it is wrong to imply that it was nationalised along with the railway companies
  • "Sunday services on the branch were abolished as a cost-cutting measure, although this decision was reversed following protests." This would be more sensibly worded: "A decision to abolish Sunday services on the branch as a cost-cutting measure was reversed following protests."
  • "The Greater London Council was scheduled for abolition..." Tie this to a year. It's a while since you mentioned 1986.
  • "The Chesham branch was proposed as a terminus for the original Crossrail scheme, which would have seen Crossrail trains running from Paddington to serve the stations between Rickmansworth and Aylesbury and the Chesham branch, allowing London Transport to withdraw from Buckinghamshire and cut the Metropolitan line back to serve only the branches to Watford and Uxbridge." Unwieldly, please split.

I'll be happy to look again when these points are resolved, but I'd advise you to ping me. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery: I posted the above comments five days ago, and would have expected some response before now. Or at least an acknowledgement. Nominators don't normally disappear during their FACs; is something amiss? Brianboulton (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent's been gone again for a week. There were problems recently with his account, so these may have reoccurred.--DavidCane (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that was the case you'd expect a simple notification, using an IP account if necessary, to keep us in the picture. If he's not going to respond there's no point in keeping the article here. Brianboulton (talk) 09:11, 20 July 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 Karanacs 14:30, 21 July 2011 [3].

Super Meat Boy

Nominator(s): PresN 18:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I'm back with what shockingly appears to be another indie video game. Super Meat Boy, indie darling of this past fall/winter, is a recent GA, has been given a good copy-edit scrubbing by Diannaa of the WP:GOCE, has all of its refs working and archived and using the new |deadurl=no, has alt text, and no redirects. It's ready to be mercilessly torn apart for obvious flaws that I should have seen myself! Oh, and I guess I'm still in the Wikicup? I'll be submitting this for points if this passes while I'm still "competing". --PresN 18:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issues fixed, and I ran through it checking for italics errors. Cite and statement it was referencing removed, could have sworn I did that earlier. Thanks for the review! --PresN 20:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media checks out; nice work on the thorough rationales. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through-

  • "Team Meat" - worth a redlink?
  • I don't believe so; they've only made this one game, and both of the designers have their own articles- an article on the group would just be a three-way copypaste job. --PresN 00:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "follows Meat Boy" A couple of words explaining who the character is?
  • "Hidden warp zones are accessed by finding portals in specific levels. These feature retro-styled bonus levels, which have a limit of three lives or are patterned after another video game." The terms "warp zone" and "retro-styled bonus levels" are not all that accessible. Also, is that meant to be "or"? As in, are all of them either three lives only or "patterned after another video game"?
  • "Clearing certain warp zones or collecting enough bandages, which are hidden within the game's levels, unlocks guest characters from other indie games.[5] A replay function that can be accessed after a level has been completed shows all the player's attempts at completing the level simultaneously.[6]" The sentences do not appear to be linked to one another.
  • Para three of gameplay, you mention "the portal", but only explain it later.
  • "These characters can be unlocked by collecting enough bandages or completing certain warp zones." You've already mentioned this; perhaps mention of the bonus characters should be kept out of the main gameplay section?
  • Commander Video doesn't seem to link to an article on a character as such
  • Are the non-linked games worth redlinks?
  • "It has currently garnered over 840,000 views at Newgrounds, and 8 million overall, since its release." Sourced to a fairly old article- perhaps "as of"?
  • "the game; the game" Repetition
  • "McMillen and Refenes live on opposite sides of America" Probably should be shifted to past tense. Where they live now is not important.
  • "The game includes over 300 levels.[3]" Already mentioned.
  • "The next day they announced that while all versions would be released in the same month, the game would be released for XBLA first due to "contractual obligations".[18] The developers were contacted by Microsoft in August 2010 with the prospect of a promotion for the game at Microsoft's 2010 Fall GameFeast XBLA promotion." So they had contractual obligations before signing the contract with Microsoft?
  • Tried to clarify- it was contracted to come out for XBLA when it was done; the promotional thing was an additional thing proposed later, not part of the original contract. --PresN 00:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to Microsoft's low expectations for the game, Super Meat Boy was only lightly promoted, despite greatly outselling all of the other games in the GameFeast event." This implies the promotion came after the heavy selling.
  • Last para of development is a little choppy.
  • "for Canabalt and Gravity Hook" What are these, and why should we care?
  • "on Bandcamp" What is this?
  • "It won and was nominated for awards at Penny Arcade Expo 2010," Is it worth mentioning which ones?
  • "TheSteam" Typo? Link?
  • "and added," Unwarranted comma?
  • "The reviewer from GameTrailers" Implies we should already know about them. "A reviewer writing for" perhaps?
  • "other reviewers comments" Apostrophe!
  • "game's precise control, excellent level design, and smooth difficulty curve." Without quote marks, this implies that we are endorsing that opinion
  • "Official Xbox Magazine (UK)'s" "(UK)" is not part of the title, surely?
  • You link warp zone in reception, but haven't previously?
  • "Like other characters in the game, Meat Boy has appeared in other games" I had to reread this before I understood

Very nice article generally, I suspect it will soon make a great FA. Furthermore, sounds like a game I'd really enjoy. Good work! J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all of these issues. As a courtesy to the delegates, I've only replied inline when I had a more substantive comment than "Fixed". Thanks for the review! --PresN 00:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'm close to supporting, but I just want to make sure that the gameplay section is as smooth as can be.

  • "Completing a level within a certain time will earn an "A+" grade, which unlocks a harder alternate level in the "dark world"." What's the dark world? How is the level related to the one that has been completed, if at all?
  • Again, sorry, the phrase "retro-styled bonus levels" is not so accessible
  • "The Xbox Live Arcade version features an unlockable mode called "Teh Internets", which is freely updated with new levels." Official new levels?
  • What's the difference between the level editor and the developer modes?
  • "These characters can be unlocked by collecting enough bandages" The bandages are presumably items found in the levels?

Good work so far. J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed these last 5 points; sorry for taking so long, I was out of town/busy. --PresN 20:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple "quick" comments: —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Super Meat Boy is a platformer indie game developed by Team Meat, designed by Edmund McMillen and Tommy Refenes." -- This is fairly minor, but, since it's the first sentence, I've got to bring it up. "... Team Meat, designed by ..." is clunky. Try "designed by Edmund McMillen and Tommy Refenes and developed by Team Meat".
  • Day-month-year dates in lead sections are difficult reading. Cutting it down to month-year or even just the year is enough for the general reader. If they want more, the infobox or the rest of the article will provide it.
  • The lead doesn't contain enough on the Music section. In fact, I'd say that it doesn't contain enough material related to the Gameplay or Development sections, either.
  • "Players control a small, skinless, cube-shaped character named Meat Boy as he attempts to rescue his girlfriend, Bandage Girl, from the villainous Dr. Fetus through over 300 hazardous levels." -- "Players control Meat Boy, a skinless, cube-shaped character, as he attempts to rescue his girlfriend, Bandage Girl, from the villainous Dr. Fetus. The game contains over 300 levels and [another important gameplay element, to add more connection to the Gameplay section]."
  • "The game received acclaim from critics. In 2010 it received an award" -- unnecessary double "received". Could be fixed by changing the first sentence to "was acclaimed by critics". A comma would be preferable in between "2010" and "it".
  • "not all consumers would appreciate the difficult levels." -- "not all players would appreciate the level of difficulty" would be better.
  • "multiple chapters" -- "multiple" is redundant, since the "s" on the end of "chapters" already tells us that more than one is present.
  • "The player can jump and run and can jump off or slide down walls." -- I can't think of a clean way to rephrase this without a complete rewrite, but it's difficult reading as-is.
  • "The core gameplay, requiring fine control and split-second timing, has ..." -- "The core gameplay requires fine control and split-second timing, and has ..."
  • "new free" -- "new, free".
  • "which players have created" -- unnecessary double "which"; change this one to a "that".
  • "The level editor features a level portal where users can upload created levels." -- We were already told that PC users could access user-created levels a few sentences back. I recommend merging this sentence into the first one.
  • "Along with Meat Boy, there are several unlockable characters appearing from various video games, generally from other indie games." -- "The player may control characters other than Meat Boy, many of whom first appeared in other indie video games."
  • "enough bandage items placed ..." -- "enough" is redundant.
  • "Some bandages can only be collected by using certain characters. Some levels ..." -- "Some bandages can only be collected by using certain characters, and some levels ..."
  • Part two:
  • The amount of "McMillen"s is a bit jarring. Try changing "McMillen's Flash games" to "his Flash games" and "McMillen was working" to "he was working".
  • "to come up with something that felt fluid and logical" -- Too informal and vague. Try "to find one that felt fluid and logical".
  • "The pair designed the game to be deliberately "retro", imitating the aesthetics of traditional platform games, but with a modern sensibility regarding difficulty: rather than a frustrating type of difficulty, they wanted the game to be rewarding and challenging; to this end they included infinite lives, quick restarts of levels, obvious goals, and short levels." -- This is quite a snake. Try chopping it up into two, maybe three sentences.
  • "This was pushed back" -- "The release date was pushed back"
  • "extra levels in form of the dark worlds" -- There's a missing word in there, but I'm not sure merely adding it would fix this. But, for some reason, I can't think of a solution right now.
  • "February 22, 2010, revealed" -- Second comma should be removed.
  • "The next day they announced that while all versions would be released in the same month, the game would be released for XBLA first due to "contractual obligations"." -- "The next day, they announced that, while all versions would be released in the same month, the game would be released for XBLA first because of "contractual obligations"."
  • "The developers were contacted by Microsoft in August 2010 with the prospect of a promotion for the game at Microsoft's 2010 Fall GameFeast XBLA promotion if the game was finished by then." -- Run-on with an unnecessary double "promotion". Needs restructuring.
  • complete on the game, so for the final two months they worked daily, slept" -- "complete on the game, so, for the final two months, they worked daily, slept"
  • "The PC release went smoother from a promotional standpoint, but highlighted many hardware-related bugs that had been missed in testing that were quickly fixed." -- I don't really understand what this sentence means. How did it go smoother? Also, the "highlighted many hardware-related bugs that had been missed in testing that were quickly fixed" confuses me, on top of being a strange run-on. I don't understand it well enough to offer a suggestion, though.
  • Both "Due to Sony's" and "due to the challenge" need to be "because of" or "as a result of".
  • "pulled from the removed from the from the iTunes store" -- Surprised the copyeditor didn't see this.
  • "into an expanded and cohesive soundtrack" -- Sounds a bit POV when phrased like this. Clarifying the meaning would probably alleviate the issue.
  • I made a few tweaks to shorten the review. Here's part three:
  • "Sales have been strong, with the Xbox 360 version moving nearly 140,000 units by the end of 2010." -- "have been" is a quickly-dated term on Wikipedia. I recommend changing the phrasing to be more timeless. Also, "moving" isn't the best word to use for a digitally distributed game.
  • "Critics praised the game's platform elements, with specific commentary often directed at the game's difficulty." -- "Critics praised Super Meat Boy's platforming elements, and often commented on the game's difficulty."
  • "Gilbert specifically cited the level of difficulty as the reason for not giving the game a perfect score, as while it was the core of the game, it made it inaccessible to some players." -- "Gilbert cited the level of difficulty, which he believed made the game inaccessible to some players, as his reason for not awarding the game a perfect score."
  • "unique retro art style" -- Perhaps "unique, retro art direction". There might be a better way.
  • "noted that the game's visual presentation is unique" -- "noted the uniqueness of the game's visual presentation"
  • "classic 8-bit games. He lauded the game's soundtrack" -- "class 8-bit games, and lauded the game's soundtrack". Also, go ahead and axe the "he stated".
  • Everyone's "stating" things in this paragraph. It starts standing out around Holmes' quote, so try changing that to "wrote".
  • "December 1, 2010, to promote" -- Second comma goes.
  • Addressed all of part 3. I'd like to apologize; this article isn't up to my usual standards and I'm feeling a bit embarrassed about all of the obvious prose flaws you and others keep finding. --PresN 19:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - based just up the number of issues I found with the lead, which is all but one of the points below. The additional one is a very serious criticism - response would be interesting.
  • It would be worth adopting the full version of "platformer indie game". More encyclopedic language and more reader-friendly.
  • I assume that Meat Boy is as notable as Super Meat Boy. So link it, even if it's a redlink.
  • Why do you assume that? But sure, linked.
  • Meat Boy is a flash game, but Super Meat Boy is a...? Or is the mention of flash too detailed for the lead?
  • What is a "skinless" character?
  • I'm still none the wiser. Is Pacman a character with or without skin? What difference does the skin/lack of make, ie how is it perceived, why is it important etc? I'm not being pedantic here, I genuinely don't understand. --Dweller (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the original description came from McMillen specifically countering PETA that the character was "made of meat", saying that he was instead "skinless"; I don't think it's that important, though, so if it's confusing I'll just change it to "red". I don't think readers are that bothered by McMillen's odd character design quirks. --PresN 19:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Red definitely does work, lol. --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "300 hazardous levels" sounds like sales speak and certainly breaches peacock at least, if not NPOV. If it's from their sales patter, source and quote.
  • The point of the game is that it is hard. So that should be given some mention in the Gameplay section. The particular phrase was also addressed above already, and is a rather precise description of the game's levels. So perhaps we can keep the adjective, but add some of existing references from Reception where reviewers call the levels/game hard? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an award" should be plural, as it becomes the subject of several bodies who have made awards
  • Done.
  • personal preference for the encyclopedic language of "although" over "though".
  • "unique retro art style" The last word is redundant. The first is peacock unless a quote and in any case is a word to avoid in good writing (anything that's not a direct copy is "unique")
  • Either reference everything in the lead (some peoples' preference) or nothing (mine). Either works. Minor bits of referencing looks like either you've included unreferenced material, or you have material in the lead that's not mentioned in the body. Both alternatives are Bad.
Done. --PresN 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 600,000 copies... worldwide?
  • The lead is very short for a Featured Article candidate.
  • I'd expect a proper section detailing sales worldwide to meet our criteria of comprehensiveness - is there a reason this isn't included?
  • All of the information that is available is there, in the Reception. Those two sentences, saying how much it has sold by date x. Pretty much no video game FA has more, as such data is generally not made publicly available. --PresN 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes. I take the point that the rest of the article may be in better shape. I'll review when I can. --Dweller (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now—I've gone through and made some minor tweaks, so the prose looks good to my eye. However I did a random spot check on some of the sources, current refs 1,2,5,10, and 15, and I found some discrepancies, for example:
    • "The game is divided into multiple chapters, which together contain over 300 levels."→"multiple chapters" division not supported by [4] (2)
    • "Along with Meat Boy, there are several unlockable characters appearing from various video games, generally from other indie games"→"indie characters" not supported by [5] (5)
    • "Players must guide Meat Boy to the end of each level while avoiding buzzsaws, salt, and various other fatal obstacles. The player can jump and run and can jump off or slide down walls. The core gameplay, requiring fine control and split-second timing, has been compared to traditional platform games such as Mega Man and N."→Doesn't mention salt, doesn't mention "N" by name as far as I can see.
    • More checks may be warranted, especially in the gameplay section.
    • What about some of the complaints of the game? Sure, it was mostly positive, but there were still less-positive comments—IGN, for example, noted that the cut scenes showed the lack of production value[6], PC Gamers noted minor bugs[7], and Games Radar pointed out that while he felt the game earned the right to be insanely difficult, it could still turn off some players[8]. Considering the Edge review is the lowest score I could find (8/10) I think you could do with adding those reviewers' comments to the mix (X201 might have a copy, although unfortunately I can't use the database to find exactly when the review was done so you'll have to make an educated guess.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh, sorry about that. Your above concerns have all been addressed. All of the points were there in the refs- "chapters" was covered by ref 5, "indie game characters" by ref 2, "N" by the MTV review, etc., but the right refs weren't covering the right sentences. I'll go through the gameplay section line by line this afternoon to make sure that I didn't transpose facts between refs anywhere else. Some negative reception has been added by SCB below; I'll find some more as well. --PresN 19:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article looks more than enough to be a featured article. I've added some of the reviewers complaints of the game in the reception section with sources. I've also fixed the sources that support "indie games" being written; changed "salt" to "crumbling blocks" and changed "N" to "Ghosts 'n Goblin"-SCB '92 (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
  • From this source I've found close paraphrasing that needs rewriting, and am having trouble with source verification:
  • article says:Players must guide Meat Boy to the end of each level while avoiding buzzsaws, crumbling blocks, and various other fatal obstacles.
  • The source says: In Meat Boy you must guide the protagonist through an increasingly difficult series of (often) vertical scrolling levels filled with crumbling blocks, spinning saw blades, and other deadly obstacles.
  • The article says: The game was initially set to include around 100 levels, and to have both co-operative and competitive multiplayer modes. However, the multiplayer option was dropped in favor of increasing the number of levels. The source says 100 levels have been developed and multi-player functionality is expected to be added; it doesn't say one was sacrificed for the other.
  • The article says: The core gameplay requires fine control and split-second timing, and has been compared to traditional platform games such as Mega Man and Ghosts 'n Goblins. I can't find anything in the source about the timing, and I think the bit about being compared is off - the developer said he wanted it to be a recreation of those games (in other words they inspired this game), which is different, in my view.

Will check a few more as soon as I have time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This source is a video, which should be indicated in the cites.
  • From this source in the article is written, Completing a level within a certain time earns an "A+" grade, which unlocks a harder alternate version of the level in the "dark world", an optional set of difficult levels. Hidden stages called warp zones are accessed by finding portals in specific levels. These warp zones feature bonus levels that have either the art style of older video games and a limit of three lives, or are patterned after another indie video game.[2]. Although in quotation marks, "dark world" isn't mentioned in the source. According to the source the player has to get a "grade A", not A+, to access the alt levels. According to the source all of the alt (warp) levels are retro style. To access the alt levels the source say "with a Grade A they'll unlock the alternate expert version of that level" which is slightly too close to our version of " an "A+" grade, which unlocks a harder alternate version"
  • This source is a blog. What makes it reliable? Also in this source the OP says the development mode (dev mode) is buggy and rough - doesn't mention tools. The article says, Players can also access an unsupported developer mode inside the game to edit their own levels using the "rough" tools that Team Meat used to create the game - I'd suggest rewording this per the source a bit.
  • Ref 9 is also a blog. It seems to be published by the game developers, so again, why is it reliable? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per 1.c. About 15 or so refs (about 25 percent of the refs) are pages from the blog Team Meat which appears to be written by the game developers, which is an over-reliance on a questionable primary source. Try to find the information from these pages in more reliable secondary sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The game developers are a questionable source??? They're the "experts" at the knowledge of the internals of the game, there is no way that should be considered unreliable. There are some of the announcements that they have in this that could be replaced with sourced coverage from other media (for example, I'm pretty sure the availability of the physical soundtrack was noted across other vg sites), but when they are talking about specific design elements and decisions for the game, there is absolutely nothing wrong with their own blog as the source, since if there are news stories, they are going to be likely pointing right back to that blog. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to speak for Truthkeeper, but I'd say the issue is not that this source is likely to contain errors, but that it's a primary source - we tend to prefer secondary sources for FAs. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Nikkimaria, basically that's what I'm driving at. I see a couple of problems that need to be resolved before I can strike the oppose.
    • I'd consider this a primary source because the developers themselves produced it. Also, because I can't find a publisher for the site, I'm concerned it might be a publicity site. And finally, it could fall under WP:SPS. I think used sparingly I might say okay, but am on the fence in that regard, but for a page to rely so heavily on a questionable source is problematic, and needs to be resolved to some extent.
    • The few spotchecks I did showed some close paraphrasing that needs to be rewritten. I've only looked at a few sources and noted what I found.
    • In the instances I noted there are discrepancies between the source and the article. These need to be resolved.
    I've stopped spotchecking until the existing issues, which I consider actionable and easily taken care, have been resolved. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that over-reliance on the primary sources can be a problem normally; I know several can be replaced as they are just news items (soundtrack release, etc.), but I don't think all of them can be, and may leave, say, 8-10 of them still in place. The point I question is the issue of being reliable, as the confirmed developers of the game are the most reliable source on its creation. While some of what Team Meat has stated has then been duplicated by third-party sources, this doesn't change the reliability of the original info to begin with. And sometimes, these development aspects are just not covered by third-parties (not necessarily the case here, but moreso for any indie games to begin with). --MASEM (t) 18:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to add that primary sources are critical to almost every video game FA. Only the biggest games receive secondary coverage of their development cycles. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, my question is whether we're making an exception for video games? Normally I write about books, but many of the modern books I like to write about only receive coverage on blogs and such, and I'd consider an author blog to be unreliable. I don't really see the difference between an author blog and a game developer blog - unless I'm missing something. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Busy at work, I'll get to your issues soon, but just wanted to interject- so, in your opinion, if the developer says "I did blah while making this game(/book)" it would be unreliable, but if a journalist asked them in an interview and they said "I did blah", that would be reliable? Because in both cases- heck, in all cases- the information has to come from the devs; no one else could possible know anything about the game's development other than the people who were there. Primary sources can't be used for notability/importance, and you're probably right that I'm relying on them too much (25% is high), but I don't see how they could not be used to verify facts about things that only they could know about. --PresN 21:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have yet to read the full article, but something that caught my eye was the list of playable characters. I would call such content game guide info. I suggest summarizing the content. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:58, 19 July 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 Karanacs 20:16, 20 July 2011 [9].

