Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archive 1
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Louis Kahn/archive1}}
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==August 2011==
==August 2011==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Louis Kahn/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scream (film)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scream (film)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010–11 Temple Owls men's basketball team/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010–11 Temple Owls men's basketball team/archive1}}

Revision as of 12:50, 23 August 2011

August 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 Ucucha 12:50, 23 August 2011 [1].

Louis Kahn

Nominator(s): Rossi101 (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Louis Kahn is a very influential architect of 20th century. He is considered as master of International style and Brutalist architecture. His works are considered as highly monumental, beyond time and culture. I think Kahn is more important figure than the architects featured as like as John Douglas (architect), Rudolf Wolters, I. M. Pei, Charles Holden etc. Rossi101 (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)--Rossi101[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal - while I agree that Kahn is an influential figure in architecture, FA status is based on the article not its subject, and at this point this article does not meet the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

  • Lead is too short - per WP:LEAD, given the length of the article it should be at least 2 paragraphs
  • File:Yale_Center_for_British_Art.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author information
  • File:Louis_Kahn.jpg: where and when was this photo taken?
  • Many more references are needed. A good rule of thumb is to have a minimum of one source per paragraph, but more is usually required
  • Don't use contractions outside of direct quotes
  • Citation formatting needs to be much more consistent. Web citations must include title, publisher and retrieval dates. Print sources need page numbers. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: There is little or no evidence that this article has been prepared for this FAC against the FA criteria. The Personal life section is unreferenced; other sections have unreferenced or inadequately referenced paragraphs; the text looks far from comprehensive; the prose includes non-encyclopedic contractions; there are MOS violations, e.g. misuse of italics. Too much of the article is in list form. The checking tool indicates a disambiguation link in the lead. The article has never been through any formal review process; in my view, at present it barely meets the required standards for its B rating. I agree with the suggestion that the nom should be withdawn. The article should be worked on significantly, then sent to peer review before coming back here. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 22 August 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 12:10, 18 August 2011 [2].

Scream (film)

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to be an exceptional article on the subject. It is comprehensive on the topic, detailed, contains no NFC apart from the infobox poster and one image in the casting section which I believe to be important and for which I have added a rationale. The article contains media where appropriate, is well-written (prose having been checked by peer review, guild of copyeditors and GA process) and references are filled, complete and uniform. I have spent weeks/months researching the topic and believe it to be the best that it can be at the moment short of new information being uncovered. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on sourcing at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should include time references for audio/video sources, particularly when citing very specific material like direct quotes
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This?
  • FN 9: formatting. Check for other malformatted refs
  • When a source is English-language, you don't need to specify the language
  • Web sources need publishers and retrieval dates

In general, reference formatting needs to be cleaned up and made consistent, and sources need to be assessed for quality and reliability. Looking briefly at the article text, I also see some Manual of Style issues (including overlinking and hyphen/dash problems). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • That makes the second reference reliable.
  • [3] may make your fourth cite reliable. Scroll down the page beyond the user comments are several press comments regarding the site. USA Today has some articles sourcing them. http://www.usatoday.com/search/results?q=seeing-stars.com&p=1
  • Deleted the IMDb source and replaced, I overlooked it when developing the article from what it previously was.
  • Working on the other two refs.
  • Removed the English language thing
  • I believe I caught all the references lacking a publisher and accessdate now. Had a lot of help from User:MikeAllen & little help from GrappleX (Just making sure they gets due credit)
  • Removed what I believe to be overlinking. Everything that is left I believe to be useful to the reader. Tried to be very strict on repeat links.
  • I can't see what is wrong with ref 9, can you be more specific?
Comment If I am meant to include time sources does that mean I am meant to repeat the same source multiple times with only a time-code difference? Also means I have to rewatch 12 hours plus of content -__- Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comments: Not sure what to say about musicfromthemovies.com, its the website of a magazine that has seen print, written by this guy [4] and while no article exists on here for the site, a quick search for musicfromthemovies.com has a lot of articles here sourcing his work. I don't know what it takes to ascertain how reliable he is though.
Hi. Regarding the times for the commentary and other audio/video sources, you can see an example of a featured article that has these by looking at Over There (Fringe). I know going through a load of sources again just to find the times is a pain, but from having to do this myself on another article I can see why it's necessary. The sources in a featured article need to be watertight and if you can't prove where you found this information (by making it as easy to find as possible for anyone who wants to find it) then it doesn't really belong on the article. Good luck with the article. Coolug (talk) 08:33, 17 August 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 12:05, 18 August 2011 [5].

2010–11 Temple Owls men's basketball team

Nominator(s): ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I ran it through peer review and I think it meets the criteria. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I appreciate the work that's been done on this article but I don't feel it currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

Oppose – Originally was just going to check the source reliability, and that looked fine. I then decided to peek at part of the article, and unfortunately ran into the unencyclopedic tone mentioned above. I'll give some examples, which I believe cause this to not meet the criteria at this time...

  • "Despite losing by 15 at the half, Maryland staged a huge comeback...".
  • "but his backcourt mates Corey Stokes and Maalik Wayns lit up the scoreboard...".
  • "Fernandez also missed the January 12 matchup against St. Bonaventure, but the Owls destroyed the Bonnies nonetheless".
  • "The Owls blew the game open with a 16–0 run in the second half and shot 56 percent on the game."
  • "The Owls creamed La Salle 96–76".
  • "Juan Fernandez had a miserable shooting night, going 3 for 17."
  • "Aztec star Kawhi Leonard stole the ball from Khalif Wyatt and his uncontested dunk proved to be the dagger."

All of these resemble the sports recaps that I read every day. While I enjoy reading them, articles on Wikipedia that imitate them just come across as informal, and that's what's happening here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:28, 14 August 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 12:02, 18 August 2011 [6].

Mark Satin

Nominator(s): Babel41 (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article status because I believe it meets the FA criteria and because I believe it is of compelling interest to those who care about American activism and innovative political thought over the last half-century. Its subject entered the public eye as a draft dodger leader during the Vietnam War, spent the next 20 years helping to frame and popularize the concept of “New Age” politics, and spent the next 20 doing the same for “radical middle” politics. He is now either a mere pragmatist or a cutting-edge synthesizer of disparate political ideologies, depending on your POV.

I wrote the original stub article on 18 February 2004 and did the major expansion / revision in 2005 (21 April, 17:07 through 29 April). Here I have updated, revised, and greatly expanded it (like, by a factor of 10) in an effort to make it truly useful for readers and researchers for decades to come. I did it with the “preferred article” attributes firmly in mind – not least of all (a) treating the subject in context, and (b) providing a (hopefully!) compelling narrative that conveys the evolution of the subject’s main ideas, and some critical responses to those ideas.

On my own, I had it reviewed for substance by some of those familiar with some of the events discussed. In addition, I had it copyedited by the managing editor of a literary magazine here in San Francisco. I hope you will enjoy reviewing it.

Note on citation style. I have retained the style I used in the 2005 revision (the original stub contained no references). It is a composite with the following major features: (1) first name before surname, as in the Bluebook; (2) all commas until the period at the end, as in the Bluebook; (3) no parentheses around dates or publishers (except around years of journals), as in the MLA Handbook; and (4) “p.” or “pp.” before page numbers, as is the practice of some American publishers of quality texts (see, e.g., Rosemarie Tong, Feminist Thought, Westview Press, 2nd ed., 1998, pp. 281-316). My principal goals here were – and are – clarity and ease of reading.

Note on links in the “References” section. I have linked authors and publishers here only if they are not linked anywhere in the text or in the “Publications” section; and I have only linked authors or publishers here on first mention. Babel41 (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, unfortunately, because while it's clear there's been a lot of time put into researching and writing this article, I don't feel it currently meets the FA criteria. Specifically:

  • Use of contractions in article text, which should be avoided outside of direct quotes
  • Organization seems odd. For example, seeing the section heading "Choices" I'm not sure what material such a section would contain, and the section itself spans a considerable time period and does not exclusively cover "choices"
  • File:Draft_dodger_counseling_office.jpg - Phillips contributed the photo to the public domain, but who holds copyright on the image on the door? Is the artist known, is the image PD...?
  • Some redundant or repetitious phrasings - for example, four consecutive sentences in "Toronto Anti-Draft Programme" begin with "For..."
  • Tone is at times more appropriate to a journalistic than a encyclopedic venue, for example "Sometimes he spoke from the gut...Sometimes he spoke from the heart..."
  • Newspaper references without weblinks should have page numbers
  • Include ISBN links for book sources.