Mario

Nominator(s): Nathan2055talk 18:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it's very clear, explains Mario's history very well, isn't bias, and has plenty of references. Nathan2055talk 18:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I don't think this article is quite ready to be featured. A recent Peer Review featured a long list of problems with the article, nearly all of which have not been addressed yet, including missing citations, bias, and shallow summaries of some of the games. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Withdraw I took a look at the history page and see that the nominator is not a significant contributor to the article. The guideline specifically states: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." Erick (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - First, that doesn't appear to be a peer review, just a note on the talk page indicating problems. I'll try and tackle some of them over the next few days. Secondly, I'm not a major editor, but I've played almost every Mario game, and made some fairly major edits to some of the game articles (such as proposing the merge of New Super Mario Bros. Mii), so I consider myself knowledgeable about the subject. It's also an article that I have read and referred to several times. --Nathan2055talk 19:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Nikkimaria 16:54, 20 July 2011 [10].

Better Than Today

Nominator(s): I Help, When I Can. [12] 09:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last FAC, the reviewers told me to take this article back to peer review, which I have done. I feel that all comments are now resolved. I Help, When I Can. [12] 09:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is really well done.

  • There is no alt text for the two "Music video" images (which is allowed), but the caption on "Background and synopsis" reads more like alt text. Consider moving it to the alt text and replacing with a less descriptive but more informative caption.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I'm not sure this article is ready for FAC. There are major issues with prose and certain editorial choices that leave the article lacking. The background section is a bit short and reveal nothing about the writing and production process. Also, there is no "writing and recording" section at all, which is virtually imperative in an article of this nature. Two samples present a comparison between different versions of the song, but the section lacks any commentary upon this comparison. And, as expected, both samples lack individual, in-depth fair use rationales (not surprising, since their use in the article is not justified). Other editorial concern: Reference 31 strikes me as a bit odd. You want us to go look for the information ourselves? The ref reads "For information on the crew's involvement, see..." but the youtube video you used added nothing more that a repeat of a phrase that you already included "I put this together with the help of my crew." For the second video, I didn't bother watching it. If it adds anything new, please include it in the article. Also prose issues: "'Better Than Today' was one of the more prominent results of the collaboration." I'm not sure I understand what this sentence is trying to say. Can you explain? Also, "The song has received positive and mixed reception from critics." I see what you're trying to say: positive in the album's context, but negative reception as a single. If my assumption is right that the quoted sentence is meant as a topic sentence for the entire section, you need to expand or revise it so it doesn't sound as awkward. I shouldn't have to read the entire section to get what the topic sentence is trying to say. One more thing: don't call Popjustice "they". Say "a review/writer etc from Popjustice said..." Popjustice and Contactmusic, being websites, should not be italicized. "During the week of 20 November 2010, "Better Than Today" made its UK Singles Chart debut at number 67."— was this a Tuesday or a Wednesday? I mean, you should write the date it first charted: "On 20 November 2010" or "On the singles chart dated 20 November" or "On the week ending 20 November" etc, not "During the week". "This was based purely on digital sales from the album as the single was not released until 3 December 2010." Sentence is awkward. I think you can say it better. Something like "On 20 November 2010, before its official release as a single, the song debuted on the UK Singles Chart due to strong digital sales from the album" etc. You've worked hard at the article, but I'm afraid it needs more sourcing, and information, and a copy-edit for style and prose. Orane (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well at this point after everything, I'm officially done with this article. Count this as me withdrawing my nomination if you will. It's been so long. I'm through with this. I Help, When I Can. [12] 15:27, 20 July 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 Karanacs 02:59, 19 July 2011 [11].

Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)

Nominator(s): Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song) to be a featured article because I'd like it to have its own bronze star in the corner. As I noted on its previous failed FACs, "Halo" is my favorite song, and it is the article I've contributed to the most. "Halo" is currently a good article, and it has been copy-edited by a GOCE member, and other users as well.

If you have some doubts about its references, please refer the previous FACs. Thank you so much. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time - the article has improved since its previous nomination, but I feel it still falls short of the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked the UK release date as WP:SYNTH, the references likely refer to the physical release date, not the release of the single as a download. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why "Halo" charted two months before its release as a single on January 20 is that the album was released on November 17, 2008. Thus, the song charted thanks to downloads in that month. This is not dubious nor a sythesis as you tagged the article, but adding what I commented is WP:OR. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the album was released for download on November 17, 2008, then the release date for the single is no later then that date. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very obscure statement. A single is released when the record labels release and/or promote it independently of the album. The fact that an album is released digitally with every track available for download by itself is irrelevant. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A song offically becomes a single when it is recognised as being a single by the respective chart company of a given country. In the UK, since 2007, at the point it can be bought in a recognised format (which specifically includes unbundled album downloads) the single is 'released' and can chart and in this case(like so many other singles) in fact did. There is nothing obscure in my statement, only a lack of understanding by wiki editors who cling to a pre-download era interpretation of a single inspite of well established and documented operation of the music industry since the introduction of downloads. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong with this, and actually delaying this FAC. Please take this to "Halo" talkpage and read WP:Promotional singles to know what is a single. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So if a song is leaked and charts from airplay, it is "released"? Sorry, album download sales do not equal single release. What about album tracks that are downloaded but don't chart? Or tracks that chart but are never formally released as singles? Are they considered singles? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adabow, you are asking some decent questions that require a reply. I take it from your user profile you are based in New Zealand, or at least not the UK. Your location is important because the rules differ greatly from country to country. Specifically here, I am talking about the UK charts. "if a song is leaked and charts from airplay, it is "released"?" - In the UK, charts are all based on real, genuine sales so airplay doesn't count to charts ever, so issue does not arise. "Album download sales do not equal single release" - in the UK since Jan 1 2007 they do yes, here and see here. "tracks that chart but are never formally released as singles" - nothing can chart unless it's given an release date, it has to be registered with a release date to the Phonographic Performance Limited(PPL) three weeks before release see The Offical Chart Company Register Releases, part 4(note the specific data includes a release date), so everything that charts in the UK has a release date, it's part of the process required to qualify for the official charts and ensure the relevant artist gets paid royalties. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tbhotch and Adabow, SunCreator you are plain wrong in your assessment of a single's release date. Please don't tag articles based on your opinion. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Oppose article contains original research in respect to the release dates given and therefore does not meet the FA criteria, nor GA critiera either. The release date provided in the article is disproved because the date it charted cannot preceed the release date in the UK. The mechanics of this is documented by the music press as well as The Official Charts Company information pack. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tbhotch disagrees with this oppose; for extended discussion, see talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 12 July 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 Karanacs 02:59, 19 July 2011 [12].

2005 Qeshm earthquake

Nominator(s): ceranthor 07:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is now a fully comprehensive and well-written account of a powerful earthquake. Fortunately, it was not responsible for many deaths, but the 2005 Qeshm earthquake allowed for analysis of both local and regional geology, including the enigmatic "buried faults" which I still don't fully understand. Thank you to Nikkimaria for offering commentary. ceranthor 07:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in whether you include a period after "pg"
  • Bibliography and References formatting should be the same
  • Ref 15: you've got the newspaper and publisher names reversed
  • Ref 18: The Guardian should be italicized
  • Be consistent in whether television news sources are italicized
  • For sources published by NetNative or LiveScience, include work title
  • Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
  • Page range for Nissen et al 2007? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed except for the formatting - I'm not sure how they can be the same. ceranthor 19:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just an issue of using a consistent author name order (first or last name first). Also, is Priestly's first initial deliberately lower-case? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, and I've fixed those. ceranthor 15:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment -

Intro:

  • Generally, if information in the intro will be repeated later on, one would not use citations. WP:LEAD
  • "Southern" in "southern Iran" should be capitalised if it is referring to a section of the country
  • "With 1 in 3,000 deaths in Iran attributable to earthquakes, one expert has suggested..." I assume this excerpt is referring to Roger Bilham, cited in source [28]? If so, the article does not give any information on Roger Bilham and why he is to be considered an expert. If not, to whom does it refer?

Background and geology:

  • Consider removing "according to Nissen et al. (2007) and the United States Geological Survey." -- I do not know if these two sources are notable enough to warrant a citation in both the references and the prose.
  • "Iran experiences at least one minor earthquake per day,[6]" Source states that on average, Iran experiences 1 earthquake per day. Not necessarily on a daily basis
  • "...which Nissen et al. (2007) confirms..." Once again, consider removing a citation in the actual text of the article
  • References the Simply Folded Belt before the phrase "Southern Iran's Zagros mountains lie in a highly active area of seismicity known as the Simply Folded Belt..." is stated for clarification. Consider rearranging article
  • "Earthquakes of this type are not considered destructive." By whom? The source appearing first after that statement (a sentence later) blatantly states "A powerful earthquake hit southern Iran today, causing major destruction in seven villages and..." with the only other source in that paragraph only coming as close as "Earthquakes with an epicenter closer to the surface generally are more violent and cause more damage." yet stating that this type of earthquake is still violent and still causes damage. The article even calls the earthquake "strong" in its title.
  • Though there is a citation needed tag later on in the paragraph, I feel the need to state that reference [16] does not state that mud and brick are poor earthquake-resistant materials. "The island, with a population of about 120,000 people, consists primarily of villages with a majority of mud-and-brick buildings that may not be quake-resistant." It just mentions the possibility that the materials are not quake-resistant.

Damage and casualties:

  • Many sources do state that the quake lasted 10 or more, yet only 1 is referenced. Sources that state that: [2], [6], [16], [17], [18], [21], [22], [23]

Relief efforts:

  • In the caption under the image in this section, the word "pulse" should be turned plural.

Future threat:

  • I do not believe source [28] ever states that anything is responsible for the statistic of 1 in 3,000 Iranians dying in an earthquake. The article does not state that he said anything was to be held accountable. Just that the statistic has remained unchanged since ~1900. "Iran is the worst offender, according to Bilham. One in 3,000 Iranians dies in an earthquake, he said, a statistic that has remained unchanged since 1900." Although this might imply heavily enough that the construction techniques are to blame that it is fine how it is, I am being nitpicky.
  • "The United Nations have prepared a Common Country Assessment" I think that the verb would have to be singular here because the U and the N are capitalised, making it the singular name of the organisation, rather than a plural noun. However, I might be wrong.

I did not check all in-line citations due to time constraints and the fact that I could only access online references. Micromann (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should all be fixed! ceranthor 21:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry, I didn't get your message until just now (I had gone to sleep shortly after making that comment). I made these comments after Graham Colm's edits. Second read through:
Intro:
  • "Thirteen [deaths]" is written out as a word. Later, in Damage and casualties, it is written as "13 [deaths]" -- You might consider changing one of the two for consistency's sake.
  • I'm just echoing Carcharoth with this one, but: Intro states 4 villages were devastated. List of destroyed villages in Damage and casualties contains 13 villages.
  • "Kilometres" is spelled as "res" in the intro. In Background and geology, kilometers, meters, centimeters, and millimeters are spelled "ers". Consider changing "res" to "ers" for consistency's sake.
  • "Because the earthquake occurred in a remote area during the middle of the day, it did not not cause many fatalities, and Iranian relief efforts in the aftermath were effective and largely sufficient" -- You might consider putting this in the relief section as well, rephrased and cited
Background and geology:
  • "...second noteworthy Iranian earthquake of the year, having been preceded by the 2005 Zarand earthquake on February 22.[4]" Not a flaw, but the "having been preceded by" sounds a bit odd to me. Maybe change it to just "preceded by" because it is a current fact (it's kind of like saying "North America had included Mexico").
  • You might consider breaking the following into 2 sentences to avoid having 2 citations and 3 hyperlinks on just one sentence: "The focal mechanism (which describes the orientation of the fault that slipped and its movement direction) of this earthquake suggests it was a result of thrusting (where older rock is pushed over younger rock),[5] which has been confirmed as reverse slip (faulting which shortens and thickens the crust).[9]"
Damage and casualties:
  • "Seven other villages experienced extensive damage.[1]" - Source states that at least 7 other villages were severely damaged. The way it currently is written, if only 8 villages total experienced extensive damage, how could 13 be destroyed by it? Maybe reword the quoted sentence and the next as something to the effect of "13 villages were destroyed (list the destroyed ones) with at least 7 others experiencing extensive damage."
  • "Mercalli scale Intensity III damage was reported in Bandar Abbas, Abu Zabi, Ajman, Dubayy, al-Fujayrah and Ras al Khaymah; Intensity IV damage (moderate) occurred at Sharjah.[b]" Where are these places located? In Iran? If you remove the image of the pulses (not suggesting to or not to), you might consider replacing it with a map showing where some of these places are and how far from Qeshm Island they are
Relief efforts:
  • The only thing I noticed in this section was the extra number of tents after reading Carcharoth's comment. Although "In total more than 2,000 people were affected.[20]" can mean it did in fact affect 4,000 people, it seems that the article would be more likely to state "Over 4,000 people were affected." You might have to leave out 1 of the 2 statistics or find a source stating that 4,000 were affected.
Future threat:
  • Though we now know who Roger Bilham is and why he is qualified to speak on this matter, we have no source to verify his information.
  • First time the Richter scale is mentioned in the article. Maybe hyperlink to it
  • Though I don't have access to reference [29], does it state all facts in the 2nd-to-last paragraph on page 59, or just the facts about the 1990 one?
Once again, I did not check all the citations to verify them. The article has a good amount of facts, gets fairly technical and is not overly long. I think it is a good article, just it could use a bit more work before I support its nomination. Micromann (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All are fixed, except for the locations, which I'm sorting out. And yes, all of that is mentioned on just one page (the source is available in the bibliography section). ceranthor 18:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry. There are problems with the prose, which suffers from redundancy and lack of flow. I made a few edits but got stuck here, "Faults on Qeshm Island converge to create a complex structure in the center of the island, where most of the tension was positioned in the center of Qeshm Island, along a northwest-southeast trending fault where the most concentrated levels of shear and dilatancy (volume change associated with application of shear stress) were observed." The repetition of "in the center" is confusing, and there is too much information squashed into one sentence. The article needs copy-editing – I suspect throughout. Graham Colm (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Most of the geology section was added recently, so it hasn't been fine-tuned as well as it should have been. I'll try to enlist a copyeditor, but I think I can make a lot of progress by myself on this one. ceranthor 23:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Carcharoth (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I did this brief review following a request on my talk page.
  • "at 13:52 locally" - I think the usual phrasing would be "local time", not "locally".
  • You give previous context, by naming the previous powerful earthquake (Zagrand). Can you give future context by naming one of the powerful earthquakes in Iran that most immediately followed this one? I would have though you would at least need to mention 2006 Borujerd earthquake and 2008 Bandar Abbas earthquake, particularly the latter as it is in the same area (you have edited the latter article recently - it there a reason it is not mentioned in this article?).
  • More than four villages are said to have been damaged/destroyed in the main text - contradicts the lead.
  • The relief efforts and description of the injuries and damage in the main article make it sound much more destructive than the lead says. Compare "It killed thirteen people and devastated four villages" with "In total more than 2,000 people were affected." and "4,696 sets of relief tents". Was the relief effort over-pitched or is it normal to send more supplies than may be needed, or did it affect more than 2000 people?
  • The picture of pulses is jarring and the epitome of decorative.

Overall, I'm in two minds about this as it is clearly a powerful earthquake, but (fortunately) the deaths and destruction were relatively limited ("thirteen people [died] and devastated four villages"). This does mean that the amount out there about this will be less than for earthquakes that had more impact. But I think some of this article is padding, and I can't think of a politer way to put that. I'm referring to the 'Future threat' section. It feels like that material could be cut-and-pasted into article about any earthquake in Iran (I see that similar wording is present in 2008 Bandar Abbas earthquake). Also, the 'Future threat' section doesn't mention the '2005 Qeshm earthquake' earthquake at all, and also fails to mention the later earthquake in 2008. What is really needed here is stuff to make that section relevant to this article. Did the 2005 Qeshm earthquake change anything in terms of approaches to earthquakes in Iran? Carcharoth (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all your minor comments and removed the image. I'm simply following the refs so I'd have to assume the efforts were over-pitched. As for the future threat, I can see how you think it's padding, but really my goal with that sort of information is to spread awareness. If an Iranian ever reads this sort of article, I'd want them to know of the risks and to be aware of the situation. I'm totally willing to add more information, though. ceranthor 18:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ceranthor, what's the status on the copyedit? Karanacs (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copyediting the section on my own. I will do my absolute best to have the edits up tonight; sorry for the delay. (that includes more information for the future threats section as well) ceranthor 12:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And now tomorrow morning. ceranthor 22:09, 14 July 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 Karanacs 02:59, 19 July 2011 [13].

Turning Point (2008)

Nominator(s): --WillC 10:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I nominated it once before and no decision was made. Tried again, didn't pay attention to how many days had went by since closing. It was deleted. Now a few months later I've decided to give it another shot. Comments will be fixed as soon as possible.--WillC 10:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Must have renamed the website recently.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Turning Point (2008) was a professional wrestling pay-per-view (PPV) event..." I am sure that it was a normal professional wrestling event, which was broadcast only by PPV.
Don't understand the issue.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 15 is a dead link.
Been looking for a replacement. Surprised they removed it myself.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article looks terribly overlinked. Delink the links that don't need to be linked. See WP:OVERLINK.
Overlinking is usually a problem, but I've made sure nothing is overlinked. At least I do believe nothing is. There is just alot of stuff included. Multiple people, matches, subjects, etc.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The videos all come from the main source, TNA. They have a youtube channel which they promote through their website as well. Makes them reliable to use.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TGilmour (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All above have been completed.--WillC 22:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source for "X Divisions rankings..." table?
    • Gets its information from magizines, dvds, etc according to the project.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The project lists it as "not yet proven", saying "Use with caution, mainly for uncontroversial claims such as the attendance of the event, as these sites do not have proven fact checking". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm assuming you are using the style guide the project made. Yeah, that thing hasn't been updated since 2008 or 2009 I do believe. We've had a few discussions since then on sources, etc. Anyway, PWH currently only sources two simple things: Match times and Attendance which if I recall is what the project has agreed on, etc.--WillC 10:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • What part of the project were you trying to point me to above? Also, can you link to some of the more recent discussions on sources that you mention? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I haven't been involved on here in a big capacity since around sometime last year, so any directing would be tough. Search through keywords would be the best thing through the archive at WT:PW. As for project pages, I am referring to the WP:PW style guide. In 2008, there was this big discussion to change the PPV formats. Did such but never really kept the thing updated. I'm not sure when the last thing it was updated, but it is certainly way out of date.--WillC 00:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the qualifications of the author of this source and similar? What is the site's editorial policy?
    • Adam Martin is a known wrestling editor. Interviewed through various magazines, websites, etc. I do believe he is the admin of WrestleView, owns it. That ref is a redirect from TNA themselves. Written by Bill Banks, who is a writer for TNA's official website. Used it and Pro Wrestling History in Lockdown (2008), another FA.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, that specific article is probably okay, but what about others from this site? According to WP:PW, "source is marginally reliable, its use is strictly for television and pay-per-view results". Is that consistent with your use? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I direct to above again. Yeah, mainly just that. Only time it isn't used for just that I do believe is to cover the Scott Hall appearance details.--WillC 10:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods in reference formatting
  • Titles or quotes can be corrected for minor MOS issues like hyphens vs dashes
  • Can you expound on the editorial policy and author qualifications of this site? When I try to access it, my pop-up blocker goes beserk
    • They have always had alot up pop ups, very annoying they are. I use the website because it is probably the most reliable article the project has. Lets see where to start, the wesbite's main writers are James Caldwell and Wade Keller. Both have been featured in magazines, interviewed, etc. Keller wrote a book. I do believe both have connections to the Wrestling Observer, a respected (I guess, sounds weird saying) wrestling newsletter, website, etc.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include full bibliographic information in both Footnotes and Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confused by above. Someone changed the format to the references when I nominated an article once before and since I've changed all my references to this format.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can use the footnotes-bibliography format, but in conjunction with shortened citations to avoid redundancy. For example, FN 23 is identical to the first Bibliography entry. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, yeah I kinda did that on purpose. Mainly since I always hear stuff above just not having an inline source. Just wanted to not have to hear things about unsourced statements since that is the only way I can source that info I have found so far. I'll remove one of them if you wish, no difference to me?--WillC 10:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review

  • Several images are of pretty low quality. I replaced the existing Beer Money image with a much higher quality one from their article, as the previous image was one of the lowest quality images I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The A.J. Styles image could use a less blurry replacement, there isn't one in his article, really, although Sting, his opponent in the event, does have some good quality images. The Kurt Angle image also is a tad blurry.
  • Images where one person is being pictured but multiple names are listed in the caption need to be clarified. "John Doe (pictured) was pitted against Bob Public..." or something along those lines.
    • I usually do that, must have forgotten it for the Beer Money picture. Just noticed I need to add alt text as well. Guess I better fixed that soon.--WillC 01:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FUR for File:Turning Point (2008).jpg isn't suitable for a GA article, let alone an FA article. I'll try and fix it, but someone who knows the subject matter needs to come along behind me and add something respectable into the "Purpose of use" section. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm unusual, the tag for the poster was changed last time this was nominated if I'm not mistaken. Pretty much the purpose is to just illustrate the event. Not sure what needs to be changed. I just write the info. Comes to pictures I left all my knowledge on commons a few years back.--WillC 01:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll figure something out. I really don't like "To illustrate the event in question" as it's a cop-out, although I've put it in myself when I have no idea what's being depicted but the fur is incomplete. "To illustrate the event in question" is not, however, acceptable for an FA. On second thought, I'm finding it rather hard to justify having the image there in the first place. I know that event posters are the norm, but what does it really add? In this case we have a ton of free images, which cannot be said for things like comic books, movies, television shows. I'll have to think on it. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Come to think of it there is alot of reasons to have it included. Besides just being a picture to show the event, it is a sign of promotion for the event. Helping to work with the production section. It shows lengths at which the company went to build up the event. I'd say it is quite handy.--WillC 03:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Don't believe the hyphen in "late-2008" is needed. There's also one in Reception.
  • Background: "In October 2008, three events were rescheduled: Genesis, Final Resolution, and Turning Point. Turning Point...". Try not to have the repetition from one sentence to another, if possible (it's tough in this case).
  • "while a Final Resolution event was announced for some time in December." Don't think "a" or "event" is needed; "while Final Resolution..." sounds nice and tight.
  • Storylines: "Wrestlers were portrayed as either villains or heroes in the scripted events that build tension and culminate into a wrestling match or series of matches." With past tense ("were"), "build" should be "built" and "culminate" should be "culminated". Also, I think "into" would be better served as "with".
  • Reception: Try not to have a sentence begin with a number, like the first sentence of this section. A simple addition of "A total of" would fix the issue, though it is wordier that way. Or you could just spell out the number.
  • "which was a .5 above the 2007 event's rating of 6.5 by Chris Sokol." Remove "a" as an excess word?
  • "The event was released on DVD on March 24, 2009 as apart of the 'TNA Wrestling: Cross The Line Vol. 2' box set". "apart" should be two words.
  • Aftermath: "This time the rules were different than at their previous at Turning Point". Previous match? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, the Eight Man Tag Team match at Final Resolution was promoted as a title defense by Sting against AJ. Anyone from AJ's team got the win, AJ became champion. So it was Sting's and AJ's second match.--WillC 06:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant that a word should be added to the sentence, as in "than at their previous match at Turning Point." Right now the sentence isn't making it clear what the previous item was. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You know what? I just deleted that part, not adding much anyway. I had no idea how to fix it, so just went ahead and made it short and to the point. I hope you agree?--WillC 10:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Does anyone have any more comments they'd like to state? If so please post them below.--WillC 13:51, 17 July 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 Karanacs 02:59, 19 July 2011 [14].

Origin of the name "Empire State"

Nominator(s): upstateNYer 03:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a concise article covering the history of the nickname of New York. Surprisingly, the history behind the name is unknown, being limited to rumor and conjecture. As such, the topic is not covered widely in books and other resources about New York State history. At the time of this nomination, I believe I have exhausted my resources for the name and covered the poorly documented topic well. upstateNYer 03:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is an article about etymology, so I was surprised it does not include the first documented use of the term (only claims that the term was well known at a particular time). The OED says the term was first used in 1834; Google Books gave me apparent uses in 1825, 1825, and 1820 (I'm cautious because many Google Books have incorrect publication dates; this one seems to be correct). The OED also cites uses of the term for other U.S. states, a theme this article does not cover. Ucucha 04:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's actually an article on toponymy, not etymology, but nevertheless I share your concerns Ucucha. I don't at all see this as a credible FA. Malleus Fatuorum 04:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor do I, but please note that the earliest OED citation does not amount to "The OED says the term was first used...", merely that this was the earliest use they were aware of, usually at some point back in the 1890s etc. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The lead must not contain references. TGilmour (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm afraid that I feel that the article is a long way from featured status at this time, and is much more suited to GA status. I strongly suspect that there are a number of sources out there that have not been plummed; the sources currently cited are, noticeably, all online. Admittedly, I know nothing about New York history, and so I am not in a position to point you towards books that may contain information, but there must be some, surely? In my head, I'm comparing this to "little known" academic topics that I am qualified to comment upon; an article on the Taylor-Warrender thesis (a controversy within scholarship on Thomas Hobbes), for instance, could not possibly survive on online sources only. A look at this or this may point you in the right direction. J Milburn (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it happens to be coincidence that Klein's book (and the pages I cite) is online. I actually wrote the article using the hard copy I have. Then I went to the Encyclopedia of New York State (also my hard copy). Klein wrote the article in there too. It was Klein's work that pointed me to the old Flick references, the first of which I make note of is not online. You'll note that Klein's book is a publication of the New York State Historical Society, which hasn't published a comprehensive state history since that book was published. I actually did all of the work on Bibliography of New York and quite frankly have read thousands of pages of New York history. This is a subject that almost nobody takes on other than a fleeting glance, which is why so little is known (and probably why it took almsot ten years for the article to be started in the first place). upstateNYer 21:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Only one issue. The source for File:Manhattan at Dusk by slonecker.jpg， which is currently "SXC #350175", needs to be clarified. If that refers to the image hosting/browsing/sale service SXC, then a link needs to be provided. If it dosen't refer to that, a more specific explanation of what "SXC #350175" is still needs to be furnished. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Forgive me for being blunt, but why does wikipedia need an article for a nickname? That's what it is anyways, just a nickname, not a toponym, the toponym is New York. The content will of course be a duplication of the New York article content. It can be a Good Article, but according to wikipedia's policies, this is fork content. Please prove me wrong, because in my opinion, this article deserves a redirect more than a FA stamp.Divide et Impera (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'll agree on notability and on the fact that the New York article would be too long, should this one redirect to it. But I insist that it should be treated as an etymological article and probably renamed to Origin of the name "Empire State", whereas Empire State should become a dab page.Divide et Impera (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that a large percentage the article is given over to the name's origin, I would second the above "Origin of the name "Empire State"", to fall in line with the Windy City article. I've also slightly abridged an image caption as it seemed to me to stretch onto too many lines, making a little more white space than looked right. Feel free to revert if the appearance before was preferred. GRAPPLE X 23:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I feel I could support this article given a few changes. Aside from the naming being discussed above, which seems to be a simple issue, I support this article. It's by no means extensive, but that in no way precludes it from being exhaustive. Obviously it's a narrow field but it appears to have been covered in well-written, well-researched detail, and would make an interesting addition to the Featured ranks. A few additions could be made, however—simply looking at the Empire State (disambiguation) page turns up a few other uses which could be at home in the Namesakes section, including the troop ship TS Empire State VI, which seems worth noting. Given the tone of the article, it would be understandable to refrain from mentioning 'pop culture' uses of the term, though there also exists the fictional Empire State University, should you wish to make passing reference to it. The state of Georgia is also nicknamed the "Empire State of the South", and commentary on this relationship may be worth a mention. Given that the article's size seems to be an issue for other commentators here, it would perhaps be best to look into adding some of this information. I would also quibble that the lead contains a quote by Eldridge not found in the body's text, and material in the lead not expanded in the article proper is generally to be avoided—however, this is perfectly understandable given how tiresome repetition within such limited space would seem. Perhaps paraphrase it in the lead and quote it properly in the article? GRAPPLE X 23:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It seems odd to me that the lead image is of George Washington. I am of the opinion that Curious George should be moved to History and an image of NYC be used for the lead.
  • "one credits aggressive trade routes, and another associates the nickname with New York exceeding Virginia in population." First, is it possible for a trade route to be "aggressive"? I'm not sure I even know what the adjective means in this context. Perhaps "extensive" or "centralized"...? Second, I'm thinking that both of these items would benefit from the inclusion of time frames, perhaps something along the lines of "one credits aggressive trade routes throughout the 19th century, and another associates the nickname with New York exceeding Virginia in population in the early 1800s."
  • "None have been proven true." This wrongly implies that it is even possible to prove such a theory true. Math has proofs. Science has data. History has consensus.
  • "It is often attributed to the state's wealth and resources,[2] but this is probably not the case." By whom is attributed as such? Why is this probably not the case?
  • Caption: "The Empire State Plaza (1965–1978)" What is the purpose of this date range? As far as I can tell, the plaza still exists and is commonly referred to by this name.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:16, 14 July 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 01:05, 18 July 2011 [15].

Led Zeppelin IV

Nominator(s): (Cowik (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is looks clean, the sources look legit, they're many pictures to describe the album, and the article is at a good length and is very easy to read. It is also a really popular album, I think the article has potential. Cowik (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be a drive-by nomination and should be removed. The article is far from FA standard based on all the criteria. Graham Colm (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - nominator is not a significant contributor and has not consulted with the primary author prior to nomination, as is required by the FAC instructions. If the nominator is serious about working this article up to FA status, I would recommend initiating a peer review, as the article is not currently FA ready. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:52, 17 July 2011 [16].

Super Mario Sunshine

Nominator(s): SCB '92 (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... it looks good enough to be one SCB '92 (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't transclude this FAC to WP:FAC; I will do it now. « ₣M₣ » 21:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not ready to be a FA yet. It looks good enough for GA, but to be a FA, the article has to be almost complete. There must be extensive searching for new and final sources. Any material that could possibly be useful to add should be considered. It looks like a wonderful article, but I doubt that all required expansion has been done for it to be a Featured Article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the to do list, it says to expand reception section; should this be done?-SCB '92 (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the todo list hasn't been edited in 3 years, so there is likely more reception now then there was then. My point, though, is that it is impossible to tell exactly what needs more sources. If this is to be a featured article, multiple people need to check all the venues of available sources(print magazines, online reviews, interviews, general coverage), thus making sure the article is indeed complete in its information, and worthy of being Featured. After that, there is copy editing to make sure the grammar is top notch. Like I said, this article is a pretty decent Good Article, but I would not be able to tell at first glance that this would be FA material. It doesn't look comprehensive enough. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - nominator is not a significant contributor to the article and does not appear to have consulted major contributors prior to nomination, as is required by the FAC instructions. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image Review This article isn't going to get promoted, but I'm going to do an image review on it just because I loved this game so much. The main infobox image is good. The screenshot, however, has sourcing issues. When I clicked on the source link I got "You don't have permission to access /images/Reviews/gamecube/super-mario-sunshine/super-mario-sunshine-3.jpg on this server." That is problematic to me. Also, please stick all the information into a template. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the nominator, please read the WP:FAC instructions-- suggest Peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 17 July 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 01:18, 16 July 2011 [17].

Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger

Nominator(s): Boycool (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article in honor of the series renewal, which many predicted would not happen due to declining viewership. This article is well-written and comprehensive, and I think it meets the criteria. Boycool (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I found this article almost completely incomprehensible. What's the "Norseman" for instance? Apart from that, the prose needs a lot of work. A few specific examples:

  • "Hartley administers an antidote to the Norseman's effects, but it only slows Sarah's condition." How do you slow a condition?
    • Fixed.
  • "Mary then remembers that Volkoff had developed a stronger antidote, but it is stored at the Volkoff Industries Headquarter in Moscow, Russia." Why is "headquarter" singular"?
    • Fixed.
  • "As they leave the hospital, Chuck, Casey, Mary and Hartley are captured by Decker and brought to Castle ...". Should be "taken to Castle", unless you're writing this in Castle.
    • Fixed.
  • "The scene then cuts to Chuck and Sarah's wedding". Scenes don't cut.
    • Fixed.
  • "... her father returns and reveals the truth that he went undercover voluntarily". Obviously there's some redundancy there, why not just "reveals that he went undercover voluntarily"?
    • Done.
  • "Fedak stated in a later interview that the inspiration for Volkoff's true identity being a gun-shy British scientist was Dalton's portrayal of Gregory Tuttle ...". A later interview than what?

Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fixed.

Oppose - I agree that the article's prose needs improvement to meet FA standards. In addition, here are some further concerns:

  • File:Chuckvsthecliffhanger.jpg - FUR needs to be considerably expanded. In particular, "to represent this article" is far too short and vague to properly describe the purpose of use
    • Done.
  • Don't notate titles in all-caps
  • WP:OVERLINK - not necessary to link character names, for example, multiple times, as the article is quite short
    • Fixed.
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This?
    • The first is reliable due to the writer's frequent (and recent) interviews with the cast and crew members. The second is reliable because, unlike other sources which copy one another, this writer was actually present at an interview with the series co-creator. I've removed the third because it's questionable at best and not needed.
  • Very long quotes should be formatted as blockquotes
  • Spotcheck of one source: "several clips of their budding romance" in article vs "all the clips of their budding romance" in source; ""Here With Me" by Battleme when Chuck and Sarah have wedding jitters" in article vs ""Here With Me" by Battleme (Chuck and Sarah have wedding jitters)" in source - close paraphrasing, check for others. Also, "United Federation of Planets" in article vs "Intergalactic Federation of Planets" in source - inconsistent. If you have a reason to disregard the source on that issue, either use a different source or note the discrepancy. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I'm sorry, but the Plot section as presently written is incoherent. This is the first sentence:-

To make Chuck Bartowski (Zachary Levi) suffer for supposedly forcing her father to upload the government computer, the Intersect, accidentally overwriting his personality with that of his cover identity, arms dealer Alexei Volkoff (Timothy Dalton), Vivian Volkoff (Lauren Cohan) targets Chuck's fiancée Sarah Walker (Yvonne Strahovski) with the Volkoff Industries "Norseman" weapon.

I'm afraid this lost me completely. Because of the tortuous prose construction it's hard to work out who "her" in the first line refers to, or which person is meant by "his" a little later. The sentence is far too long, with too many sub-clauses, and is made worse by your insistence on naming the actors as well as the characters – it is not necessary to identify the actors in a Plot section. You need to say who "Chuck Bartowski" is; people unfamiliar with this series (as far as I know it's never been aired in the UK) won't have any idea who or what he is - CIA agent? private investigator, undercover operator etc? What is meant by "overwriting his personality"? By "target" do you mean "attack"? The rest of the section is also largely incomprehensible; a plot section has to make reasonable sense to everyone, not just to the fans of the series who know what's going on. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Give her another look. I've largely rewritten the plot summary for clarity and "flow", but one can only expand the plot so much before it goes way over the word limit. The episode was a season finale and potential series finale, and, as the article states, a "tying together of everything the character and the show have been about". --Boycool (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the FAC instructions and do not add templates; also, please sign your entries, we need to know "done" according to whom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 16 July 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 14:19, 13 July 2011 [18].

Long and short scales

Nominator(s): Ian Cairns (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because (a) it is already a GA article (b) it is stable (c) it (and its referenced sources) are already being referred to in Google as a definitive statement on this issue. I am interested in obtaining a gap analysis to find out how much work might be required to raise to FA status. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to transclude this FAC to WP:FAC; I will do it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - unfortunately I don't feel this article currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

  • More citations are needed. In general, a good rule of thumb is to have a minimum of one citation per paragraph
  • WP:MOS issues, including wikilinking issues, hyphen/dash problems, inappropriate bolding, etc
  • Organizational issues: bulleted lists/table problems, huge ToC
  • Use of potentially unreliable sources and inconsistent citation formatting
  • Citations to Wiktionary, missing information from citations, what appears to be a partial annotated bibliography in footnotes.

Suggest withdrawal and peer review to allow some of these issues to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest withdrawal I can only agree with Nikkimaria. FAC is for relatively minor fixes, not major upgrading. This is an interesting article, and you've put in a good deal of work, but it's some way short. It's a good idea at GAN to indicate if you are planning to go to FA, and ask for a no holds barred review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 13 July 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 Karanacs 20:31, 10 July 2011 [19].

Space debris

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article for a couple of reasons:

  1. I think this is the only article available to casual readers that is both complete and wide ranging
  2. this is a serious issue for continued space activity, and receives a fairly considerable amount of press coverage
  3. it is already the #1 search result in major search engines

The article has been stable for some time, I've done minor cleanup to remove CITEs and such. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time - I appreciate the work that's been done on this article, but I don't feel it currently meets the featured article criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "This work had demonstrated that the chance of being hit by a larger meteor, large enough to destroy a spacecraft, was extremely remote. However, it also demonstrated that a spacecraft would be hit by micrometeorites, about the size of dust grains, almost constantly." - source?
Fixed.
  • "Early attempts to protect spacecraft against these micrometeorites generally employed a brute-force approach, which used an outer wall that was thick enough to protect the spacecraft from these sorts of impacts. This was generally far thicker than what was needed for the spacecraft's mechanical structure." - source?
Fixed.
  • "Based on the measured sizes of known asteroids, Kessler was able to demonstrate that this time scale was in the order of billions of years" - source?
Fixed.
  • "Some of these were deliberately caused as a part of 1960's anti-satellite weapon (ASAT) testing, while others were the result of rocket boosters that had "blown up" in orbit as leftover fuel expanded into a gas and ruptured their tanks. Since these objects were only being tracked in a haphazard way, a NORAD employee, John Gabbard, took it upon himself to keep a separate database of as many of these objects as he could. Studying the results of these explosions, Gabbard developed a new technique for predicting the orbital paths of their products. "Gabbard diagrams" (or plots) are widely used today. Along with Preston Landry, these studies were used to dramatically improve the modelling of orbital evolution and decay." - source? Look for other unsourced statements
Fixed.
  • Use a consistent spelling for terms which differ between American and British English - see WP:ENGVAR
Examples? I only use US, I suppose someone else has edited it. This sounds easy to fix.
  • Don't use contractions outside of quotes
I'm not really sure what this means. Can you give me an example or two so I can track these down.
  • Ranges should use dashes, not hyphens. Check for other manual of style issues.
Fixed.
  • Don't include entries in See also already linked in article text
Fixed.
  • Reference formatting needs to be much more consistent
I don't see the problem here. All of the references that I see use a consistent format.
  • Date for FN 6? ISBN for FN 33? Retrieval date for FN 36? Check for missing information in references
Fixed, fixed and fixed. Are these actually required for FAQ?
Fixed.
What's a bit worrying is that not one of these came up in the PR. Is there some other model of workflow that would bring the article to the quality needed for FAC without this sort of thing happening? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose—Unfortunately, I have to agree. This article appears unable to satisfy the FA criteria, beginning with a lead that does not satisfy WP:LEAD, and an article body that needs a significant level of editing. I got bogged down with the number of problems in the Micrometeorites section alone. There are too many concerns for me enumerate. I'm very sorry. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made a number of copy edits to the first part of the article, but I suspect it will require some more work. RJH (talk)
This isn't really helpful. How am I to use these comments to improve the article? For instance, what's wrong with the lead? !Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review A few date fields are blank, a few pages have the information they need, but not in templates. I'll go into more detail when everything else gets fixed and this is renominated, but there are no apparent free use issues, so its just cleanup on the image front. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


What? Who closed this and why? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:32, 11 July 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 Karanacs 20:31, 10 July 2011 [20].