You might consider having a peer review done on this article to improve its chances of reaching FA status. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Response from principal drafter of article. Thank you for getting back to me so promptly, and for your very thoughtful critique of my article. I believe I can allay your seven concerns. Let me respond to them in order:
1. Contractions. It is my understanding that there is not a blanket prohibition on contractions. I read the Manual of Style before drafting my article, and under "15.6. Contractions," it states that uncontracted forms are "generally" preferred to contractions, but that contractions "should not be expanded mechanically: they are sometimes acceptable."
There are approx. eight contractions in my 7,200-word article (not counting those in the quotations, of course); that does not seem excessive to me. Moreover, I try to be a very careful writer, and when I did use contractions I used them because I felt they were appropriate in their context. Brief explanations of each appear in parentheses below.
(#1, "Youth" sub-section, first para., fourth sentence – "he'd" precedes a quote from Satin’s mom in which she uses two contractions. #2, "Contentions" sub-section, end of second para. – "he's" occurs in a description of Marilyn Ferguson’s argument, and Ferguson is a very informal writer. #3, "Toronto Anti-Draft Programme" sub-section, fourth para., third sentence – "he'd" keeps the sentence from sounding ponderous. #4, "New Age Politics, the book" sub-section, second para., first sentence – "that's" keeps the sentence from sounding pompous.
(#5, "New Options Newsletter" sub-section, third sentence – "he'd" occurs in another paraphrase of Ferguson, the informal stylist referred to earlier. #6, "Radical Middle Newsletter" sub-section, third para., second to last sentence – "it's" precedes a very informal quoted phrase in which the author upbraids Satin and his "law school buddies." #7 and #8, "Radical Middle, the book" sub-section, second para., first and second sentences – the "they'll" and the "they're" are meant to convey Satin’s folksy way of justifying reliance on the Four Key Values.)
I would not go to the mat in defense of any of these contractions! But I did want you to see that they are not there because of inconsistency or, God forbid, laziness. They are each there for a purpose. I even feel they represent good writing. But I would un-contract them in a jiffy, if Wikipedia's editors insist.
I've searched on "he's", "he'd", "that's" and "it's" ... I'm not getting any hits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Organization. You state that the article’s organization "seems odd." From your one example, I cannot tell what you mean. The sub-section you mention, "Choices," appears in the section "Personal life." Nothing in or about the "Personal life" section implies that the whole section is meant to be confined to Satin's youth!
The prior sub-section, "Youth," touches on Satin's home life through high school; and the "Choices" section goes on to discuss the key life-altering choices Satin made as an adult, from college on. And the third section, “Contentions,” conveys some of the many (contradictory) explanations journalists and others have given for what many see as the "odd turns" in Satin's life, some going back to his adolescence. All this seems pretty logically organized to me. Perhaps you mean simply that the section headings in the "Persona life" section are not sufficiently clear. I will be happy to change them to accommodate Wikipedia’s editors. Perhaps "Home Life," "Life Choices," and "Explaining Satin’s Choices" will do the trick.
The rest of the article’s organization is hyper-conventional, and so are the section headings and sub-headings. The three subsequent headings convey the three stages of Satin's political development over time ("Neopacifism," "New Age politics," and "Radical centrist politics," respectively). And the nine sub-headings are all named after the books, newsletters, or political groups that are discussed in those sub-sections. I do not see what you find confusing here.
I don't generally see "Choices" or "Life choices" as subsection headings in featured articles that are biographies; I conclude that the community doesn't feel that those words convey sufficient information. Life is full of choices. Anyone want to jump in with a suggestion? - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! I suggest for the “Personal life” section, the sub-sections “Youth,” “Colleges and career(s),” and “Explaining Satin’s ‘odd turns.’” These titles hopefully convey sufficient information, and the third title keeps the sequence from sounding mundane. – Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Copyright problem. I do see why the image in Phillips's photograph might cause you concern. Fortunately, I can assure you that there is no problem. Satin designed the door himself a couple of days after the New York Times Magazine article in May 1967, and he had a couple of draft dodgers come over with paint and brushes to execute his design (and also to paint the front room). He had them color the door yellow, an ironic comment on what most U.S. citizens then thought of draft dodgers. No one could paint letters well – that’s why the letters look so awful. Somebody did manage to do a less than completely atrocious job with the peace dove beginning to land (presumably, in Canada). The maple leaf appeared in its beak a few days later.
No one was proud of this work, let alone harbored any illusions that it was art. It did make many unhappy people smile. After the SUPA Anti-Draft Programme became the Toronto Anti-Draft Programme on October 1, 1967, the group moved out of the Spadina Avenue office, and the door was painted over in thick, dark brown. Nobody cared.
4a. Redundant. I have looked closely, but I cannot find any "redundant" (your word) phrases or sentences in the article. You would have to give me an example. Or perhaps you are using redundant as a synonym for repetitious, #4b below.
4b. Repetitious. There are three "repetitious phrasings" (your term) in the article. The first I apologize for – the four sentences beginning with "For" in the first paragraph under the "Toronto Anti-Draft Programme" sub-section. My readers or I should have caught that. It is very easy to fix, and I shall do so. The first two sentences should stay the same, since they work together ("For some ... For others"). But in the third I'll use "At first" instead of "For some time." And in the fourth I'll simply eliminate the beginning phrase "For example" and begin with, "In January 1967." Thanks for catching this.
There are two other instances of repetitive phrasing in the article – the series of sentences beginning with "Instead of" in the second and third paragraphs of the "Toronto Anti-Draft Programme" sub-section, and the series of sentences also beginning with "Instead of" in the second through fourth paragraphs under the "Radical Middle, the book" sub-section.
Thanks for the fix. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, these are deliberate. I have created what grammarians call "parallelisms" here as a way of deftly making an extended comparison of two things. In the TADP sub-section I'm comparing the traditional pacifist-radical approach to draft dodger assistance (carefully set forth in the first paragraph of that sub-section) to Satin's more entrepreneurial and media-savvy approach. And in the "Radical Middle, the book" sub-section, I'm comparing the guiding ideas in the New Age Politics book to the guiding ideas in the Radical Middle book.
When that is the purpose of sentences beginning all in the same way, then it is (as I'm sure you know) stylistically perfectly acceptable. In fact, it is a device that's often used in British and American quality nonfiction. Wikipedia itself has a brief but useful description of the device on a page called Parallelism (grammar).
Agreed, and that's a good description of parallelism. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Journalistic tone. I am sorry that you find some of my tone "journalistic." I would not characterize it that way. I strive to be clear, concise, and expressive, but none of that is out of keeping with Wikipedia’s stated policies. For example, the third paragraph of the Wikipedia:Featured article advice page states that FA articles should not "merely provide information," but should strive to do so in a "way that is compelling and engaging to non-specialist readers."