Castle Crashers

Nominator(s): Rainbow Dash 19:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About two months ago (give or take) I nominated Castle Crashers for GA, which turned out making the article a good article. I believe that the article has been improved more since it's declaration of being a new GA, and that it's ready to take it a level higher. Rainbow Dash 19:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media: The rationale for the box-art is sound (though, ideally, the old version will be deleted) but I am a little concerned about the two other images. Both are potentially valid, but the rationales are a little flimsy. While the rationale for the screenshot states that it is being used to show the gameplay and the graphics (short of a complex HUD or something, I'd say that it's really only needed to display the graphics) but it is currently being used to decorate the story section. As for the other image, I'd want to see a little bit more about the importance of that style of character design before an image was used. J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose - as the person who did most of the work bringing this to GA status I can say this is nowhere near ready for FA. The prose is not up to snuff, the changes since it passed GAN are minimal, the rationales for the images need a lot of work, and there are some sources that just won't pass FA, but better serve the article.Honestly this is one case that where there just isn't the coverage to make it an FA and keep the quality of the article high. --Teancum (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose: As the editor that passed the article for GA, I have to agree with everything Teancum stated. I don't recall my opinion on the sources Nikki questioned above, but I believe the NewGrounds link is a primary source, so its reliability is based on WP:SELFPUB. Regardless, the article, while in good shape, is not up to featured quality. (Guyinblack25 talk 02:53, 10 July 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 Karanacs 20:31, 10 July 2011 [21].

Airbus A330

Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 07:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a part of my master plan. I want to see the article through FAC at soon as possible, so I can get on with other things. Thanks in advance to any contributors. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 07:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the rules at WP:WIKICUP and indicate if this is a Cup nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Cup nomination. Sandy, I don't know the point of this exactly. Sp33dyphil Vote! 21:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, original nomination. This article has been substantially rewritten while at FAC, and each time I look, there are more issues. Now we find a table with hidden text in the Background section-- against MOS:SCROLL. Nikkimaria should indicate if sources and citations are now clear, after several changes, and I'm uncertain if images are clear after several changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've spent many hours on the article, left long reviews before restart, and am up to speed on current version.TCO (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • "Each wing also has a 2.74 m (9 ft 0 in) tall winglet instead of the wingtip fences found on earlier Airbus aircraft." - source?
  • Be consistent in how multiple authors/editors are notated
  • Be consistent in what is italicized when
  • FN 59: check date capitalization
  • When information like page number is provided in the source, it's good to include it
  • FN 84: Airbus isn't a work (so shouldn't be italicized), but is the original publisher
  • FN 8: check page number
  • Retrieval dates aren't required for convenience links to print-based sources (like Amazon)
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when - for example, why is Flight International linked in FN 59 and not 55?
  • Reuters India or India Reuters? Check for small inconsistencies
  • FN 95: Flight Daily News should be italicized
  • FN 108: check formatting

Spotchecks of 5 sources

  • "the 41,600 L (11,000 US gal) fuel capacity increase was possible through the adoption of the centre section fuel tank" vs "The fuel capacity increase is gained by adopting the 41,600-litre centre section fuel tank"

Images

  • File:TLS_factory_7413v.jpg: France does not have freedom of panorama. Before restart TCO mentioned having started a discussion at Commons regarding this image's copyright status - did anything come of that?
  • File:A330-200_conversion_to_A330_MRTT.jpg: in what country was this image taken? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. The French factory picture is fine. The policy for France requires an artistic component. Functional buildings from afar as part of a setting are fine. All the commentary at Commons said what I expected as well. If I were at all unsure, would just chuck it into Deletions to provoke a closer look amd keep us safe, but this is not even needed.TCO (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Think MRTT pic is from Spain (Iberia Airlines has its maintenance facilities in Barcelona and Madrid) and pic is likely fine regardless of nation given the pose, but have requested more input given the concern: [22]
It is from Spain. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 03:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support and Comment. I checked the text in the Development section against text in the Norris & Wagner book and no close paraphrasing is present. I'd support too, but that would be questioned. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I am inclined to agree with Fnlayson. I would express my view that this is one of the better aircraft articles to be produced, but as my opinion is neither respected or judged as valid, there is little point in announcing my support, as my position would just be belittled. I would hope that situation to change. Kyteto (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can both support if you like, so long as you declare any relevant CoIs and, if necessary, clarify on which criteria you are supporting. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - My original unstruck comments (pre-restart) still stand. I believe it should quick fail on criteria 1e (stability) ...it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. Stability normally applies to edit wars as it says but in this case there are prolific article changes that have not been asked for at FAC and there appears to be no end to it. No reviewer has a hope until the number of changes stabilise to a normal level of minor copy editing. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Would prolific article changes that have not been asked for at FAC be an actionable change (excluding locking the page)? Also, for reference, could you state your original unstruck comments? Sorry, I just found the link to the pre-restart nomination. Micromann (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible that this FAC will close in less than two weeks? I'm working on a number of a potential FA articles at the moment, planning to nominate them as soon as this FAC closes. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 04:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know about FAC policy, Sandy would have to tell you definitively, but if there are no rules against it perhaps you should withdraw this and list another one, to alleviate Nimbus' concern, then relist this one after your others go through. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sandy restarted this TO deal with "that it had changed during previous review session". For Speedy, I do not recommend a sudden submission of another article. We need to do more ahead of time to make the next article ready for FAC. To learn from this FAC and make sure the prose and ref formatting is better to start with. Let's concentrate on A330.TCO (talk) 13:19, 6 July 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 Karanacs 20:31, 10 July 2011 [23].

Missouri River

Nominator(s): ShannºnTalk 06:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Missouri, that longest river of North America yet listed as a tributary of the Father of Waters, later that legendary pathway of the romanticized explorers and hardy pioneers of the American West, most recently publicized as that ongoing "problem" for failing levees in North Dakota and nuclear plants in Nebraska. This tremendous year of rains and snowmelt has given new life to reaches of the river that haven’t seen its thunderous power since the six Pick-Sloan dams were put in, and it only seems fitting that the Missouri be honored on Wikipedia as well by granting it FA status. I believe this complete, well referenced and well illustrated article meets the FA criteria or at least is squeakingly close enough to it. I have been through two fruitless FACs and one fruitful GAN with this, I’m ready for what’s next... ShannºnTalk 06:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was the GA reviewer and consider this to be the highest quality article that I have reviewed at GAC in my time on WP. I have been waiting for months to see this at FAC so that I could show my support. You can gather by the lengthy review at Talk:Missouri River/GA1 that my concerns have been addressed. I tried to be fairly critical at GA and give a PR as well as a GA analysis in order to help this twice-failed FGAN get over the hump. I know the article is greatly improved from its last visit here. I hope that the FAC community will be receptive to this contribution and accommodate the pace of response of its main editor, which may not be as fast as all you folks tend to like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose layout. I know this is your baby. And I love rivers too! Plus I see you have been through the mill a few times. So I feel bad to oppose. That said, this is really a huge and important topic and important that we do well. It does not look professional to me, right now, sorry.

Blue mass of coordinates in infobox is very uninviting. I suggest not having an infobox and just putting that content at the bottom in a more organized table (with columns dividing up some of the blue-links). I do like the blue lead image though. The map is probably your most important image, but you have it stuck in the infobox. It ought to be centered and large at the beginning of Course. Also, the river ought to be a different color, and maybe trim out some or all tribs. A lot of the other images are too small to be useful. I like that you have a graph (we should do that more), but then it lacks axes, is dublicated as a table, and is too big. The bulleted list of tribs should be in a table. I'm wondering if there is a way to put them at the end (but I see why they are near Course). See Also is too long and should have all the list of state rivers cut. I really didn't look at it that close or get into substance...because of the issues I saw in presentation.

I temporarily removed your "blue mass of coordinates", see if that looks better. Personally, I actually like the aesthetics better this way. ShannºnTalk 18:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying, according to WP:RIVERS the map belongs in the geobox. ShannºnTalk 19:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to mess around with the flow graphs a bit, see if I can transfer the data in the tables to the graphs. Because they're kind of difficult to handle. (In fact, they were stolen from the Russian Wikipedia...) ShannºnTalk 19:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also some overlinking (wheat? Fort Peck Lake AND Fort Peck Dam?) Given how much we really have to link (and on this article, I actually think you should like North America...because it is a key concept), cut the gravel and such.

Removed some... ShannºnTalk 19:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
North America is linked in the lead, and in the Watershed section, and in the Native American section. Are you sure that isn't actualy a case of overlinking? ShannºnTalk 05:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that TTT spent a lot of time with you and that a bunch of things got adressed in the GAN. Still kind of think it's not there...although admitting I only skimmed the article, didn't really read it.

TCO (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should list the source in the geobox as Brower's Spring? ShannºnTalk 19:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I appreciate the work that's gone into this article, but I don't feel it yet meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

  • This article is in need of extensive editing for WP:MOS issues. On a quick skim I see heavy overlinking, "%" to be spelled out in article text, numbers under 10 should usually be spelled out in article text (ex. "2nd" -> "second"), etc
  • WP:W2W/WP:NPOV: don't use phrases like "definitely not true", particularly without an immediate citation, don't tell the reader to "note" something
I don't think 'definitely not true" in that context is arguable at all – who would deny the difference between 2,300 miles and sixty? ShannºnTalk 19:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference formatting needs cleanup for consistency. All web citations need publisher and accessdate; all print citations need page numbers. Be consistent in what is wikilinked when, what is italicized when, etc.
Would you mind clarifying if this is a widespread or small problem? I believe the references' format is fine. ShannºnTalk 19:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multi-page PDFs need page numbers
There were only two that needed it; fixed anyway; others are all NWIS citations or two pages or less. ShannºnTalk 19:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • TOC is too long - some shorter subsections (ex. "Longest") could be merged
Shortened by four or five headers/subheaders... good? ShannºnTalk 19:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shortened about 50%. ShannºnTalk 19:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Oppose 1a. Sorry, but the article really needs a thorough copyedit by an uninvolved editor. Here is a small sampling of questionable prose; these problems are abundant, and evident throughout the article. Sasata (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The river has had a continuous history of different tribes and groups," what does this mean?
  • "However, after Europeans got to North America" the phrase "got to" is at best colloquial
  • "The first Europeans to see the river were the French explorers Louis Jolliet and Jacques Marquette in 1673 who shortly after looking at Piasa petroglyph paintings on the bluffs above the Mississippi River near the present-day location of Alton, Illinois heard the Missouri rushing into the Mississippi." too much information for one sentence
  • "Bourgmont had further infuriated the French by illegally trapping and for immoral behavior when he showed up at French outposts with his Native American wife." verb tenses not in agreement
  • "However after Bourgmont's two documents, Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne, Sieur de Bienville, founder of Louisiana, said that rather than arresting Bourgmont they should decorate him with Cross of St. Louis and name him "commandant of the Missouri" to represent France on the entire river." First part of sentence does not jibe with the rest
  • "After squabbling with French authorities over financing of a new fort on the Missouri and also suffering a yearlong illness, Bourgmont established Fort Orleans near present day Brunswick in the north central part of present-day Missouri, which was the first fort and first longer term European settlement of any kind on the Missouri, in late 1723 near his home at Brunswick." Again, poor grammar (too much info for one sentence)
Going through this, but I'm not convinced – the vast majority of this is from the first three subsections Explorers section, the only portion of the article that I did not write. ShannºnTalk 19:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. ShannºnTalk 20:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I've responded to all the comments... I'd be glad to hear a disagreement... ShannºnTalk 23:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed my oppose to a weak oppose, because I agree, the rest of the article isn't as bad as the sections I initially read. But I still maintain the prose should be picked over with a fine-tooth comb (and I don't have the inclination to do a sentence-by-sentence review on the entire article, sorry). Here's some more examples from the lead and first section:
  • do we really need links to Canada, U.S. states, and France?
  • "European and American explorers began to wander the region" missing a word?
  • "The headstreams of the similarly sized Madison River, in turn formed by the Gibbon and Firehole rivers; and the smaller Gallatin River emerge from Yellowstone National Park in northwestern Wyoming and flow north and northwest into Montana." grammar or punctuation problem
  • "It flows north, shortly being joined by the Gallatin, then passing through Canyon Ferry Lake, a reservoir west of the Big Belt Mountains." verb tense issue (flows -> passing)
  • "… a series of five substantial cataracts." The link for cataracts goes to waterfalls… why not just say waterfalls?
  • "… before crossing into North Dakota where the Yellowstone River, its greatest tributary, joins from the right." greatest by size? volume? reputation?
  • "At the confluence, the two rivers are approximately the same size." Does "size" here mean width?
  • "It turns east at Kansas City, where the Kansas River enters from the right, and so on into north-central Missouri." so on?

Sasata (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

responded to most of the points, will do another runthrough for grammar, spelling, wording, etc. Shannon+º! 17:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shannon, very good. A few things: — Tony1 19:24, 30 June 2011 UTC — continues after insertion below
  1. WP:OVERLINK needs to be accounted for (US, Nth Am, French).
  2. "uri then proceeds to form the boundary of South Dakota and Nebraska, then after it receives the James River, forms the Nebraska–Missouri border (en dash). Same for US–Canada border.
  3. similarly-sized"—MoS says no hyphen after -ly.
    Done ShannºnTalk 04:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "including the 100-mile (160 km)-long Shonkin Sag"—consider "including the Shonkin Sag 100 miles (160 km) long"
    Done ShannºnTalk 04:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 13–16 ... you could choose to use M or million instead of all those zeros.
    Is it possible to do that without removing the conversion template? ShannºnTalk 21:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Also, the creation of giant reservoirs has trapped —can "also be later in the sentence?
    Done. ShannºnTalk 21:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "also stayed along the Missouri"—remove "also", I think.
    Done. ShannºnTalk 04:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Native Americans who ...
    Where is this phrase? ShannºnTalk 22:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Your pics could be 240px without any trouble.
  10. "during this time period"—remove time.
  11. 1926–27
    Done. ShannºnTalk 04:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. MoS says US not USA.
    Done. ShannºnTalk 21:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. That map could be larger, and possibly on the right.

I must ask that SandyGeorgia recuse as delegate from this nomination because of bullying, threats, and an ominous statement claiming there are things "I have to factor when reading your reviews." Tony (talk) 19:24, 30 June 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 16:45, 10 July 2011 [24].

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Nominator(s): SCB '92 (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...the article looks complete; this is currently an A-class, but I think it is good enough to be a featured article SCB '92 (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sequel section is unsourced.
  • There is a [citation needed] in Gameplay section.
  • Reception section needs to be expanded, as per previous FAC, it talks about it being great, about voice, music, but lacks fundamental features, such as, gameplay (e.g. combat), story, graphics.
  • Isn't Plot section a little too long? Surely all the details there are not essential? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "to create NPCs who could engage in complex activity—such as travelling from town to town every few days or going to church on a certain day—without the chance of execution error." - source?
  • "In response to the new content, the ESRB conducted a new review of Oblivion, showing to its reviewers the content originally submitted by Bethesda along with the newly disclosed content." - source?
  • "Bethesda Softworks announced in 2010 that they have been developing and will release the next installment of The Elder Scrolls in 2011." - source? Look for other statements requiring sourcing
  • Web citations need retrieval dates
  • Ref 58, 60: publisher? Check for others
  • Ref 73: formatting
  • What is AIAS, and why is it bolded?
  • Why include the wiki in External links
  • See here for a list of potentially problematic links
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review I resized some stuff, other than that, it's good on images. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:52, 9 July 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 16:42, 10 July 2011 [25].

Juno (film)

Nominator(s): Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 19:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article candidacy because it meets all the criteria and has been through a successful peer review.Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 19:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest withdrawal: I see some flags right off the bat: PR has not been archived per the instructions, so is still technically open. Nominator only has 17 edits to the article, most of which were less than an hour prior to this very nomination. There are three broken citations, noticeable by the angry bold, red text; presumably this is because the dead ELs were simply removed rather than replaced, leaving large chunks of uncited text as well as broken sites. I really don't think this article is ready given the circumstances. María (habla conmigo) 19:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 20:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This better? --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 20:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else says it's currently a GA, though. --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 01:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Continued on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The GA was three years ago and is not really relevant now. The recent PR was superficial. Having glanced through the article I have to say it doesn't look that bad – I've seen worse here – but it is clearly in need of some hard work to match it with the FA criteria, which I wonder if the nominator has actually read. The nominator had done little work on the article; the most active recent editor is User:Wehwalt, and he should certainly have been approached before this nom. I agree withdraw: work on the article, follow procedures, consult widely, and then maybe bring it back. Brianboulton (talk) 10:53, 10 July 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 16:49, 7 July 2011 [26].

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Nominator(s): Tnbailey09 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a complete and thorough overview of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This article covers all aspects of the University and includes citations for each. Also, it bothers me that the Duke article is featured status and this article is not. Tnbailey09 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per FAC instructions. The nominator does not appear to be a significant contributor, and I see no indication he/she has consulted major contributors before nomination. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. In addition, there are a number of problems. Numerous MOS errors, the lead is a poor representation of the entire article, and there's little in the article to distinguish this top-ranked 216-year-old university from Bob's School of Cosmetology and Auto Repair, apart from athletics and a few dry rankings. This is a school that has had major impacts on the region, the country and the world, almost none of which is reflected in this article. - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick glance, I'm not seeing the article in such bad shape, but there are raw URLs in the citations and the aforementioned numerous MOS errors. Please consult significant contributors and consider a peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Nikkimaria 03:01, 7 July 2011 [27].

May Revolution

Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a key event in the history of Argentina, and I have worked a lot with it. I worked first with Argentine books, as those made the most comprehensive study of this topic (not surprising), but I checked some books in English as well. I have also trimmed down some parts to related articles, but trying to keep this as an article that could be understood on its own, having in mind that most readers from outside Argentina or even South America are unlikely to have even a clue on who were this people or the events described.