The one example you cite from my writing – probably the most expressive passage in the entire text – provides a good case study of how careful I've been to prevent expressive language from becoming merely journalistic or rhetorical. Yes, the fourth para. of the "Toronto Anti-Draft Programme" sub-section does contain the phrases "Sometimes he spoke from the gut ... . Sometimes he spoke from the heart ...." But please note that (1) these phrases provide reasons to support the claim I make in my earlier sentence, that Satin "rejected the intellectual apparatus of traditional pacifism and socialism." Moreover, (2) I follow each phrase up with a concrete example to demonstrate what I'm talking about (e.g., Satin spoke from the gut when he blurted out to the New York Times Magazine reporter that America is a "godawful" place). Thus I provide evidence to support the reasons that support my claim. That is good logic, not blowsy journalism at all. Finally, please note that (3) in my last sentence in that paragraph I mention that Satin identified not with older pacifists but with Holden Caulfield, a fictional character well known for speaking pretty exclusively from the gut and the heart.
I'll give a general reply below in my own review. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Newspaper page numbers. You state that newspaper references without weblinks "should have" page numbers. With all due respect, on the Wikipedia:Citing sources page, 6.2.3., "Newspaper articles," it clearly states that "page numbers are optional." I made an editorial decision to exclude page numbers because overwhelmingly, in the 2010s, researchers are looking up old newspapers not in library stacks but via online databases like ProQuest, where the author, date, and article title are more than sufficient to locate the article. Has the rule I read in 6.2.3 been changed?
7. ISBN links. Your last comment is that I must "include ISBN links with book sources." Once again, with all due respect, it was my understanding that ISBN numbers are optional. On the Wikipedia:Citing sources page, 6.2.1, "Books," it unambiguously states that "ISBN is optional." I made an editorial decision to exclude ISBN numbers because in the year 2011 I see them as so much clutter, and because my references section is already lengthy and full of more important numbers. Again, unless the rule in 6.2.1 has been changed, I would very much like to stick to my original decision.
To conclude: Again, I appreciate the work you put in on my article, and the seven important issues you raised. I hope my responses will persuade you that my article is closer to being FA-ready than you initially supposed. I would like to hear from other editors on these seven issues. - Babel41 (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose ... not because I hate the article, I really like it ... but please understand that Wikipedia in general and FAC in particular is driven by consensus and compromise. WP:MOS encodes a lot of the compromises ... and granted, many of these will come across as silly little issues (silly for you, but not silly for me when I have to edit every other sentence to get this to pass FAC) ... for example, we insist on straight quotes (") rather than curly quotes at FAC for a number of reasons, including the fact that searches for straight quotes will miss the curly quotes, and we insist that everything inside quote marks was actually in the quote unless otherwise noted (by brackets or ellipses), even the punctuation ... which is a semi-British style, and again, a compromise. The point is ... it sucks up a lot of reviewer time to deal with a host of issues that could have been dealt with at peer review. So, best of luck, and I hope to see you back here soon (ish!) - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC) P.S. And once again, Nikki has done a superb job and I agree with all that, except that I don't know much about image copyright issues. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've made some general points about how FAC works on your user talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 13:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerning "from the gut" and "from the heart", we're talking about:
    Sometimes he spoke from the gut, as when he described the United States to the New York Times Magazine as “[t]hat godawful sick, foul country; could anything be worse?” Sometimes he spoke from the heart, as when he told author Jules Witcover, “It’s colder here, but you feel warm because you know you’re not trying to kill people.”
  • Those expressions aren't terribly different than saying he spoke during interviews "with emotion", and I won't object if you want to substitute that phrase. I'm comfortable saying they don't match the style we aim for at Wikipedia. (And what appears to some as an absence of style does start to look like a style after a while.) We prefer expressions that have as little subtext as possible, expressions that (from experience) are less likely to engender edit wars. As a reader, I would personally translate "from the heart" to "with emotion" and wouldn't have any strong reaction to it, but other readers will be ascribing subtext: "He's being sincere and human." But we don't know if he's being sincere, unless you have some way to open up his brain and check. If secondary sources came to the conclusion that he was sincere, we can echo them; otherwise, let's go with something more, as we say, "neutral". - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point, but I feel it is overblown here. Unless “objectivity” means that we constantly have to assume that any media figure might be insincere any time they speak, then I don’t see why Satin’s statements can’t be taken at face value here, i.e. can’t “objectively” be described as being from the gut and from the heart. He’s a 20-year-old kid here!
In my world, I would give Satin the benefit of the doubt, unless a significant number of observers judged him to be phony. (They did not.) But I will stop this!! I believe you when you tell me what Wikipedia’s position would be. So let me run this passage by you (and others): “Sometimes he spoke with emotion, as when he [see text]. Sometimes he spoke poetically, as when he [see text].” (I do need the examples to give credibility to the point I’m making; see the entire fourth paragraph in the Toronto Anti-Draft Programme sub-section.) – Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I just make edits that might be described as copyediting myself, to save everyone some time, but when the writer is less than impressed with the quality of the review, it's probably better just to comment here, so:
  • "the old Maoist slogan “Dare to struggle, dare to win,” with ...": See WP:Checklist#second commas and WT:Checklist for support for the point in style guides. Lose the comma after "win", or add one after "slogan".
Right. I’ll lose the comma after “win.” (To add one after “slogan” would imply that there was only one Maoist slogan.) – Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find this hyphenated phrase. I will certainly delete the hyphen; do you remember where it is? – Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some articles, reviewers seem to want more direct quotations than you'd usually see in an academic survey article, on the theory that we need the extra information to help us comply with our core content policies. More often, reviewers want fewer direct quotes, saying that too many quotes make the prose choppy and unprofessional, that Wikipedia tries to avoid the self-promotion inherent in academic publishing, and that using other people's words avoids taking a position (and we need to be taking a position ... the vaunted "neutral" position). Since this article hasn't undergone any reviews, it's hard for me to make a call, but I'm pretty sure there are more quotes here than most of us are comfortable with.
I did use a relatively large number of direct quotes – 49 passages of more than a couple of words each (not counting quotes from Satin himself). But I did so for a number of reasons, which I hope Wikipedia’s reviewers will approve of.
First, though, let me make a couple of preliminary points. (1) Most of these quoted passages are extremely brief, a phrase or a sentence. (2) I feel that none of the passages – not one – interferes with the flow of the main text; makes it “choppy” or “unprofessional,” to use your words. (2) The 49 passages appear in a text of 51 paragraphs and approx. 7,200 words. In other words, there’s only about one per paragraph, or one in every block of 140+ words. Hopefully that is not too many given the considerations below.
Okay. My main intent in using them was not to avoid objectivity or neutrality. It was to enhance it. The world Satin entered in 1967, and continues to live in, consists of a minefield of competing ideological positions. Virtually every quoted passage reflects one of those positions, and the 49 passages cover the whole gamut of political-ideological responses to Satin’s work. Fourteen can be described as pro-, 21 as con-, and 14 as “purely” informative. So taken together, they provide what I feel can be described as an objective, and wonderfully textured, view of Satin’s work.
Another purpose of mine in quoting those passages, just as important really, was to properly inform the politically aware reader, i.e. probably the majority of those who will actually read this article. As you know, political writing and particularly ideologically attuned writing is laden with nuance. To summarize most of the passages I’ve quoted would inevitably tamp down or eliminate some of the delicious nuances they contain. I chose them carefully. Virtually all of them embody meanings and shades of meaning that a politically sophisticated reader will appreciate.
Finally, about the self-promotion question. As I mentioned above, the con- passages outnumber the pro- passages by a ratio of three to two. Moreover, few of the pro- passages resemble anything like blurbs on the back of a book. Most of them are truly informative – Pierre Berton’s take on Satin’s high-profile status in Canada, John Rensenbrink’s take on the Ten Key Values, etc. In addition, most of the pro- passages are followed by ones from people with different views.
In my view, the one passage that may sound promotional is in the very first sentence of the article – the statement that Satin is “miles ahead of the academics and intellectuals who cling to the Marxist vision.’ I think that passage is important, though. It sets up the whole article by informing the reader that (a) Satin is taken seriously by serious people (important to get across early, because of his draft dodger background and his use of the phrase “New Age”), and (b) Satin’s entire life would be spent seeking for a modern-day alternative to “the Marxist vision.” (The Toronto Star is one of Canada’s largest and most prestigious newspapers, and at the time it was the most liberal of Toronto’s three dailies; it was by no means a red-baiting rag. Robert Nielsen, the author of the article, which covered most of the op-ed page that day, has a biography on Wikipedia.)
I was inspired to use that quote by a very similar passage in the first sentence of the Featured Article on Bernard Williams, in which The Times of London is said to call him “the most brilliant and most important British moral philosopher of his time.” That is actually at least as incendiary a statement as my Toronto Star quote. Certainly utilitarians would disagree with it, Kantians would disagree, Biblical Christians would disagree, followers of some British feminist moral philosophers would disagree. But the passage does exactly what my Toronto Star passage does: it makes the subject of the article sound provocative, and interesting, and worth reading about.
But if Wikipedia’s editors want me to cut down on the number of direct quotes (or to eliminate that particular direct quote) – if I haven’t made my case successfully here – then I will of course do so. – Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "quasi-pacifist–flexible": quasi-pacifist – flexible
I do not understand this comment. In my text, there are no quotation marks here. If I were to put quotes around anything, it would be the word “quasi-pacifist,” since that’s the word Cummings uses. – Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
“Says” is in the present tense here because Satin is explaining his 1967-68 actions from the perspective of 2008. If that carries no weight with Wikipedia’s reviewers, then I’ll change it to past tense. - Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... to evade military conscription,": a period would work better there.
This is at the end of the second-to-last paragraph of the Manual for Draft-Age Immigrants to Canada sub-section. I believe my punctuation works better stylistically. A short, snappy sentence – “But few observers believed him, then or now” – is followed by a longer sentence containing three brief examples. To break that sentence up would slow the reader down unnecessarily (it is easy to follow as is), and make it less clear that the three examples all pertain to the short, initial sentence. But, again, if I am running afoul of Wikipedia FA style here, I am willing to follow your lead. –- Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fired/purged": At the third occurrence, "fired" would be better. See WP:SLASH.
Yes, absolutely. – Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response from the principal drafter. Thanks for your very helpful critique from August 14. I see that you have recently made a treasure-trove of further comments, and I look forward to downloading them (because of the condition of my eyes, I prefer reading hard-copy text). Here I just wanted to reassure you that I do not see the MOS or Citing-sources rules as "silly little issues"; if I did, I would not have responded to Nikki in such detail, detail that only an editor could love.
The curly-quotes problem you describe was not a result of my ignoring the rules; I used a version of Ariel that has straight quotes. I was just not technologically sophisticated enough to understand that you cannot ever transfer punctuation from Microsoft Word into the Sandbox. I then added and revised text in the Sandbox, which is why the quotation marks, apostrophes, etc., are so, um, diverse. I was hoping that they would all come out the same at your end. Obviously, they did not, so of course I will go over the entire text by hand, entering straight quotes and apostrophes as I go.
I know, I know: ignorance and old age is no excuse. I am sorry I wasted your time, and I will come back with pristine text. Because of my eyes, it will take a few weeks. In the meantime, I am looking forward to absorbing your and other reviewers' comments. – Babel41 (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, this was a very productive use of my time. Feel free to take a few weeks if you like ... but also feel free to be as collaborative as you like. There are friendly people all over the place here. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I choose collaboration!!! And you’re right, see Ed’s comment immediately below. I can hardly believe this. – Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed all the curly quotes and apostrophes. If you click "advanced" on the editing screen, there's this cool 'find and replace' tool in the top right that you can use to make changes like this. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear man – sorry, dear “Ed” – you are an angel. You got the curly double quotes all fixed, saving me hours of optical agony. And by following your instructions, I was able to get rid of all 138 curly single quotes and apostrophes with a click of my mouse. We are ON OUR WAY.
BTW, I am assuming I should not enter other suggested changes until I receive possible further comments on all the above. But I couldn’t let this one wait another day. – Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article must not contain references unless they are direct quotations, and I suggest you using footnotes. 50.19.78.29 (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Every bit of information that could be challenged needs a "reference" (assuming we are talking about citations here) and he is using footnotes, at least what Wikipedia calls footnotes (see WP:FOOTNOTE; I don't agree with their definition either, they should be called endnotes). Can you clarify? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:18, 17 August 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 01:29, 15 August 2011 [7].