All the issues pointed during the first nomination were addressed by then Cambalachero (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on sourcing again. I appreciate the work you've done since the previous nomination, but more work is needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Liniers armed all the population of Buenos Aires, including criollos and slaves, and defeated a second British invasion attempt in 1807." - source?
  • "Not fooled by the Viceroy's communiqué, some criollos met at the houses of Nicolás Rodríguez Peña and Hipólito Vieytes. During these secret meetings they named a representative commission, composed of Juan José Castelli and Martín Rodríguez, to request that Cisneros convene of an open cabildo to decide the future of the Viceroyalty." - source?
  • "In the Plaza, the people did not believe Cisneros was going to allow the open cabildo the next day. Leiva left the Cabildo and Belgrano, representing the crowd, requested a definitive answer." - source?
  • "Leiva requested Belgrano help the Cabildo with the work, as his intervention would be seen by the crowd as a guarantee that their demands would not be ignored." - source? Check for other statements requiring sources
  • Check for WP:MOS issues - for example, ellipses should not normally be in square brackets
  • Page ranges should use endashes, not hyphens
  • Excessive quotes in References section
  • Multiple inconsistencies in formatting in References
  • All foreign-language sources need to be noted as such, and these notations should use proper grammar (capitalization)

Sources need considerable work to meet FA standards. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done The details about the books (such as the language, if not English) are detailed at "Bibliography", the footnotes cite the author and page. So, if you read "Galasso, pp. 86—87", it is implicit that the details are below, at Galasso's book; not being repeated each time the book is cited. As for the quotes, they are required by WP:NOENG. Cambalachero (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements made, but additional work is needed. Unsourced statements remain - for example, "The debate tangentially discussed the rivalry between criollos and peninsulars; proponents of keeping the Viceroy felt that the will of peninsulars should prevail over that of criollos." You appear to be using emdashes for page ranges - needs to be endashes. Further inconsistencies in reference formatting remain. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cambalachero, I'd like to make a few remarks:

  • You should remove the detailed info in the all references (the English and Spanish texts) as Nikkimaria suggested. Name of author, date of publication and pages used is more than enough. Detailed info should be placed in "notes" section, but only if they are really important. However, I'd suggest you to simply move the detailed references into the talk page, so that it can be used as source in the future in case someone "doubts" you.
  • "The Portuguese royal family left Europe and settled in colonial Brazil in 1808, after escaping the Napoleonic invasion of Portugal" Perhaps this would be better: "An invasion of Portugal in 1808 by Napoleon's forces led to the departure of the Portuguese Royal family to its South American colony, Brazil."
  • "Carlota Joaquina, sister of Ferdinand VII, was the wife of a Portuguese prince". You're taking here of King João VI of Portugal, not a minor prince. Perhaps you should change it to "Dona Carlota Joaquina, sister of Ferdinand VII, was the wife of Portuguese King Dom João VI (John VI)."
  • "Carlota Joaquina finally declined the project". That's not what happened. She never gave up the project. It was her husband who sabotaged her moves in every single moment. The last thing João VI would want was a stable, huge and powerful Hispanic-American monarchy just next to Brazil. Much better a yet another weak Hispanic-American republic, plagued by coups, dictatorships, rebellions, etc... However, it is true that the Argentine monarchists gave up on her, because they wanted a constitutional monarchy, while she wanted an absolustist monarchy. Perhaps something like "Conflicted goals, as her supporters intended her to head a constitutional monarchy, whereas she wanted to govern an absolute monarchy, undermined the project, leading it to failure."

I'm going to read the rest of the article now. --Lecen (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed, the translations are required by WP:NOENG, which is official policy. Paragraphs should begin introducing an idea and then expanding it, that's why the one about the Portuguese royal family leaving portugal has that info first, as it is about that and not about the napoleonic wars.
As for John VI, the reference mentions him as "a prince", without even naming him, and the articles here seem to confirm that: as of 1808-1809, Maria I was the Queen regnant (that is, a Queen reigning in her own right, not the mere wife of the king), and John VI is not mentioned as King but until 1816, many time after the events of this article. Unless there is some gross mistake in there, he was a prince regent during the time mentioned, not a king. Even the Anexo:Lista de regentes de Portugal (from portuguese wikipedia) lists him as "Príncipe do Brasil" and "Infante de Portugal" for the 1792-1816 period. So, I changed it from "a prince" to "the prince regent", but not to "king", which would be inaccurate
I have fixed the sentence about the end of the project, with the proposed sentence. Cambalachero (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this particular source does not name him doesn't mean you can't. And you don't have to be so chronologically precise when naming someone. See for example Pedro II of Brazil, a FA which I wrote. You'll see a caption under a picture of him at 10 months old where he is called "Pedro II" ("Pedro II at 10 months old, 1826"). Obviously, he was not Pedro II then, but it's just for the matter of making things more simple and easier to understand. You may call Charlemagne "Charlemagne" even though he was not called as such when he was a young king, for example.
You should also read WP:NOENG again. Indeed, if you quote a Spanish phrase for example, you have to place it translated to English, or else, how would a casual reader understand it? But you don't have to add the exact information which you took from a book in its original language and also the translated form in every single source. Could you image that in article like Empire of Brazil, where most books used as sources were written in Portuguese? "When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy". This is why I told you to transfer all those Spanish written citations (as well as their translations) to the article's talk page and leave behind only the author and the pages. --Lecen (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done I'm not very sure about this, but as two users here request to remove the translations, and there was a consensus a short ago not to make it mandatory, I removed them. I kept a copy of the article with the traslations at User:Cambalachero/May Revolution, in case someone wants to check. Cambalachero (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cambalachero, I'm really not trying to ruin your day. I imagine all the hard work you must have writing this article. However, it is clearly below FA standards. There is a lot of issues to work on and the idea behind FAC is not to act as a peer review. There are many, many passages without a single source and the grammar and spelling are very weak. Not to count on other problems, such as reference types. You must be new around here, but I would suggest you to first request a peer review and ask for an experienced editor to help you improve the prose. Once the article is clearly ready to FAC (if said so by other editors), then you should nominate. And after that, you shold invite a few (around five) well known FA editors to review the article and give their votes (do not ask for support, just invite them to review it). I'm only trying to help you. --Lecen (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:10, 4 July 2011 [28].

Regional cuisine

Nominator(s): Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being nominated for featured article status because it exceeds all of the criterion for featured articles. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An initial look at this article shows that it is a rather unusual one. I wonder whether it would perhaps be more suited to featured list candidates? J Milburn (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Ucucha:

  • The text about German cuisine is not supported by the reference to http://www.food-links.com/countries/germany/german-regional-food-specialties.php (which hardly seems like a high-quality reliable source anyway).
  • The text about Dutch cuisine is referenced only to "Spierings, T. "Dutch Cuisine.", which is unverifiable and needs at least a publisher and year.
  • Some references list Google Books as the publisher, which is clearly incorrect.
  • There are citation needed tags.
  • I'm unsure whether the whole concept of this article is right—it's more or less a list of the features of regional cuisines around the world (as J Milburn implies), not an exploration of the subject of a "regional cuisine", which would cover (for example) why cuisines tend to differ from place to place.

The reference issues I noted are just a few that I found on a quick check; a thorough one may find many more. I think that thorough check should be carried out outside of FAC. Ucucha 13:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - while this is an interesting article, I agree with many of the concerns raised by J Milburn and Ucucha above. In addition, here are some further concerns:

  • Lead is too short for the size of the article, per WP:LEAD
  • Sandwiching of text between images
  • Use of contractions, wikilinking issues, other WP:MOS problems
  • Many more citations are needed. A good rule of thumb is to have a minimum of one per paragraph
  • Copy-editing needed for flow and tone
  • Highly inconsistent referencing format
  • Use of potentially unreliable sources

Suggest withdrawal to pursue peer review prior to renomination. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too many citation needed templates. TGilmour (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:10, 4 July 2011 [29].

Eveline Hańska

Nominator(s): Scartol • Tok 12:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done exhaustive research on Mme. Hańska, best known for her marriage to Honoré de Balzac. The article has been peer reviewed by Nikkimaria and copyedited by Bejinhan. Thanks in advance for your consideration! Scartol • Tok 12:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • The lead is rather short
  • The style remains rather clunky: "Their family had deep roots in Polish nobility, with generations known for wealth and military prowess" and "He was rewarded with a comfortable position in the ranks of the empire. Moving between assignments in Kiev, St. Petersburg, and elsewhere,..." - where "positions" would be better, i think. "Like her brothers and sisters, Hańska was educated by her parents about family lineage and religion.", "Once a year, the family visited Kiev for a market gathering, ....", "He spent most of the day supervising the grounds, by some accounts with an iron fist.", "She spent her time reading the books her husband imported from faraway lands",
  • I changed the first sentence to: "Their family was established as Polish nobility, known for wealth and military prowess." In the second example, I think "position" would be inaccurate; a position strikes me as something more long-lasting, while an assignment is more fitting for the sort of short-term work he did in various places.
  • I have to say that I don't see what's wrong with the other items quoted. Scartol • Tok 19:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were the family "magnates", former members of the Diet, or minor nobility? Still an important distinction at this date I think.
  • "dinnerware from China" - are you sure? 1819 or so is late for Chinese export porcelain to be in use in a very grand home, with French, German & English porcelain more fashionable. You don't just mean "china" as a general term for porcelain?

More later

Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Current "Reference" section is a mixed of cited and uncited sources - these should be in separate sections
  • Do we have a date or author for the Dictionary of Polish Biography entry cited by Pierrot?
  • There is no such work as "Dictionary of Polish Biography" (according to Google Books). There is, however, a Polish Biographical Dictionary (PSB), and "Ewelina Hanska" is mentioned in it. What does, exactly, Pierrot cite? Could it be a mistranslation? I think it is likely. PS. PSB in the blurb gives her date of birth as 1800. This may merit a note in the lead (I see a discussion in the bio, also, the range should be exteneded to 1800 per PBS). PPS. In either case, PSB is a major reference work that should be consulted. If somebody can get a copy of the PSB article, I could review it and use it to add to the article. I think User:Picus viridis had access to PSB, and was able to make scans... I'd suggest that the author drops him a note and asks for help. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So requested. Without consulting the PSB itself (and as someone who does not read Polish), I don't feel comfortable adding a citation to it. Perhaps someone else can do so? (Also I assume "exteneded to 1800 per PBS" should have been "extended to 1800 per PSB"?) Scartol • Tok 03:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 28: is this Maurois' translation?
  • I've made most of the changes you recommend. I can assure you that the lack of red links is not due to fear, but lack of familiarity with Polish nobility. I simply don't know which names are notable enough for full articles and which are not. Scartol • Tok 03:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, looks much better. Btw, upon rereadign my comment above, I realize it might have sounded a bit harsh. If I was annoyed, it was at printed sources, not at you :) I certainly understand not everyone is an expert on all esoteric subjects, that's why we do collaborative work :) PS. How about adding a genealogy tree section? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naming comment. Actually, one more comment, and rather important at that. The article's name is weird. Google Books gives 0 hits for "Eveline Hańska", which seems a weird mixture of anglicized/frenchified first name and proper Polish surname (with a diacritic). It seems that GBooks has finally and very recently implemented a diacritic search, so we can look at some numbers. "Eveline Hanska" gives us 114 hits, sans diacritics. If we want to use diacritics, let's go all the way for Évelyne Hańska (GBooks gives 5 hits for that). I'd personally strongly prefer "Ewelina Hańska", the proper Polish name (84 Google Book hits), which is also used on French Wikipedia (fr:Ewelina Hańska), and of course on Polish Wiki (pl:Ewelina Hańska). Some other variants that I'd not recommend, but are nonetheless more popular than the current 0 hits variant, include "Evelina Hanska" (184 hits), "Evalina Hanska" (2 hits). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - looking through the article, the sourcing seems a little weak especially on the following passages . . .
Their family was established as Polish nobility, known for wealth and military prowess
Hańska's great-grandfather, Wacław Rzewuski, was a famous writer and Grand Crown Hetman.
When the Russian Empire gained control of lands owned by the family through the Partitions of Poland at the end of the 18th century, Rzewuski swore his allegiance to Catherine II.
Like her brothers and sisters, Hańska was educated by her parents about family lineage and religion. Her mother was a devout Catholic, but her father also taught the children about Voltairian rationality. The family was secluded in Pohrebyszcze, with only occasional trips away.
Hańska was closest to her brother Henryk, who later became famous for his work in the genre of Polish folk literature known as gawęda. They shared a passion for philosophical discussions, especially related to love and religion. Hańska's other brothers, Adam and Ernest, both pursued military careers.
She later married a man 34 years her senior, a landowner from Podolie named Jérôme Sobański. They separated after two years, and she began a series of passionate affairs with some of her many suitors. These included the Russian general Ivan Ossipovitch Witt, the Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz, and the Russian writer Alexander Pushkin.
Hańska's younger sisters, Alina and Paulina, married early into comfortable upper-class families. Alina married a wealthy landowner from Smilavichy, whose father had gained his fortune by managing property for the Ogiński family.
In the first five years of their marriage, Hańska gave birth to five children, all but one of whom died as infants.
I have added citations to every single one of these sentences as requested. I will state for the record (and then step back from this FAC until its fate is decided by others) that I now consider those paragraphs to be beautiful examples of hideous WP:CITECLUTTER. Scartol • Tok 22:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ought to think about breaking Family and early life into two sections, it's a bit confusing right now.
Not much on Jean Gigoux
Did you go through any prior reviews with this article? It would have benefited from at least a GA-Review first. Is this a WikiCup nomination? Ajh1492 (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. These two sentences — "Their family was established as Polish nobility, known for wealth and military prowess. One ancestor had imprisoned his own mother in a tower to extract his part of an inheritance." — are sourced to Eveline_Hańska#cite_note-1 ("Cronin, p. 153; Robb, p. 226; Korwin-Piotrowska (1938), p. 21.") The other items you mention are all sourced to footnotes that might not appear after each specific sentence, but to the next note after it. (Otherwise the article would be cluttered with a note after every sentence.)
As noted at the top of this page, the article was peer reviewed and received a copyedit before I brought it here. I did not put it through a GA review, because I have done the vast majority of the writing on thirteen other articles that are currently Featured. I figured I knew what was required for FA-quality articles, and that the PR and copyedit processes would enlighten me on what I lacked. (But given the intense scrutiny during this FAC on questions of Polish nobility and almost total silence on the other 90% of the article, it would seem that I'm somehow mistaken.)
"Family and early life" currently consists of four paragraphs (three medium-length and one long). Splitting it into two sections of two paragraphs each strikes me as awkward.
I included everything meaningful I could find about Gigoux in the biographies listed. If you have other sources that provide additional meaningful information, please let me know. Scartol • Tok 16:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion moved to talk page (A). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The photo caption Hańska spent her last thirty years in a relationship with the painter Jean Gigoux.[89] is not properly sourced. The reference does not seem relevant, or at minimum very clear. Ajh1492 (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am this close (pinching index finger and thumb close together) to walking away from this FAC and the process entirely, and never coming back.
Piotrus, I understand your concern when things get added, but the idea of citing every sentence is — pardon my French — ludicrous. Wikipedia:CITEBUNDLE suggests that a citation at the end of a paragraph should indicate which info comes from where, which makes sense to me. But I don't intend to go back and do all the research for this article all over again (which would be required).
AJH: Did you read the section "Becoming L'Étrangère"? Because that section explains quite clearly (at least to me and the other people who reviewed this article before it came to FAC) what it means. As for the citation for the caption of the Gigoux picture, I don't understand how Footnote #89 ("Robb, pp. 415–416; Maurois, pp. 557–558; Cronin, p. 212.") is ambiguous. The additional note refers to the other place where this same footnote applies, in the text of the article itself. I could make it into two different citations, but that might clutter things a bit.
I'm referencing the fact that you're trying to be cute with the section title, you ought to make it a little more plain in English. Ajh1492 (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this has been a very difficult process so far, and I'm starting to wonder if it's worth the headaches. (This is why Wikipedia loses good editors, right?) Scartol • Tok 00:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia looses good editors due to incivility. Please don't ask me my opinion on editors who leave for other reasons, as it would be offtopic, and irrelevant. I'll help improve the article based on PSB materials, whether it will be good enough for FA, I don't know, and if you unwilling to meet reference standards I prefer, at the very least I will not be able to support this. Perhaps the FA director will see it as meeting FA standards anyway, but for me it does not meet referencing standards we expect to see in WikiProject Poland B/GA class articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did you certify it as a B-class article? I went to get the Pierrot book again today, and I will provide individual-sentence citations for the paragraph about her ancestors as requested. Scartol • Tok 21:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having reread this really good article again, I've decided that it meets B-class criteria after all. For B-class, I see referencing all sentences as helpful, bit not required, and majority of other issues have been addressed. So yes, I do believe now the article is at least B-class (and I'll note again my criteria on issues like referencing are much stricter than those of many others). Once the issues from the talk page are addressed, I'll consider casting my vote. I don't expect that I'll oppose, I may just decide not to support due to the references; the article may meet our modern FA standards, it may just not be meeting my own FA standards - but I recognize that this should not result in an oppose vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion moved to talk (B). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support. This is a beautiful article. I can't understand why anyone wouldn't think that it was a FA. Scartol has addressed every concern and issue that has been brought up, and has given reasonable explanations for not following all of them. It is comprehensive and is well researched and sourced. The prose is as good, if not better, than most current FAs. I highly recommend that it be passed. Christine (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, he hasn't addressed every concern. He did a good job writing the articles, but just check his reply at the section linked above, which boils down to "your issues, so please fix them yourself". I may yet support this article, but first I have to find time to fix various issues that the nominator seems unwilling to (and I don't mean the reference issue, but various clarifications and details for comprehensiveness, or compliance with WP:LEAD). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't addressed all the concerns, I still think the article needs more inline citations per my comments above. I also think some the heading titles are way to esoteric and need to be written in more common terminology. I also agree about the article not complying with WP:LEAD. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AJH, I changed the section heading you complained about ("Becoming L'Étrangère" is now "Becoming 'The Stranger'", even though that French word has several meanings which are lost with the simplistic English translation). Which other headings are "way to (sic) esoteric and need to be written in more common terminology"? Scartol • Tok 11:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished expanding the article with various details from PSB, but I cannot consider supporting - and will have to oppose - until the issues of comprehensiveness are addressed. To quote from article's talk:

  • PSB has a very interesting section at the end on literary immortality of Ewelina in Balzac's works. It mentions that she was the inspiration of La Fosseue, Mme Claes, Modesta Mignon, Ursule Mirouet, Adelina Houlot, and especially Eugenia Grandet and Mme de Mortsauf. At the same time it disagrees that negative characters of Fedora and ladly Dudley are based on her. It mentions numerous characters named Eve or Eveline, and dedications to her. Next, it mentions that her daughter Anna, sister Alina, aunt Rozalia, her first love (Tadeusz Wyleżyński), and others, were incorporated into his works. Since they met, Poland, Polish topics, Polish names, Polis mysticism started to appear much more frequently in his works: Hoene Wroński, Grabianka, gen. Chodkiewicz, for example;
  • As noted on the talk page, much of this information is incorporated into the article text itself. I was reluctant to include too much information about Balzac's work, since this is an article on Mme. Hanska herself, not M. Balzac. Scartol • Tok 11:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next, PSB mentions that she was a controversial figure. She has been criticized by some biographers and scholars (H. Bordeaux, Mirbeau and Nowaczyński, J. I. Kraszewski, Ch. Leger, P. Descaves), and praised by others (Bertault, Bouteron, Barbey d'Aurevilly, Korwin-Piotrowska, Boy-Żeleński, Tadeusz Grabowski, miss Floyd, Billy (sic!). According to PSB, one of the "greatest experts on Balzac", [[[Spoelberch de Lovenjoul]], called her "one of the best women of the epoch". For many, she had a crucial impact on Balzac's works and the "Great Balzac" emerges after meeting her in early 1830s. PSB ends by saying: "However one could analyze her and their relationship, the impact of love for her on Balzac's was persistent, all-enveloping and decisive".
  • I'm not sure what the complaint is here. Do you believe the article requires a section on her legacy, or her treatment in various biographies? Because — again — I've tried to incorporate those things into the text of the article itself. Scartol • Tok 11:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the article requires a section on her legacy in his works, and on her treatment in various biographies, to be fully comprehensive. That elements of that are mixed in the other sections is good, but I think if PSB (which is an encyclopedia) has dedicated sections (paragraphs) on those issues, so should we. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead states: Hański, who was 20 years her senior, suffered from ill health and lifelong depression. The second paragraph in the section Marriage to Hanski states: He was generally dour, and lived with a depressed condition that Hańska referred to as "blue devils". There is a citation immediately following this sentence.
  • I believe this is yet another example of — as I mentioned on the talk page — at best a cursory read of the article. Scartol • Tok 11:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, those are different sentences. In the reference sentence, where is the "ill health" part? Where is the "lifelong" claim for his depression? Also, I asked you to add the "about" the age difference; no matter how I do my math, Hanski's YOB in 1782, Hanska's YOB of 1801-1806 does not lend itself to a precise calculation like that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I clipped the lead sentence to just say "Hański, who was 20 years her senior, suffered from depression."
  • As for the age difference: Robb says "more than twenty years her senior" (p. 227); Maurois says "twenty-two years older" (p. 219), and Cronin says "twenty-seven years older than Eve" (p. 155). I believe the wording in the article is an accurate depiction of the English-language sources on the subject, and I worry that we may be veering into the territory of Original Research if we use different wording. Scartol • Tok 11:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:10, 4 July 2011 [30].

Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil

Nominator(s): • Astynax talk 06:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC) and Lecen (talk)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets FA standards and that it as complete as is possible given the meager references for this Brazilian prince. There have been corrections and what we hope are improvements since the article's GA acceptance. Constructive criticism here has helped improve our past articles/efforts here, and I look forward to comments from reviewers with thanks. • Astynax talk 06:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the cause of death convulsions or yellow fever or both or possibly either? The article says both but does not discuss the contradiction. DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Restored DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stay alway from the FAC which I'm part of. Due to our past troubles, I want to avoid any issues. I would be very grateful if don't get near me. You wrote a message in here before, then you erased the entire page to also erase the record that you had written here earlier. I don't know why you did that but I believe it's because you saw my name. Nonetheless you have returned, even though you were requested before to not get near me. --Lecen (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored that content as below you unjustly say that I am never helpful and I want to prove to you that I have been. DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media: File:Brazilimperialblason2.svg could do with slightly more information- when was it in use? On what did the Commons user base the drawing? (If known, though I doubt it will be: Who designed it? When did they die?) File:Barandier - Dom Afonso, Príncipe Imperial do Brasil.JPG could do with a more precise source for that particular file. Other than that, sourcing and copyright information looks good. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, J Milburn. The coat of arms was designed by the French Jean-Baptiste Debret (1768-1848) as you can see in the file description. It was used by the Brazilian government from 1822 until 1889. I added a better source to Afonso's painting. --Lecen (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a read through:

  • "English: Alphonse" Italicise as a word as a word? Worth bolding if it is a name that has been used?
  • "Afonso's early death," You're yet to mention the early death beyond his dates, which some readers will miss.
  • "His skepticism that the monarchy would continue" His skepticism/scepticism about the continuation of the monarchy?
  • "The text in this source refers to Pedro II, but as Afonso was his son, the genealogical information also applies to him." Not sure this kind of note belongs in the article...
  • "The birth of an heir brought joy throughout the nation." Not so NPOV. On what is this claim based? Reports from the time?
  • "He was thrust into a thankless and burdensome role as the national symbol for a country that had nearly disintegrated during his childhood with rebellions that had flared throughout its provinces." Again, this reads more like a history book than an encyclopedia.
  • That whole paragraphy is a little POV-y; perhaps attribute the claims to a historian in the text? (I note you do something similar in the next paragraph... What you've done is by no means bad writing, I am just not so sure it's Wikipedia-friendly. I'm torn.)
  • "Unexpected departure" is not a good section title.
  • "13 July to a girl, who was named Leopoldina" Implies you are linking to an article on the name. Why not remove "who was named"?
  • "He is presently buried alongside other members of the Brazilian House of Braganza (including his younger brother Pedro, his uncle João and his aunt Paula) in the mausoleum of the Convento de Santo Antônio (Convent of Saint Anthony) in Rio de Janeiro.[14]" Is that where he was originally buried?
  • "the deaths of his only sons seemed to harbinger the eventual end of the Imperial system." Interesting claim- does he say so in a letter or something?
  • "beloved" Already made clear from the article, but adding this is not so NPOV
  • "The lack of a male heir caused the Emperor to lose all motivation for enhancing and promoting the Imperial office as a position to be carried on by his descendants." A "however" or something would be helpful here.

Interesting subject, and well written, though I consider the question of style (secondary historical literature versus encyclopedia article) a potential worry. I'm interested to hear other opinions on the issue- I may be being foolish. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milburn, I'll answer some of your remarks and other I'll leave to Astynax. Hope you don't mind. Here they are:
Joy of birth: yes. In Imperial Brazil (and even before), birthdays of members of the Imperial Family were national holidays and commemorated in all Brazilian towns. Roderick J. Barman wrote about this: "The one object of identity and loyalty that did command allegiance across Portuguese America was El Rei Nosso Senhor [The King Our Lord], who in this patriarcal society served as the supreme father figure. The pompo and fervor with which local communities celebrated the solemnities marking the life cycle of the monarchy—accession to the throne, and birth, death, and marriage in the royal family—attested to the reality of this common loyalty. Moreover, the visible symbols of royal authority, such as the judges' staves of office, the royal coat of arms hung on public buildings and churches, and even portraits of the monarch, constituted the institutional backbone for the corpus of and of hierarchical privilege upon which the notables' dominance of the local community depended." (in Barman, Roderick J (pp.29-30). (1988). Brazil: The Forging of a Nation, 1798–1852. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-1437-1 )
Place of burial: Yes, he was buried in the Convent of Santo Antonio and is still there, as well as many other Brazilian royals. His grandmother, Leopoldina (Pedro II's mother), was buried somewhere else, in the Convento da Ajuda (Convent of Aid), which was demolished in the early 20th century. Her remains were brought to the Convent of Santo Antonio and later were taken to the Monument of the Ipiranga in 1972.
Interesting claim- does he say so in a letter or something? You can check by yourself in the source itself on pages 129-130. This is also better explained at Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil.
Again, this reads more like a history book than an encyclopedia: This is better explained in Pedro II of Brazil and Early life of Pedro II of Brazil. The Emperor was a powerful symbol of national unity and was used by both political parties as such. To simplify your life, I'll transcribe a few words by historian Roderick J. Barman in his biography of Pedro II:
"The declaration of Pedro II's majority aroused a general euphoria. A feeling of release and renewal united Brazilians. For the first time since the middle of the 1820s the national government at Rio de Janeiro commanded a general acceptance. [...] the position of the national government was immensely strengthened by the disappearence of the regency regime. In tis place existed a single authority, endowed with inherited legitimacy, exalted by its ceremonial duties, positioned above partisan and personal interests, and possessed of constitutional powers susfficient to resolve political conflicts. This vision of the monarch and his role was fully shared by the emperor himself. The fourteen-year-old accepted unquestionaningly his ordained mission and threw himself who0leheartedly into his new duties." (Barman, p.74) --Lecen (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding other comments by J Milburn:
  • "English: Alphonse" Italicise as a word as a word? Worth bolding if it is a name that has been used? Reply: "Alphonse" is used in some older English and French accounts. The "Afonso" spelling is used in the sources cited.
  • "Afonso's early death," You're yet to mention the early death beyond his dates, which some readers will miss. Reply: I'm not understanding the comment. The "early death" used in the Lead is part of the summary of the material in the "Legacy" subsection.
  • "His skepticism that the monarchy would continue" His skepticism/scepticism about the continuation of the monarchy? Reply: I've reworded to clarify.
  • "The text in this source refers to Pedro II, but as Afonso was his son, the genealogical information also applies to him." Reply: The note merely alerts the reader that the reference gives the genealogy of the father (Pedro II) and does not mention Afonso. I'm unaware of any specific genealogy of Afonso, but his genealogy can be drawn from that of his parents. I've reworded slightly to make the point clearer.
  • "Unexpected departure" is not a good section title. Reply: I have changed it to "Early death and aftermath"
  • "13 July to a girl, who was named Leopoldina" Implies you are linking to an article on the name. Why not remove "who was named"? Reply: I have changed "named" to "christened" (she was not born with a name).
  • "beloved" Already made clear from the article, but adding this is not so NPOV Reply: The references pointedly remark that Pedro and Isabel maintained a loving relationship. The word was inserted here to avoid leaving any impression that Isabel was not considered by Pedro to be a fit heir because of a split with her father or personal problems between them. This is explained more fully in the articles on Pedro II and Isabel.
  • "The lack of a male heir caused the Emperor to lose all motivation for enhancing and promoting the Imperial office as a position to be carried on by his descendants." A "however" or something would be helpful here. Reply: I've reworded this a bit. "However" or "but" might go too far beyond what the sources say, in implying a direct link or reaction. It might seem a pedantic point, but the relationship between his political views and personal loss were complex, and there seems to have been an ongoing thought process. The death of his male heirs contributed to his view of the Empire's future, but there were other factors.
Thanks for your comments. • Astynax talk 09:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide details of the references for the translation please. Here not on the article. I'd like to see them and compare them to the below. You might also consider adding the details of the hereditary epilepsy and baptism to the article (this is a suggestion not a request). DrKiernan (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Books:

  • Pedro II of Brazil: son of the Habsburg empress by Gloria Kaiser (2000): "Alfonso Leopoldo" (pp. 211, 403)
  • Dom Pedro of Brazil by Mildred Criss (1945) "In June 1847 the little Crown Prince Alfonso was found dead in his crib" (p. 111)

Journal articles:

Newspaper:

  • The Times, May 19, 1845: "The infant son of the Emperor was baptized on the 25th of March, and named Alphonzo Pedro &c. The King of France and the ex-Empress of Brazil stood sponsors, the former being represented by the Prime Minister of the country." (p. 5)

Google hits:

  • Kidder: "Imperial Prince Dom Affonso"
  • Documentary Editing: "Mary commemorated royal events in her diary, including the presentation of Prince Alfonso, heir to the throne, to the legislature in 1845."

Source review - spotchecks not done, deliberately avoiding the issue of citing translations. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thanks. The square brackets (per WP:ELLIPSES) differentiate between inserted ellipses and ellipses in the source. (I checked again and removed the brackets, as the final ellipses don't appear to used in this place in the 1824 Constitution. If they are in the Rodrigues version, then feel free to put back the brackets.) I have added Costa to the footnote for the Diener reference. Lecen has changed "Wilmington" to "Wilmington, Delaware". The doubled periods are an artifact from the citation template and has been fixed. • Astynax talk 18:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. Most of my comments have been already addressed above so I will not repeat them. "monarchial institution" should be I believe: "monarchical institution". Please someone else check on this as I'm not 100% sure. -- Alexf(talk) 15:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - some of the translations are doubtful and incorrect. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC) I was too hasty with my conclusion. For example, I thought that "Major Commander" (of the Order of Christ) was incorrect (due to a translation error), but it seems that this peculiar rank indeed existed. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some spotchecks on the two Barman volumes cited, using on-line sources; the references check out, and no evidence I could see of close-paraphrasing. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The name is "Comendador-mor", which means "Major Commander". The source can be found online (in fact, all Almanaks Laemmert can be found there) in this website. I used two almanaks as sources: the one published in 1847 (for Afonso's full name on page 35) and another one from 1849 (to know which chivalry orders did Brazilian Princes had which can be seen on page 24 and page 26) I reverted your edits because they are unnecessary. The sources used already tell the Prince Imperial's grade. See the last phrase on page 26, for example: "O Imperador será sempre o Grão-Mestre, e o Príncipe Imperial Commendador-Mor de todas elas" (The Emperor will be always the Grand Master, and the Prince Imperial the Major-Commander of all of them). --Lecen (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lecen is correct, in this case "Major Commander" is the correct term. Any time you see “–mór” in a portuguese title it can be translated as major, general or superior, a high ranking title, even though the meaning changed from the 15th to 19th century. However, we have to be careful how we translate, for example a "sargento-mór" was a high ranking officer of the portuguese colonial army, higher than a regular captain, they were normally commanding officers and members of the nobility. In the British ranking the term if translated from Portuguese as "Sergeant major" means a very different thing, a much lower rank, the Portuguese colonial title ranked in the same level as major or lieutenant colonel of the British system. Examples of high ranking titles that used “–mór”: Sargento-mór, Capitão-mór and Alcaide-mór. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DrKiernan, I would appreciate if you could be a little more polite. 2- I don’t want to get involved in the little “feud” that you have going on. I read what the administrator told you after the block, he said: stay away from Lecen and vice versa. It seems Lecen was the better man and took the whole thing out, what is your point now? Wikipedia is supposed to be based on collaboration. We can all go back and read what you wrote, you went after Lecen deliberately. 3 - Yes, Afonso is the same as Alphonse or Alphonso, I don’t care if it is in the article or not. As I understand it, Lecen was only trying to maintain a common standard, you made a big deal out of it. I believe it is even unjust to oppose the article based on it, you should have discussed it first, or should have asked for a vote. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've not been impolite. The blocking administrator did not tell me to stay away from Lecen, in fact he said the opposite: "you will both make a concious [sic] effort to engage in discussion". Lecen took it out after my oppose and after my reply to you. I have never gone after Lecen deliberately. There is a common standard: they are called the featured article criteria. This article did not meet those criteria. If you don't want to get involved in a "feud", as you call it, then don't start by making an untruthful statement about my intentions and actions. DrKiernan (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Kiernan, I'm requesting you once more to stay away from me. Please leave this FAC. I will not allow you to turn this FAC into a mess by arguing with other editors. You are not helpful, never was and has no intention of ever being. You never had interest in Brazilian history and never volunteered at all to help me work one of these articles. I don't like you and I don't care if you support or oppose my articles. All I want is that you stay far away from me. If you insist on placing comments in this FAC I will request help from an administrator. --Lecen (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't find the report of the baptism and diagnosis of hereditary epilepsy useful then? DrKiernan (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Nikkimaria (03:33, July 4, 2011) [31].

2010 Nobel Peace Prize

Nominator(s): Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this is a historic record of an important event that I believe has been treated in a respectful and objective manner and to the highest standards of this encyclopaedia. I hope to have this ready for TFA on either the first anniversary of the award in October, or the second anniversary of the recipient's incarceration in December. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: There are numerous referencing issues to be tackled; the following points are examples. I have not gone through the full list of references, so there are likely to be other problems. Please check each entry carefully.

  • Inconsistent use of retrieval dates for print sources. See, for example, refs 3 and 8 compared with 5 and 100. There are many other cases where retrieval dates are missing.
  • Inconsistent use of commas and/or full stops after links in references. For example: ref 1, comma; ref 3, full stop; ref 4, neither. And so on.
  • Inconsistent italicisation of print sources - see refs 29, 37, check for others
  • There is italicisation of non-print sources, e.g. ref 83.
  • Non-standard formatting, refs 40, 41, perhaps others. These two lack publishers and retrieval dates
  • Inaccuracies in ref details. For example the publisher for ref 1 is "Journalism and Media Studies Centre, University of Hong Kong". Also ref 34, maybe others
  • Publisher missing ref 4.
  • Consistency required in notifying foreign sources (sometimes "in Chinese", sometimes "Chinese", some bolded, others not, etc
  • Can you explain why Phayul.com is a reliable source?
  • Ref 88: link is dead

Brianboulton (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all the issues (and some other similar ones) that you mentioned, except the last two, which I'll leave to Ohconfucius to explain/fix. Jenks24 (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Jenks for dealing with the above. I have further done work on the refs. #88 wasn't dead last night when I checked; I have now replaced it. Didn't realise what allegiance Phayul was until it was queried above and after I saw the Dalai Lama's image at the top banner. That ref has been replaced. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images appear unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been fixed. TGilmour (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article says "Liu is the third person to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while in prison or detention, after Germany's Carl von Ossietzky (1935) and Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi (1991)." However, the article Liu Xiaobo says: "He is the fourth person to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while in prison or detention, after Germany's Carl von Ossietzky (1935), the Soviet Union's Andrei Sakharov (1975), and Myanmar's Aung San Suu Kyi (1991)." Which is correct? Iusethis (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • He is the third, and it's confirmed by this source. It seems that the reconciling laureate is Andrei Sakharov. Whilst it's true Sakharov didn't collect his prize, he was merely prevented from leaving Russia; he was not imprisoned or detained at the time of his award. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification. Maybe you or someone else can update the other article? There may be more people who, like me, want to read both articles and then becomes quite confused. Iusethis (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Just read through the entire article, making some tweaks as I went and I think the article is FA quality. Only two quibbles that I couldn't fix myself: in the Human rights groups and academics section, I'm unsure what's intended by "They also stated that human rights and the economy of China has improved 10 years"; the other issue is that in the Award ceremony section, the two images and two quotations squash the actual text (at least on my monitor). I made an attempt to 'un-squish' it, but perhaps something more could be done. In all though, very comprehensive article and I found it an interesting read. Jenks24 (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A standard riposte to criticism of China's human rights record is that "human rights and the economy of China has improved 10 years", i.e. don't look at where we are today in absolute terms, but judge us by the progress we've been making (cup half-full argument). The Nobel Committee's statement to the effect is a rejoinder which acknowledges the progress but also the work to be done (cup half-empty argument). I don't know quite how to bring that out in the article, though. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, I understand what is intended by that sentence now. I'm more concerned with the grammar, though. Shouldn't it be something like "They also stated that human rights and the economy of China has improved in the last 10 years", perhaps even "They also stated that human rights and the economy of China have improved in the past decade". The current wording sounds ungrammatical to my ears, but perhaps there's something I'm missing. Jenks24 (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for spotting that mistake. Now corrected. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support with regard to Criterion 1a. I am impressed by the general quality of the prose – it even shines in places. This is a professionally written contribution that deserves a slot on the Main Page. Graham Colm (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have withdrawn my support because of problems with close paraphrasing. Graham Colm (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks - issues found. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "had abandoned the Falun Gong spiritual movement and was "soft" on China's leaders" vs "abandoning persecuted members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement and going soft on China’s leaders"
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • "the Nobel Committee secretary stated the award would not be influenced by Beijing's opposition" vs "a secretary of the Nobel Committee, who stated the award would not be influenced by Beijing’s opposition"
  • "negative reactions" - can't find this quote in the cited source
  • Print sources without web links need page numbers for verifiability purposes - for example, ref 22
  • "had instructed media not to re-run even the government's own condemnatory official news release" vs "has ordered media not to re-run even the government’s official news release"

I only checked a few sources, and to find this many issues on a minimal check is quite frankly rather concerning. This needs to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there are other examples: Graham Colm (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The BBC cited the UN as saying it had information that China had detained at least 20 activists ahead of the ceremony, and reported sources saying there were a further 120 cases of house arrest, travel restriction, forced relocation, and other acts of intimidation of dissident.." vs. " The UN says it had information that China detained at least 20 activists ahead of the ceremony. A further 120 cases of house arrest, travel restriction, forced relocation and other acts of intimidation have been reported." [32]
  • "in which 58.6 percent of respondents said the Committee should take back the prize and apologise to the Chinese people, and more than half said Liu should be detained until his parole date." vs. "In all, 58.6 percent of the interviewees said the committee should take back the prize and apologize to the Chinese people. More than half of them said China should keep Liu detained until his parole date."[33] Graham Colm (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • withdrawn I would like to withdraw this FAC nomination pending reworking. As it is unlikely to be the same article after that work is done, it will need assessment again from the ground up. I apologise for wasting everybody's time, and will resubmit once the rewrite is complete. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:16, 2 July 2011 [34].