Wishology

Nominator(s): 89119 (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's first FAC nomination failed mainly because the issue was pointed out that it was yet needed to be copy-edited (admittedly I was a bit impatient so I initially thought skipping the CEs would be okay). Someone finally got to my request at the WP:GOCE page, and here are this user's copy-edits: [8][9][10]. All that in mind, and assuming this article might match up with FA criteria, I put this article up for renomination. 89119 (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - the previous nomination was closed 3 August, less than two weeks ago. Per the FAC instructions, you must either wait 2 weeks or seek delegate permission to renominate early when your nomination is archived. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can we go about to seek delegate permission? Because the previous nomination was, as mentioned above, closed early due to a need of a copy-editor, and thus did not get a chance for a full article scrutiny by others. Now that the copy-editing is done, I was hoping this one could get a chance of a full review, though I understand if FAC instructions still need to be followed regardless and this nomination need to be procedurally closed. (If this nomination is closed, does the two week waiting period reset from today?) 89119 (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your best bet would be to post to one of their talk pages (probably either User talk:SandyGeorgia or User talk:Karanacs). My understanding is so long as this nom is procedurally closed (not failed), the waiting period would not reset. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. This will likely be closed, but just for the record... I shan't conduct an in-depth review, but the plot summaries in both the main section and the lead are written quite childishly. For example, the last paragraph includes "Cosmo is fed up with..." Why not simply "Cosmo is angry with" or "Cosmo is at his wits' end"? "Fed up with" is rather colloquial. It is important that you summarize well, because the plot summary is often all that readers view in articles about fiction. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 00:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are more problems with the article beyond fundamental copy-editing issues, as pointed out by User:Interchangeable so far, I advocate this nomination should be closed procedurally, and hope to seek further improvements with writing prose at a more professional standard. 89119 (talk) 03:08, 13 August 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 01:29, 15 August 2011 [11].