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

Nominator(s): Red marquis (talk) 04:35, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I have addressed the issues raised after the last FAC nomination. The article has also completed a copyedit from User:Chaosdruid. So, I believe it is ready. Let's rock n roll. Red marquis (talk) 04:35, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. The sources need some work. You need publisher for a number of newspaper references, internet and television sources: Rolling Stone, MTV, Los Angeles Times etc are all incomplete refs without publisher info. I notice that for a number of references, you omitted the "work" parameter in the template, and placed the relevant info under "publisher" and manually italicized it (eg, you did: "Title=FAC| work=|publisher=New York Times". This is wrong. "New York Times" is supposed to be under "work" (which is automatically italicized in the template), and under publisher, you'd put "New York Times Company" (the newspaper's publisher), which is not italicized). There is also general inconsistencies: for ref 24, a publisher is listed, but in subsequent citations from the same work, the publisher is missing; for refs 65 and 66, it's "Time" and not "Time magazine". Also need clean up regarding wikilinking etc. Orane (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referfing to the Cite webs or the Cite journals? -Red marquis (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Applies to {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} only. What usually distinguishes the two templates is that the latter usually has the publisher in brackets. As they stand in the article, they're indistinguishable. Orane (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you making the changes. That's great. However, for some sources in which a singular person is listed as publisher, try substituting that with the publication's owner instead. For example, for ref 14, LA Weekly, put the publisher as Village Voice Media (its owner) instead of Beth Sestanovich. Orane (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Do I need to do the same for VH1 and MTV News? I couldn't find the publisher for either one. Would "MTV Networks (Viacom)" be acceptable? also, what about amazon.com and CNN? -Red marquis (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, MTV Network (Vicom) is the owner/publisher. I did a couple publisher corrections just as an example. Another thing you have to look out for is consistency. If you use citeweb for NME, make sure all citations from NME use citeweb; you can't use cite news and cite web for the same magazine/work. Usually, if it's a website or (online) music magazine, then it's not a news source per se (although it gives music news). It's just a web source. If the source is an actual newspaper, then use citenews (which generates the brackets around the publisher). This means that LA Times, Washington Post ect all need to be changed to citenews and not citeweb. I know it comes across as being picky, but it's important that all aspects of the article is professional. Orane (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For CNN, its "Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. (Time Warner)" Amazon likely doesn't have one. It's fine to leave it without. Orane (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please check to see if I got it all right. Regarding the inconsistency issue, it is difficult to impossible to find the newspapers where the story was first published (remember this album came out 10 years ago) so, as unprofessional as it may look, I have to use citewebs to find the story (archived in the publication's website). Better to have a verifiable source than none at all. -Red marquis (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not suggesting that you go out and find the newspapers. I'm saying that if its a news source (LA Times, NY Times etc), then you need to use citenews, even if it's online. For regular websites and magazines (with an online counterpart), use citeweb. If it's a news paper, with an online counterpart, use citenews. Also, ref 117 needs publisher. Refs 24 and 123 are perfect examples of what I mean. One uses cite news, one has citeweb. To be consistent, both need to be citeweb; same for NME sources. Orane (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Will do. With the NME sources am I supposed to choose between cite journal and cite web? Also, should CNN, BBC and ABC News use Cite news? What about Salon, Time and the O'Reilly Factor? ps. regarding ref 24 and 123, the one doesn't use cite news it uses cite journal. -Red marquis (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified all of the newpapers to the cite news template. Please advise on the issues listed above. Also, I'm curious if there are any other issues with the article besides the refs. There hasn't been much input from other reviewers and I am anxious to pass this on FAC with flying colors so I could start focusing on another article. -Red marquis (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the NME sources, if you find the journal version, use cite Journal. If not, then cite web. CNN, BBC ABC News should use citenews, because the are news sources, despite having in online counterpart (usually the web is just a reiteration or expansion of what's printed in the paper version). Time and salon are magazines, not newspapers :) and the O'Riley Factor is a talk show, so use cite video or one of those templates for TV program.
Regarding other issues with the article: The prose is pretty good. There is a minor issue that I saw in the critical reception section. The prose is good, but the formatting is off. It's Billboard, formatted ''[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]'' magazine and not "Billboard Magazine"; Q magazine, and not Q Magazine. Also, Drowned in Sounds and Pop Matters are websites/webzines, and should not be italicized. Orane (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. All of them. Are there any more obstructions to FAC that need to be cleared? -Red marquis (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've also fixed the numbering of the refs. They are now in proper sequential order. -Red marquis (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - hey, there's a lot of statements that are well sourced, but maybe too well sourced? As in you have a statement, then three or four sources to cite the point when really all you need is one. To my eye this looks a bit messy, and I don't think it's especially necessary. For example, towards the beginning of the article it says "In the aftermath (of Columbine) Marilyn Manson and his eponymous band became a "scapegoat"" with four sources cited. All four appear to me (admittedly without having looked into them in too much depth) to be perfectly reliable, so surely one will do? There's certainly no notability concerns about this article, and the statement isn't too contentious, so I think you should stick with the one source that you feel is the best, and scrap the rest. This would then tidy things up a bit. Coolug (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. I know what you mean but as much as possible I would like to keep all of them. Some of the statements on this article are contentious and having them backed up by multiple sources helps bolster or defend it. -Red marquis (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm wondering if it would be helpful if I included a complete transcript of Senator Shugars' comments, Senator Hatch and Lieberman's assertions on 1999 hearing as well as Manson' op-ed essays as notes. The essays are quite long. -Red marquis (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media: Firstly, File:Marilyn Manson in Bishop regalia.jpg. What is added by using this image? Surely, a free image of Manson in concert would actually serve the purpose better: the image is currently used to illustrate text talking about costumes used on stage, rather than the style of promotional material. File:Holy Wood logo.jpg is claimed public domain- I'm really not sure I agree with that. Further, the music samples use useless, copy-pasted rationales. The rationales should explain explicitly what the samples show and why that needs to be shown, preferably with reference to the article text, as opposed to vague statements. Template:Non-free use rationale may be useful there. J Milburn (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, there is no free image of Manson in concert during this tour here or on Commons. I checked. Second, I did not put the image in public domain. Someone from the Italian version of Wikipedia did. I specifically uploaded it under the logo template. Third, scroll down the pages of the music samples. Under the "Licensing" section, I added explicit rationales, using Template:Non-free use rationale, for why they are vital to the article with reference to the article text. Did I need to add citations as well? Other FAC article images don't. -Red marquis (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What effort have you made to acquire a free image? Do we have free images of him in his "trademark" costume mentioned in the article, whether at one of these concerts or another one? As for the logo, whether or not you uploaded it, it is in use in the article, and that's what I'm assessing here. I will nominate it for deletion on Commons. (As for the music files, sorry, I didn't see that, and the rationales seem fairly sound). J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked wherever I can. The ones I have found are copyrighted by their respective photographers. If they wanted to share them they would have uploaded them here already. They've had 10-11 years to do so. If there were a free image I would never have uploaded the photo in question in the first place. Unfortunately, this will have to suffice. Regarding the logo, I can't very well be held accountable for what other people do to the image I upload. You can't expect me to conduct a daily patrol of every single media file I upload to Wikipedia. Would it ameliorate the problem if I reupload it under the logo template? -Red marquis (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "trademark" costume, there's no image of that either on Wikipedia or Mediawiki Commons. Unfortunately, there just doesn't seem to be much live images of Manson on either site before 2007, by which time he had retired said costume. Even if such an image exist I have no intention of using it on Holy Wood. It is better suited for use in another article where the use of that costume became synonymous with the tour's iconography. Here, the bishop attire is it. -Red marquis (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We appear to be speaking different languages here. Concerning the publicity photo; "If they wanted to share them they would have uploaded them here already. They've had 10-11 years to do so"- That's simply not the case, and I can tell from the way you're speaking you've made no effort beyond a quick look around to acquire a free image. You claim that a photo of a different costume would not be appropriate, but why, I simply cannot see. Why's it so important that we have a picture showing this costume, as opposed to any other? I'm really, really not seeing it. You claim the costume became synonymous with the tour- if that was the case, you may well have a good reason for using it, but where are the sources? Where's the discussion of the importance of the costume? Right now, it's just one entry in a list among many. Concerning the the logo, you claim that you "can't very well be held accountable for what other people do to the image I upload"- no, perhaps not, but you have sent this article to FAC, and so I'm going to review what is there. If you didn't upload that image, great, but it's still in the article. No, uploading the image as NFC would just create new problems, as it's not clear that the image meets the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why is that Marilyn Manson has always been very particular about the imagery he uses for a particular album/supporting tour. As with any artist, to him they are loaded with specific symbolism. If I used imagery from another tour I would be doing the article a disservice. -Red marquis (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the logo, I have uploaded it as a non-free. Please check to see if my rationale is satisfactory. File:Holy Wood mercury logo.jpg. I used File:RHbear.svg from FAC article Radiohead as a guide. -Red marquis (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To further elaborate on the publicity photo, I did make an effort but, simply put, there is no free image out there of this tour. If I asked permission from a photographer, how am I going to solidly prove to Wikipedia that permission was given? With a legal contract? And what of the photographer decides to change his mind? That's liability I have no interest in being embroiled in. A publicity photo, on the other hand, is designed specifically to be distributed and used for educational/promotional purposes. It's use here is a grey area between the two. If it is really unacceptable then I will remove it. It's better to have no image than the wrong one. This FAC nom is already taking too much of my time. -Red marquis (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to reply to most of what you have said, but please note that we have a whole procedure for asking permission and proving it, and the majority of licenses we use are non-revocable. Take a look at this page. You're showing again and again that you simply don't know what you're talking about, and the combination of an argumentative person and someone who hasn't the first clue is not something I can be bothered dealing with. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the picture to put an end to that argument. Are there any other issues on this article that I need to address? I am anxious to move on. -Red marquis (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there Red marquis, I have an idea... well, what if you put the picture in the promotion section and write something about it? I believe that it is relevant to article, because Marilyn's image is part of the promotion... We all know that he re-creates his personal image every time a "new era" begins, his image makes part of the concept of the album, so i believe the picture is really relevant in that section. Thank you, Salgado96 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion but, at this point, I'd rather just cede that picture. This article has already taken too much of my time and I am interested in moving on to another one. If that's what it takes to get this passed on FAC then so be it. -Red marquis (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any more issues with the article? Has it passed or failed? -Red marquis (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seriously need to stop rushing like this. Your impatience is doing a disservice to the process. This is where the best articles are promoted, so you should be more concerned with ensuring that your article is up to standard, however long that takes. It's not a numbers game. Yes, you're eager to move on to another article, but be patient. There needs to be consensus to promote an article, and with zero "supports", the article will likely not be promoted (of course, that's not up to me at all). But, the most that will probably happen is that the article will stay here until more editors lend their opinions. Orane (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I'm being pushy. I was just getting anxious that there hasn't been a comment/criticism for days. I thought it had been allowed to go into limbo. As far as what I said to J Milburn, that was just a general comment and not intended in any way to be a disparagement of the FAC process or the reviewers. -Red marquis (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. For a while I thought this FAC had been allowed to go into limbo. -Red marquis (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree! Very good quality! By the way, the article of M.I.A's album Maya is a FAC and it hasn't got a lot of good information like this article does. Come one! It should be passed! Salgado96 (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:16, 2 July 2011 [35].

The Human Centipede (First Sequence)

Nominator(s): Coolug (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after reaching GA and having a thorough peer review I believe this article may now meet the featured standard. This article was previously nominated as a FAC about a month ago, however, the nomination was closed because there weren't enough comments from editors as to make a decision, however, those constructive criticisms that were made were very useful and acted upon to further improve the article. The first FA review can be viewed here. If there is anything else the article needs doing to it to improve I would very much appreciate any comments. The article is currently receiving a great deal of page views (over 60k on each of the last two days!) due to its rather infamous sequel. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for doing this source review. I've removed the all-caps writing from the BBFC sources and fixed the different formatting with ref 29. I've also removed the Rotten Tomatoes and other cited sources from the external links. With regard to the two sources where the reliability is questioned; I've removed the first one (this) and the fact it stated entirely because I don't think it was expecially important anyway, with the second source (this), which quotes the review consensus from Rotten Tomatoes, I have amended the text so that it no longer quotes the opinion of the un-named RT writer, but instead only gives the facts - that is the aggregate score and the number of reviews.
I'm pretty sure I have all the sources listed correctly as works, however, I'll have a look through and make sure that wherever possible I can stick a publisher in too. This won't be possible for all the sources, but it should be for quite a few.
Thanks! Coolug (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Erik
  • Could the "Sequel" section be shortened, perhaps to be similar to the lead section of the sequel article? I would recommend writing a solid lead section for the sequel article then copying it to the first film's article with some tweaks as a kind of summary section.
  • Can it be more upfront what the critics' consensus of the film is? The "Critical" section starts with the Empire review, and I think we should cite retrospective coverage that reports what critics thought of the film. This way, we can set the tone of the section. For example, if a film is universally acclaimed, we would explain that in the beginning, and the reader will acknowledge the sampled positive reviews as illustrative of that consensus.
  • It may also help to be more upfront about the theatrical detail. Try to treat the section as stand-alone as if readers did not look at the lead section or the infobox. For example, when was the film first screened? And it may help to mention the April 2010 dates closer to the beginning.
  • I notice that most of the references are online. Is it fair to assume that was the extent of your research? There may be some articles printed in periodicals that will not be available online, and a featured article needs to be well-researched.
  • While not a big thing, I also recommend converting the dates to something more readable. For example, instead of 2010-05-05, you could write 5 May 2010. I also recommend using the {{nowrap}} template to ensure that the day and month are always together.

Let me know if you have any questions! Erik (talk | contribs) 14:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these comments, I shall get to work on them in the next 24 hours and if I have any questions I will let you know. cya Coolug (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may be able to use Wikipedia:Datescript (if you can figure out) so you don't have to convert dates manually. Or ask someone to convert them for you. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Lightmouse (who apparently created that script) if he could convert the dates for us. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for arranging for the dates on the references to be sorted out (and as a Brit I much prefer this format myself too). I have made changes to the sequel and theatrical details in line with your suggestions. I've also stuck the Rotten Tomato and Metacritic scores at the beginning of the critics section in order to set the tone. Finding more retrospective reviews is a bit of a tough one though, as let's face it, this film is the human centipede, not star wars, and I haven't yet found much in the way of reviews beyond ones published at the time. I think the same applies to finding good quality sources outside of the internet, however, I'll see what I can do. Thanks again for all your help. Coolug (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely all the discussion about the sequel will bring up the first film and possibly mention how critics responded to that one? It doesn't have to be an actual review, it could be a news article that talks about the sequel and mention that its predecessor was not well-received by critics. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea. Thanks. I've therefore just spent far too long googling around and found a source about the second film that retrospectively refers to the reviews the first film had. It's quite difficult to find a source that isn't just ripping off this very wikipedia article, but I think what I have should be okay. Coolug (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Kaguya-chan
  • Why is truck driver capitalized in the cast section?
  • Run-on sentence: "Laser also accidentally kicked Kitamuro (Katsuro) during filming, this led to a fight on set between the actors, however contributed to the tension and anger throughout the scene where Heiter sits at his dining table eating whilst the centipede eats dog food from the floor alongside him"
  • "Whilst promoting The Human centipede Six stated..." -->"Whilst promoting The Human Centipede, Six stated..."

Hope the comments help! Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for these helpful comments, I've made corrections for all three of the points you address. If there's anything else you have noticed on the article please let me know. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments by Hunter Kahn (Struck oppose for now, see below) Very sorry to have to vote oppose, and obviously if the article improves enough I'd strike it, but after a read-through I honestly think there are enough problems that you'd be better off bringing this article back to FAC at a later date than trying to address everything in this review. Below are some of my comments... — Hunter Kahn 18:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a few grammatical/presentational problems I noticed, some of which I fixed myself; some are as simple as the film not being italicized. There are also at least one run-on sentence, ("However, other effects were relatively simple to create, for example, Heiter's three-dog was created by photoshopping an image...") and some sentences that really don't say anything at all ("Among horror blogs the film also received attention.") The names of the actors are wikilinked several times. And there are parts of the article written in an unencyclopedic way, like "... contain the blood and shit...".
  • The "Critical" subsection of the "Reception" section should identify the names of the critics you cite. In other words, it should be "Variety Magazine writer Peter DeBurge criticised the film..." instead of just "Variety Magazine criticised the film...". These magazines/newspapers didn't "say" anything, the people who wrote for them did. Also, there is at least one item here that is factually incorrect as stated: Entertainment Weekly did not declare, "This is the most disgusting horror film of all time." The headline asks, "Is this the most disgusting horror film of all-time?" and the writer wrote "It is without question one of the most disgusting horror films ever made." The latter is a bold enough statement in itself, but the way you've written isn't correct and is a misquote.
    • This is mostly better, but you have newly written, "However, Collis asked "Is the most disgusting horror film of all-time?" I know this sounds like nitpicking, but this isn't really correct either. This quote is from the headline, and the writers hardly ever write their own headlines. You should simply say that Collins said it was "without question one of the most disgusting horror films ever made". — Hunter Kahn 02:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my mistake. Thanks for pointing out, have corrected. Coolug (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are problems with the References, including a few references that have glaring red cite errors right in the article. I assume this is the result of you having made changes due to other reviewers' comments, but this is an FAC, and easy stuff like this should have been addressed by now.
  • The biggest problem I have (the above stuff I think could be addressed fairly easily) is it seems to me that there is information about this film in the very sources you are already using that has not been worked into the article. An FA should be as comprehensive as possible, and I think you really need to go through your sources and mine them for new info as much as possible. For example, you use this source only to cite that one of the star's auditions took place in NYC, and that she was given a storyboard rather than a script. However, that interview also shows that the special effects were created by a father-son team of effects artists, Erik and Rob Hillenbrink, who used prosthetics to create the centipede. It also has other interesting info, like stuff on the difficulties of filming the centipede scenes, and how they tried to pair her with other girls to find the right chemistry in her audition. Likewise, you use this article only to cite that it was Ashlynn Yennie's first role. There's a lot more stuff here, like how the film was shot almost entirely in sequence, or how the crew (even the costume lady!) wasn't allowed to know what the "centipede" looked like and didn't see it until the first day those shots were filmed. There's also stuff about how Yennie auditioned via tape and didn't meet the director until she took the part. I also think you could take from this interview more details about why the centipede concept would medically not work, which is something I'd be interested to read more about. And these are only three of the sources, so I feel you really need to take a thorough look through all of them.

— Hunter Kahn 18:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for this review. Obviously I don't like the oppose, but I do like the suggestions which are incredibly helpful. Couple of things first, the red links appear to have turned up after this edit, made earlier this morning. I have no idea why this is because the editor doesn't appear to have been messing around with the references, but anyway that's something fixable. Also, the unencyclopedic content such as "blood and shit" is direct quotes from sources, but I understand they are not suitable so I'll improve the wording. Finally, I'm not too sure about going into how unrealistic the human centipede actually is in too much depth, I think it adds undue weight to the 'controversy' when really it's only a silly horror film and the article only says Tom Six 'claims' accuracy, which he certainly does a lot.
Anyway, that's my desperate plea bit. However, you make some excellent points about using the sources better. To be honest these are sources that were put in years ago when the article was but a stub, and I suppose I more or less forgot about looking further into them as the article was being developed, but that's not really much of an excuse, so I'll be having a proper read of them all when I get the chance and sticking that stuff in. I don't know if I can do all this before this FAC gets closed, but I'll have a go anyway. Thanks! cya Coolug (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I think I've made the changes you suggest to the appropriate standard, but I'd certainly appreciate any feedback on the improvements (I hope they're improvements!) I've made. I've also mined more information from the sources you mention, plus some more. I'll continue to look through more of the sources to see what I can get from them. cya Coolug (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There definitely seems to have been improvement, and I'm happy to see that you've added some content from these sources beyond my specific suggestions. I've struck the "Oppose" for now and will take a closer look hopefully tomorrow. — Hunter Kahn 02:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of my earlier concerns was that there was information in existing sources that had not been incorporated into the article. But I've now also conducted a search for sources that are not presently included in this article, and I've found quite a few with just a minimum amount of looking: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. Have your reviewed these sources? This makes me wonder if perhaps there are others out there? Also, I notice most of your sources (besides the DVD ones) are online sources. Have you tried using any database services to look for offline news articles, magazine articles or journals about this film? Something like NewsBank or Lexis Nexis? If you check your local library, most of them allow access to a service like that, and I think you might be surprised how much more is out there. I'm not reinstating my oppose yet because I want to hear what you have to say, but between this and my earlier comments, I still think you'd be better off working on the article a bit more outside of the FAC and then bringing it back later... — Hunter Kahn 22:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Thanks for suggesting these sources. I shall read through them shortly and see if they have anything that can be added to the article. I'm concious however that I don't want to put new sources in for the sake of it, but only if they say something new that isn't already there. Googling "human Centipede" and looking through the news items gives hundreds and hundreds of sources; many of them just rip off this very Wikipedia article, a lot more of them just say the same thing over and over.
With regard to finding off-line sources, I have two concerns; the first, with regard to finding the kind of journal articles or research papers that might be somewhere like Lexis Nexis is that I haven't found any and very much doubt there are any. The article is about The Human Centipede and to there best of my knowledge there hasn't been a great deal of serious academic research or analysis into the subject that I can draw ideas from. I also don't know of any books that have been published that talk about The Human Centipede in any great length. (this appears to mention the film but I have no idea what it will say, it seems to simply be a list of dutch films)
Secondly, regarding news items from printed sources, well I'm a little unsure how why it is that Wikipedia seems to think if a major newspaper prints something and we source it with the page number and date etc then that is a high quality source, but if a major newspaper like The Guardian, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Daily Telegraph or the Chicago Sun-Times prints something and also makes the piece available online, the online piece is of lower quality that the very same article in it's physical form. At the moment the article has sources from all of these newspapers but links to their online copies. Would finding out their physical publication dates and page numbers make the sources any better? If so then I can try and find these details out. However, it won't actually make any difference to what the source says or the overall reliability of the source because it will still be exactly the same, with presumably a link to the existing online version so readers can still check it out. cya Coolug (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey look, I've found the films production notes here, I'm going to stick some stuff in from this in since it appears to have a few interesting bits. Coolug (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm certainly not suggesting you just added sources for the sake of it, and I'm not suggesting The Human Centipede has attracted much attention from scholars and that there are tons of journals and books written about it. My concern is whether the full scope of sources about this film have been reviewed and whether this article can truly be considered comprehensive. I think this article has great potential, and you are obviously an editor dedicated to improving it, so I have no doubt it'll make FA one day. But at this point I'm not convinced it's reached that point of comprehensiveness yet. Already in this FAC review we've identified items in the existing sources that should have been part of the article in the first place, and you're now finding new sources altogether (the production notes). Nearly three weeks into an FAC nomination is way too late for this to be happening. And I'm not suggesting off-line sources are better than online, but they need to be reviewed; how would we otherwise know whether they have something worth adding to the article? I'm not trying to be difficult here by any means, but your comments above do sort of indicate to me that that is another area that may not have been fully explored yet. — Hunter Kahn 20:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I appreciate an FAC isn't really the best place for new sources or content to be added, however, it seems an FAC is one of the few times when I've ever had much in the way of any constructive comments with regard to the article, so it is unfortunately going to be a time when changes may well take place. Which ultimately is good (for me at least) because I want to improve this article. I would content however that the addition of the production notes hasn't actually led to the addition of any new content, instead I've used them as a different kind of source to cite some stuff that was previously cited with a load of different web only sources. cya Coolug (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

← I'd be inclined to agree with Hunter Kahn's comments above. Coolug, as we have discussed in person, I know you're keen to finish writing about this horrible film, so that Mrs. Coolug will talk to you again ;-) I know there has been a chronic lack of feedback for the article, so it's great that we've finally received some very constructive criticism. However, mid-FAC isn't really the time to make major changes to the article contents... unintentional style/spelling/grammatical errors are inevitably introduced whenever this happens. I think it might be a good idea to step back from the FAC again for a little while, just so that we have the time and space to ensure that the improved article contents are well-written. Papa November (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! Right, ok, before this FAC dies, are there any last comments from any other editors? Coolug (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other editors might disagree with me about this, but I wouldn't mind seeing a more fully-formed "Parodies" section. Not huge sprawling paragraphs, mind you, but maybe just two sentences or so about what exactly the South Park parody was, and another two sentences about what the SNL parody was. Stuff like that. — Hunter Kahn 21:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:16, 2 July 2011 [41].

Rwanda

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this topic already archived? The path to this discussion estranges me a bit. Tomeasy T C 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the "archive1" in the page title? FAC/FAR discussions are automatically created with those titles; that doesn't mean the discussion is closed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I meant. I don't find this path particularly helpful, but if it is always done like this, then just ignore my comment. Tomeasy T C 18:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this on and off for the past two years, and feel it is time to try a nomination for featured article status and to get the community's feedback on it. The article was loosely modelled on Cameroon, another African country featured article, and also followed guidelines at WP:COUNTRIES. It has undergone two peer reviews in the past year, here and here, the second being a lengthy review by User:Cryptic C62. Thanks, and I look forward to hearing the feedback on this.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the layout (templates go at the bottom, not in See also), why do we have a gynormous template at the bottom only to house the coordinates, and the first ref goes nowhere when clicking on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - not great if the very first link doesn't work.... it seems it was due to an error with - vs – symbols in the CITEREF coding. I have fixed that now. I have also got rid of the giant coordinates from the geographic locale box. They are not there in Japan and don't seem to add much.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Missing bibliographic information for DFID 2009, MINEDUC
    Done. DFID 2009 replaced with Independent article. MINEDUC (2010) added to refs. Also provided new source for second fact wrongly attributed to MINEDUC 2010.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 98, 158: why no date?
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why spell out WCS in FN 117 but not FN 114
    Fixed the originally initialised one was actually a missing link and I've replaced it with two new refs to IUCN and RDB sources. I've also constricted the citation for the remaining one to just "WCS" as initialising seems a bit more consistent with the general convention in the article.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your rationale, when a source has no named author, to sometimes place the title first and use that for shortened citations, and other times to do the same with publisher?
    Fixed - the rationale was that when copied and edited from another article, or it seemed convenient, the title was used; however for consistency I have now moved all of them to a consistent publisher=author format. (with the exception of nationsencyclopedia which will shortly be removed per comment on reliability below).  — Amakuru (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is WCS between Al Jazeera and Amnesty International in the reference list? Check alphabetization
    Fixed - plus a couple of others. It seems to be correct alphabetization now.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No footnotes to BBC News IV, Geohive, GlobalSecurity.org, Mbabazi 2011, Merriam-Webster, Munyakazi & Ntagaramba 2005, WFP
    Fixed - removed them.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear which of the HRW sources are being cited in FN 74 and 75
    Fixed - they both refer to the first. The second was dead and has been removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include cited sources in External links
    Query - the only entry which seems to break this rule is the CIA world factbook, but I personally think that's a useful external link, for users who wish to do some further reading, and might easily be missed by readers who skim over the full bibliography. I'm happy to remove it if necessary, however.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for WP:MOS issues in references: italicization, capitalization, etc
    Fixed - I have done some work to make sure each cite ... template is used with the correct parameters, which should take care of italicisation. For capitalisation of titles I have generally gone with the exact text used in the source, for reference integrity reasons. If you'd prefer some other consistent format for that, for example not to use caps at all except for the opening letter and proper nouns, let me know and I can change it.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general reference formatting needs to be much more consistent
    Fixed (hopefully) - I have made ISBN numbers consistent, locations, use of templates. If you can see any other outstanding issues, again, let me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how locations are formatted
    Resolved - I have now used "traditional" form of City, State (abbreviated) for all US locations, and just the city for others (London, Paris, Geneva). The exception to this is "Cambridge, England" as this could reasonably need disambiguating from "Cambridge, Mass." Hope that's OK.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This?
    Fixed - I have removed all the mentioned sources and removed or recited facts which rely on them.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent date format
    Done - Tomeasy has resolved issues so that all refs use ISO format and all prose uses Commonwealth English format.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrieval dates not required for convenience links to print-based sources (like Google Books)
    Removed  — Amakuru (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how editions are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - edition now only noted where there is more than one. Then it is either 3rd, 4th etc. or it is "Revised" or "Reprint" as indicated on the Google Books page.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Subseections are missing, especially for History, but also elsewhere. I will try to work on this. Tomeasy T C 17:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK subsections are not a must. --Victor12 (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be marginally inclined not to have subsections in History, but happy to defer to others' judgement on this one. Subsectioning seems useful where there is a distinct mini topic that falls within the realm of the wider section, rather than merely as a means of splitting up a six or seven paragraph section into one to two paragraph chunks. i.e. is the newly added subsection title useful as an entity within the table of contents? If the History section were much longer (which it shouldn't be in this instance, as the detail is to be found in History of Rwanda) then it would need subsections; as it is it is probably borderline. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The History section is huge, perhaps too large. One way to deal with it, and allow the reader to find the content they are looking for, seemed to me to the introduction of subsections. I just went ahead with it. Now, i see there are some objections here. If most people here agree not to have them, feel free to revert me. Tomeasy T C 22:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes no sense to create so many subsections on an article which is supposed to be only a summary of more specialized entries. We now have very small subsections even of just one paragraph. I'd prefer to revert back to the former arrangement. --Victor12 (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Victor12. If there's only a paragraph on a piece of information it shouldn't have a subsection. It's noted in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout) that short subsections break the flow of prose, so the tiny history and demographic subsections are probably not needed. Climate also looks a bit weird. The better solution mentioned before would be to shorten the history section slightly. The articles already at WP:Article size maximum. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Tomeasy T C 19:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved - I have removed the History and Demographics subsections per the above consensus.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support/Comment - After an exhaustive and exhausting peer review, I am supremely satisfied with the quality of the prose in this article. Of course, every article can benefit from one more pair of eyes. If anyone else does a prose review or has questions about particular statements, I will try to help out as best I can. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media: Somehow I doubt File:Coat of arms of Rwanda.svg is GFDL- stronger sourcing/licensing information is required. File:Rwandan refugee camp in east Zaire.jpg needs its source updating. Rather odd licensing on File:RwandaGeoProvinces.png. File:MarabaPacket2.jpg is a photograph of (presumably non-free) artwork on packaging, and so I am not confident about the licensing there. Obviously, the use would not meet the NFCC. Other images look good, copyright-wise. J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - I have removed the seal from the article, and replaced the Maraba packet and the refugee camp with equivalent images with undoubted licences. Regarding the RwandaGeoProvinces, this is a derivative work by me, in which I added more content to a public domain map issued by the CIA. As far as I know this is legitimate, so please advise as to how it should be licensed (or let me know if I'm mistaken). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The quality of prose is excellent, very clear which is no small thing given the complicated history. Still reading through. Ceoil 13:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you enjoyed it :)  — Amakuru (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
enjoying. Its a long article, 3/4's way through now, no issues on wording so far (well done Cryptic), the page is engaging and the summary style well judged. I'm thinking this is a huge achievement, by far the best article on a country I've read (outside of Geist's work on the US), leaning support with nitpicks -not on prose- to follow. Its great to see this core article here at FAC. Ceoil 09:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TCO comments

  • MAJOR props for working on something this broad and important. Go core!
  • Lead seems long. Advise cutting.
    Agree. Tomeasy T C 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've had a stab at this but I'm reluctant to commit it to the main article without first doing some consultation, as it is always tricky to know what to cut and what to leave (and also the original lead was quite carefully worked out in conjunction with Cryptic C62, meaning some of his issues may now need re-resolving). The proposed new lead is at WP:Featured article candidates/Rwanda/archive1/Proposed lead, and I've also put up a copy of the "original" lead at WP:Featured article candidates/Rwanda/archive1/Original lead, since the current version is already altered from how it was when I first nominated the FAC. Please could all interested parties review the proposal and pass comments. Also feel free to edit the proposal in place if you have good ideas. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Rwanda/archive1#Lead discussion and Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Rwanda/archive1/Proposed lead is that the proposed form was acceptable so I have now copied it across (with suggested amendments) to the main article. Please advise if it is now passes the test for FAC or if more action is required.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First sentence: I don't think the form of government has first sentence priority...and especially sending us to the link for unitary republic seems pedantic. Why not just define it as a country locationally. (the government form fits better in last para of lead anyway).
    Done - changed "unitary republic of ..." to "country in ..."  — Amakuru (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First para too long especially reads like two paras mashed together. Also the sentence order is not well organizing the content (e.g. why talk about capital city, then skip a sentence, then the other cities).
    Agree. Tomeasy T C 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed - I believe the newly written lead resolves this issue.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with keeping history without section breaks if you want. There is a strong narrative structure. (In other cases where it is more grouping topics or content is very technical, then section headers help...but history is a story.
    No action required  — Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a fan of using redlinks for "concept" type articles you plan to write (e.g. dance of Rwanda). For a more discrete thing (like a person) seems OK because the rationale is the links will pop in when someone does an article and may come from multiple places. But not so with dance of Rwanda.
    Agree. Tomeasy T C 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed - I have delinked all redlinks that I deemed as fitting this description.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a fan of using disguised links (word music wikilinked, but goes to music of Rwanda or Tourism...but goes to tourism of Rwanda). Is confusing, espeically when sometimes we are really just linking to the concept (like subsistence agriculture...not subsistence agrictulture of Rwanda).
Disagree. There are few things as useless as linking music to music. What the readers really want to explore would probably be the music of Rwanda. I see the problem of disguising such a link, however. What I would propose here would be the use of a see also head template for music of Rwanda, and not link the word music at all in the prose. However, I have seen that this article does not use the see also template at all, so I was reluctant to introduce it. Are there objections to this kind of template? Tomeasy T C 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also would work well if we can't link a true phrase that contains the overall concept. Also, when we have these piped links interacting with redlinking, we get peculiar appearance. Like on the lead "healthcare" is redlinked. Like huh, Wiki does not have an article on healthcare? Well, yeah we DO. We don't have one on "healthcare of Rwanda". But since the link is piped...it looks like we lack an article on healthcare at all. (Just a distractor from reading.)
Well, if there are no objections, I would introduce these templates. I was thinking of using for for Rwandan Genocide as well, on top of the history section. Tomeasy T C 18:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me, Tomeasy.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The different tribes are not well explained. I got the picture..."not supposed to call them tribes", but it seemed cart before horse to emphasize their sameness in describing them and not to explain how they differ (ethnicity, appearance?) This is a major gap and an important thing people need to learn from coming here. They want to understand what these people with funny names really are.
Agree. I also found that the quoted phrase came a long as a rule to make a point, but then fell short of evidence. There is evidence, however. Same language and territory, for instance. so the point may be made with explanation. Nevertheless, we need to agree on how to introduce and characterize the terms Hutu, Tutsi, Twa. Is this what you meant by funny names??? Tomeasy T C 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have ideas on how we might present this? There are three areas that need a decision: the lead, the history section and the demographics. Every time I look at it I can't quite decide how best to arrange things. Since practically every point is in dispute, it's hard to know where to start. In particular:
  • Plenty of sources say the Tutsi arrived separately from the Hutus. But the government and some other sources say the whole dichotomy was constructed much later on.
  • Some sources say there are differences between the two groups in the present day (e.g. skin colour, height, lactose intolerance) while others say there is no difference.
  • There's not even consistency on what to call the categories, other than that they are "not tribes".
If anyone has any ideas then happy to try and move on with this.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like a lot of over-blueing. Mountain gorilla is linked at least 4 times in article. Would like that to be once. TCO (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, of course. Tomeasy T C 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed - I have unblued a lot of repeated links. I have, however, per WP:MOSLINK, retained repeated links in (a) infoboxes and picture captions, (b) occurrences far apart where the link is genuinely useful in both cases and (c) links occurring in both the lead and the body. I was a bit unsure about this last one, and MOSLINK is annoyingly vague about the matter, but given that the lead is supposed to stand alone, as is the body, I thought this seemed reasonable.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victor12 comment: I think the History section is somewhat unbalanced with three paragraphs dedicated to the 1990s out of nine. I do realize the importance of the 1994 genocide for Rwandan history but I think most of its details should be left to the relevant article, Rwandan Genocide in this case. --Victor12 (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on this. Realistically people are going to come to this article to learn about the genocide [and to try to understand what all these people with funny names (hutus and tutsis, etc.) really are]. We should satisfy this interest. Perhaps doing a subsection would make this feel better? TCO (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me this personal comment, TOC: Calling these groups repeatedly people with funny names, sounds rather ignorant to me than funny. Tomeasy T C 18:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tomeasy, "people with funny names" is quite an unfortunate expression. Also, the reasoning that "people come to this article to learn about the genocide" is not correct IMHO, this article is about Rwanda as a country; devoting so many paragraphs to the genocide goes against WP:UNDUE. --Victor12 (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one paragraph on the genocide!
I think the entire history section is too long, but that applies to all of its parts. With a carefully conducted, general shortening of the section, the genocide paragraph could be shortened as well. However, within the current size of the history section, the length of the genocide paragraph is not undue. Tomeasy T C 06:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I´m sorry, I meant three paragraphs dealing with the 1990s (in which the main event is the genocide) out of nine paragraphs for the whole history section. I think this distribution is unbalanced. --Victor12 (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, even as stepping toe over the line humor, it loses its impact, if I say it twice. Moving on...big picture, I feel very warmly to this article in that it is covering a country. I would be realistic that people coming here need/want strong coverage to explain the noteworthy genocide as well as the ethnic groups. And IN ARTICLE. They will also be getting a little better perspective on the countries geography, history, etc. so it is find that they are coming here for one reason and then leave with a deeper perspective. Please keep after it...get the STAR. We need vital articles that are FA. I understand that others feel differently, which is fine, just sharing. I like the length, content, and org of the current genocide treatment. Very well done, please don't skinny it. (I had extremely tangential experience related to the possible intervention that EUCOM argued Clinton out of...and your article was the first that I really understood what the heck was going on in there.) I really still don't think we nail it in terms of explaining the ethnic (or whatever) groups. At a minimum, we should present the different points of view and communicate the lack of understanding...not pick a dog in the fight. As of now, it is confusing, to have the doctrainaire "social, not genetic" coming after a discussion of how different population migrations were the genesis...or for that matter how the heck did the Hutus know who to murder?TCO (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a Rwandan Genocide article to explain in detail all the things you just mentioned. --Victor12 (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...I'm very aware of that. I just think a lot should get covered here as well. Think it serves our readers well in the end instead of depending on the click through. We probably disagree. That is fine...article does not need to match what I say...just throwing my thinking out. Peace. TCO (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TOC. The ethic groups and the genocide are probably major attractors for our readers to come to this article. The description of the ethnic groups is insufficient at present, and should be improved. I think we all agree here. I will give it a try when I have some relaxed time.
The history section: Does anybody think its total length is OK, or do we agree that it should be shortened? I feel that the only disagreement here is about the relative proportions of this section. I believe that, given 9 paragraphs, it is perfectly balanced to dedicate one to the civil war, one to the genocide, and one to modern Rwanda. If however, we condense the section and, as a result of shortening, we also merge some paragraphs, I could imagine to merge the civil war and the genocide sections. However, before I touch this difficult task in the article, I would want to see where consensus is. Tomeasy T C 07:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although the history section is on the long side and in principle I can see a case for shortening it, I don't personally think it is a show stopper, and the risk is that the balance of the text would be upset - it's not simply a case of removing sentences. For what it's worth it already took some considerable work to condense it down to this length, while making sure that important events and eras are not omitted (the section was way longer than this when I first started working on this article). When considering featured or good country articles in general, the current length of the History section is probably about average - it is still considerably shorter than, for example, Canada (a Featured Article) United States (currently a Good Article). It is also on a par lengthwise with Japan, another FA. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not length but undue weight as I mentioned above. --Victor12 (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, Victor: 1 paragraph out of 9 is not too much weight for the genocide.
I see it will be difficult to get a common agreement on the history section. However, do all agree that the ethnic groups need a better description? Tomeasy T C 20:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, the History section currently has nine paragraphs, three of them deal with the 1990s; I think this is undue weight. --Victor12 (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is well balanced that the civil war is dedicated one out of nine paragraphs. The same holds for modern Rwanda. Tomeasy T C 07:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two paragraphs for precolonial history, two paragraph for colonial history, one paragraph for independence, one paragraph for post colonial history and three (3) paragraphs devoted to the 1990s (including two sentences devoted to the 2000s); doesn't seem balanced to me. --Victor12 (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're just repeating yourself. Let's get more people to take a look. Maybe start a thread on FAC talk page and ask a few disinterested parties to look at it and make their call. (And I don't know if this would scratch your itch, but we could go back to section breaks, so at least the reader can decide which part of history interests him more.) 16:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually in general agreement with Victor12 here, although I understand the genocide was a very important event in Rwandan history. Perhaps as a compromise there could be an aim to generally reduce the length of the history section, and in the meantime have two subsections, perhaps pre and post independence? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re the debate it's a difficult one. You clearly can't give identical weighting to every decade because (a) the time periods discussed get longer the further back one goes, and (b) there are some decades (e.g. 1980s) when nothing happens that's really worth mentioning while others (1990s) are full of separate events, each of which shapes the whole history in its own right. However I concur with Victor and Chipmunk that 2.5 paragraphs out of 9 is on the overweight side even for one action packed decade.
So if we can reach a decision on our best course of action to resolve this issue for FAC then that'd be good. I'm happy enough with Chipmunk's suggested compromise if others are.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/July_2011&oldid=440658710"