S&M (song)

Nominator(s): Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...this article failed FAC last time, and I was advised to wait a few weeks before re-nominating. Also, the article has been through WP:GOCE, which was suggested to me by someone to imrpove my chances, and I feel now that it has further improved upon what it was before. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose over multiple citation issues. Also, while I didn't look extensively at article text, the prose remains awkward and unclear in places. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

God, I really don't understand what else I am supposed to do. It has had 3 GANs, which means 3 different editors have all had an input on how to imrprove, 1 Peer Review and someone from the GOCE has also gone through the entire article, in addition to about 4/5 people's comments on the last FAC, as well as my own extensive input. This article has had so much input from so many different people to improve, I really don't know what else to do. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's difficult I know, but you really do need to try and find a good copyeditor to help with the prose. A few examples:

Malleus Fatuorum 13:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Moved extended discussion to talk. Nominator has expressed frustration but intends to try to address points raised; reviewer has expressed intention to oppose until copy-editing is complete. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The article has improved a lot, a few more tweaks and addressing some of the pointed out stuffs earlier will help to achieve FA.--Freknsay (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per both Nikki and Malleus who have raised excellent points regarding prose and ELs, Calvin would do better listening to them and not crib about it. Reviewer's time and energy should not be exhausted. As someone who helped the article gain its GA status, I can see so many issues existing now that I'm not even sure that this is GA worthy now. — Legolas (talk2me) 13:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah because someone from GOCE removed a load of info. And I'm hardly surprised you are opposing, it feels more like you are making it personal rather than being professional. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And when have I "cribed" about it? I have done all of the prose issues raised, and addressed all of the source issues. So you should find other things to support your oppose, because you can't oppose what has already been taken care of. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: In all honesty, I have to turn this candidate down. Featured articles are not like GAs, where all you need to do is satisfy a simple criteria. For FAs, satisfying criterion 1a is a hell of a job and the article just isn't up to those standards. This just doesn't "exemplify our best work" yet. Some examples below. Sorry, I just skimmed through the page. These may be in random order:


I have to say the GOCE did a less-than-impressive job. I am not trying to be biased here. There are still issues that have not been dealt with and you just have to look for those inconsistencies. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 14:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The annoying thing is, many of the points you have raised were in the article, and the guy from WP:GOCE went through and deleted so much stuff, now I am trying to amend all the mistakes he made. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's that and I have compared previous revisions with that of after the GOCE copyediting and she did address some issues poorly, but such things should not be taken into consideration during a FAC and the final revision is all that is taken into account. I have more comments for you to respond to: —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose I am sorry Calvin, but again, this article doesn't satisfy the FAC, enumerated in part as follows:

1. Well written: From the first para in the lead alone, there are errors in the prose.
  • It was produced by Stargate and Sandy Vee and was released on January 21, 2011 as the album's fourth United States single and third international single. This is quite a long sentence, and sort of doesn't cohere. Usually you don't combine details about production and release. Also, the usage of United States as a modifier (adjective) to single is not good. You may say "...album's fourth single in the United States..."
  • C'mon, it's not a long sentence, and it's not as long as what you consider it to be. And I don't think it doesn't cohere. A sentence is long if you are struggling for breath at the end of it, meaning there aren't enough breaks in the sentence to breath, and that is not the case here. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "S&M" is a Eurodance song. That sentence is quite sort. You could somehow connect that to the production info.
  • Critical reception of "S&M" was mixed, with some reviewers criticizing the song's overt use of sexual lyrics, The use of noun+ing verb is frowned upon by FAC reviewers and the general Wikipedians / readers. You may want to be guided by this exercise: User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing.
  • the song's overt use of sexual lyrics I feel this awkward. It's not the song that's using the lyrics.
2. Comprehensive: This criterion is usually left by music writers.
  • The article doesn't give much info about the song's writing, production, etc.
  • This was raised during the first FAC which was addressed. If there's no information about it, then there's no way this article is getting comprehensive in coverage. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
& And this article, this article and this article do have extensive Background sections? No they don't. It's not fair to fail FAC just because the Background section is quite small. If that is all the info there is, then to me, that is broad in it's coverage, as it lists everything about the Background of the song. Not all songs have as much detail as an article like this. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 20:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The song's lyrics are "sexual" therefore a good analysis of the lyrics must be presented, which would be better if its in a separate section.
3. Well researched:
  • That line "basic chord progression of E♭3–A♭2–C♭3–D♭3" might be a wrong interpretation of the sheet music. It could be a series or progression of notes, but not chords. Chords refer any set of notes that is heard as if sounding simultaneously. Those notations there might (just might) be referring to guitar chords. I am not sure. Not my specialty.
  • Also, how basic is basic chord progression. There are lots of articles using that phrase which might not be true at all in some.
4. Concise lead: The lead is not concise. There's too much details, others seem trivial for the lead. For example: "S&M" debuted at number fifty-three What make's it significant? Unless it broke a record, or the single debuted at 99 and the following week it rocketed to number 1. The song also peaked at number one on the Billboard Hot Dance Club Songs and Pop Songs charts. These should have been saved for the succeeding related section.
  • I've seen FAs with longer leads than this, so to me this is not a problem. If anything, the lead of S&M holds back on info, because there is so much more which is discussed throughout the article. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about the length, at least as regards to my comment. But its the content that's making the length unnecessary, especially if those details are trivial for the lead. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Appropriate structure: I think the "remixes" section should go first before "live performance". That section should prepare the readers apropos of the Spears remix prior to the latter section which mentions the remix.
6. Media
  • The audio sample doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The caption talks about the lyrics which can be detailed / explained / elaborated in the prose. The provision of audio here is not significant.
  • Either of the two screenshots in the music video section should be removed. There's not much difference of the two, therefore a provision of details in the prose alone could suffice understanding.

Please go over the article and submit it back once you and others feel its up for another FAC. Thank you very much. --Efe (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to Sandy. I might not be able to update my comments here until next week, as usual. My Oppose will remain strong. Unless there's improvement in the article in question, I might try to log in. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:03, 14 August 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 01:29, 15 August 2011 [12].

Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR), Novice7, Adabow 19:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a very interesting song article. I also have very helpful co-authors who remain intersted in the subject. After a productive GA run, I thought I would give it a shot here. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - an interesting article, but needs work to reach FA standards. Here are some specific concerns: — Nikkimaria 21:41, August 1, 2011 — continues after insertion below

link "beats per minute"
fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
link Hammond organ instead Hammond and organ
done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overlinking, for example "Allmusic"
I was going to delink a second use of its Grammy links, but since they occur so late in the article and are so important an issue in the article I reverted myself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few other redundant links and removed them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"These albums sales occurred despite digital singles sales, that saw 12 of the 13 tracks on the album, make the Hot Digital Tracks Top 50 chart. " reads better
I am confused at the suggestion. "that saw 12 of the 13 tracks on the album" is neither an appositive of sales nor a parenthetical. I am not so good with grammar, but do not understand why it should be set off with commas.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will strike this, after re-reading it sounds ok. You are right.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 16:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Note that the song won Record of the Year, but not Song of the Year." "Note" fails WP:YOU; instead write in passive voice. What about "It should be noted that..." or simply "Note that ...
Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Technicians" under "Credits": sometimes you write the first letter in capitals, then in lowercase.
Fixed for consistency. Only brands start with caps now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 33: ""The Billboard Book of Top 40 R&B And Hip-Hopp Hits"
double p fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 7: "[[]Tribune Company]]"
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 91: delink Billboard
done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the reliability of Songfacts.
I found a replacement reference, but I will need help polishing it up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will re-review later.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 11:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"and it was listed as the sixth of ten tracks on the Invites You to Listen album (catalog number ABCS-595).[4][5][6]" would be better to remove "it", as unnecessary
done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"When Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music (1962) was reissued in 1988, it was included as a bonus track on that album, but was not one of the original 12 tracks on the album.[2][3] " remove the last album, and replace it with "it".
fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
""Another excellent example of how Ray Charles was able to fuse blues and country, "Here We Go Again" is a soulful ballad in the Southern blues tradition. Lyrically, it has a resignation and pain that makes the blues, simply, what it is. The recording has a simple and sterling gospel arrangement and, in retrospect, is one of Charles' finer attempts in the studio from the 1960s."[13]" 'Here We Go Again', and not "Here We Go Again", as quote in quote, per MOS:PUNCT
done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The original version debuted in the Billboard Hot 100 in the May 20, 1967 issue at number 79.[14] " on the
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The duet was released for digital download on January 31, 2005.[87]" what does that mean? The duet version?
The 2004 cover was the first prominent duet vocal arrangement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the Norah Jones/Ray Charles section, so it is not necessary to include the phrase. Change "The duet" to "it". "it was released digitally...".--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 20:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it in that instance. "The duet" appears four other times in that section, btw.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Steagall's version with McEntire (who he is credited with discovering at a 1974 county fair)[104][105] is 3:10.[106]" do you mean "who is credited to discover McEntire at a 1974 county fair"?
Changed to who Steagall discovered at a 1974 county fair.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the last section, last paragraph, link Alto flute, instead of just flute
done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reviewed.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 17:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe that this has way too many non-free audio samples, however I am recusing from formally doing the media review (and giving the Oppose vote that would come from the NFCC issues) because of prior interactions with the nominator. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me that there is value in having a wide variety of samples. Certainly the three charted versions serve a purpose. I also think having a pure country music version and a jazzy version are beneficial. Obviously, if limited we would cut the other versions that did not chart, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Efe 14:03, August 5, 2011 — continues after insertion below
  • Vague and might be redundant: the song was included as a bonus track on that album, but was not one of the original 12 tracks on it a bonus track therefore not part of the original and standard tracklist
  • The song was also included on Ray Charles Anthology (1988) I just thought the use of parenthesis is sloppy and breaks the "reading"
  • Please lead me to that "preferred format". Though not a big deal, but it really is sloppy or unreadable-breaks the reading. IMO, those years can be rewritten as part of the sentence instead of having them enclosed in the parenthesis. --Efe (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions like there are a lot of trivia (chart info), the enumeration of names (cover versions), etc.. --Efe (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there is much performance history since it was a posthumous success and he was not in good health in his latter days. I aware of an official video. Thus, much of the other type of text you would see in an FA is not going to be in this one leaving it with a lot of chart performance. In terms of amount of chart performance, I opened up three songs and found Hey Baby (No Doubt song) 1653 characters, 4 Minutes (Madonna song) 2972 chars, and Baby Boy (Beyoncé Knowles song) 2006 chars. This article has 1967 version 1172 chars, 1969 version 1301 chars and 2004 version 2548 chars. Total chars is high, but per charted version the amount of text is pretty normal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course its not practical to compare this with contemporary singles. What I meant by trivia is this, for instance: By August 12, it was no longer among the Hot 100,[21] although it remained number 8 on the Hot Rhythm & Blues Singles. What is the significance of that?
And also this one which fails to meet FAC #4. The entire paragraph could be best placed in the album's article: The song was the best-selling track on a record-setting album on many levels. For the week ending September 18, 2004, Genius Loves Company sold 202,000 copies, ranking second on the Billboard 200. This was Charles' highest charting album in over 40 years and represented an opening week record for a duets album (since Nielsen SoundScan began tracking such statistics in 1991). Frank Sinatra's 1993 Duets sold 339,000 during the Christmas week, eight weeks after its 173,500-unit opening. The initial shipment of 733,000 units was an all-time record for the 31-year history of Concord Records and the sales represented a Soundscan record for the company.[83] In addition, the album placed at number five on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums for Charles' highest placement since A Portrait of Ray peaked at fifth in 1968.[84] These albums sales occurred despite digital singles sales that saw 12 of the 13 tracks on the album make the Hot Digital Tracks Top 50 chart. The previous record for most tracks from the same album was 9 by Neil Young & Crazy Horse with their 2003 Greendale album. — Efe 14:03, August 5, 2011 — continues after insertion below
This is an attempt to show that the song was the most successful song on a successful album. Not sure how much of this to move to the album article. However, the GA reviewer mentioned the same thing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Record_charts#Chart_trajectories for guidance. The articled is littered with such. --Efe (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of that policy. Didn't realize how different our content is from other chart performances. Will clean up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does it look now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is also influenced by the genres of country music[11] and gospel music. The use of "also" is not useful at all because the preceding sentence does not talk about genres and influences; unless you will transfer that after the first sentence of the paragraph.
  • Allmusic described the original as "Another excellent.. Please add the name of the reviewer, and long quotations must be introduced by a colon instead of letting it stand like a sentence in a sentence.
  • Trivia-like info. Those chart "trajectories" are really unnecessary. Some of it are contained in the lead, which should summarize the article and therefore those must be removed / rephrased.
  • Media. That audio sample(s) is not compliant with WP:NFCC#8. It adds no significance to the readers, and the description is not descriptive at all.--Efe (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not clear to me where the line is, so I am not sure what needs to be removed. I await a content review. IMO, since this is a country music song, we should have a country music sample and all other music samples have significant amounts of content in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just like images, audio samples should not be used simply for "sampling" purposes for each cover of a song, otherwise that is decorative. Even just a single sample from a notable song is not an immediate allowance for its use. That said, for this article, I see only two of the samples having any type of commentary on the quality of the song's performance: the original song, and the duet one. The other three are excessive, not discussed at all in the article, and ergo, fail NFCC#3a and NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Commenting on the version where the text and comments have been added since, I would have to argue that there is still too much use of sound files here. Again, the original song and the Norah Jones duet piece - those seem fine, so I'm not going to comment on them. But the other samples seem poorly justified, the next strongest would be the one by Nelson and Jones but even then, if the point of the sound file is to show Nelson's lackluster vocals against the overall song, that can be described in text without a problem. Or to put it another way: I believe the other three sound files could be removed, and the reader's understanding of the article would not be affected the slightest, generally a sign that the files are extraneous even if there is commentary that leads towards them. --MASEM (t) 12:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of the three files that you question, I can concede that the Nelson/Jones version is not important to the overall history of the song. It would be unnatural for us to have an article just on that version if the other versions did not exist because it never charted and has been barely mentioned in reliable sources. I continue to be at a total loss in understanding WP:NFCC. I spent some time looking at WP:FA and the 5 songs within 10 years in either direction from this song. Only "Hey Jude" makes sense to me. I remain unable to understand why "The Long and Winding Road" has no audio samples while "What'd I Say" has two from the same song. "Like a Rolling Stone" includes a sample of a Jimi Hendrix with little explanation while "Layla" does not include the Grammy Awarded Eric Clapton Cover. As a result, I am not quite sure how to present my case/clarification request. But here goes. The Sinatra version charted at Billboard for five weeks. If we were to create a separate article for it (in the absence of other versions) with an audio sample that would be considered entirely natural for the encyclopedia. Any song that charts for five weeks by a notable artist could have a song with an audio sample. In this case, we have a song that charted in one musical style and was described as another, which happens to be the original. Thus, we have a song for which the interpretation of the musical style was at controversy. This should leave the reader to wonder why is it Easy Listening according to some and Country according to others. Hmm. Let me listen and see. Not to mention the fact that it charted on Billboard for five weeks. O.K. so when I listen to it, it remains unclear to me exactly why it isn't true country. What could help the reader understand? Obviously a straigtforward hard core country version. Thus, the Strait version. The Strait version not only helps the reader understand the controversy surrounding a charted version, but it also presents the song in the style it was written. At WP:FS the Strait version might be considered the most important because versions that present the song as written are regarded as the most encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think starting from the assumption that any notable song is entitled to a non-free sample is the mistake here. That simply isn't a clearly allowable use as, say, cover art for published works. Many notable singles can be discussed in broad terms without the reader having to hear a sample to understand the encyclopedic nature of the song. We do allow samples where the audio style has been explicitly discussed in a manner that the audio would significantly improve the reader's understanding. Hence why the original song and the duet are reasonable samples to include here, since there is commentary that works alongside the audio.
            • One thing on past FA's: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Any FA passed before, say, 2008, is likely not a good example to draw from as NFC checking was not as rigorous as it is today. Of the examples, "What'd I Say"'s two sample rationale is discussed in the FAC, in that both parts were critically commented on, but take from effectively two different songs (part I and part II), thus allowing for both; for "Like a Rolling Stone", there actually is dicussion in depth of the Hendrix version within the article body (it doesn't have to be in the caption). The others that lack samples are completely fine - again, it is not a requirement that a notable song need an audio sample. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • First of all, thanks again for giving me feedback. I don't understand how NFCC is applied, so I am just going to ask directly about my specific samples at issue. Ignoring the argument that it charted making it notable and just focusing on the fact that it charted in one musical style, but is classified by some in another why doesn't that make a presentation of the Sinatra audio file encyclopedic? This song is peculiar as a Country song that hasn't charted as a country song.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Regarding the Strait version, why doesn't it matter how the song was written. It seems encyclopedic to me to say, this song has charted on all kinds of other charts, but not the Country song despite the fact that it is truly a country song and then show the reader what the song really was written to sound like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See responses to J Milburn and Hammersoft below.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Efe's Oppose

Hi Tony. The page is lengthy that it's becoming hard to navigate. Please pardon me for introducing another "sub section" of my review. Going back to the above, let's summarize the details:

Criterion 1a Prose
  • Still there are areas there prose is not quite good. For instance, Charles' 1967 tour for the album began with a benefit on the USS Constellation. I just can't understand what do you mean by "began with a benefit".
Criterion 2a Lead
  • There's just lots of information in the lead. Perhaps you could trim or better summarize the chart performance details, as well as the cover versions.
Criterion 3 Media
  • Still an outstanding issue apropos of the issues raised by other reviewers. Despite of that, some were already taken from the article. Only two (audio samples) are left.
  • Although its free, the provision of two images of Nora are not, well, don't know how to explain. Perhaps one could do?
  • That version was contemporary in both 2004/05 and 2010. She had different looks in those time periods. Although the 2010 picture is easier to see, the 2005 picture is from the slightly more important time period. It would be hard to go with one since the 2010 picture is so much better. Since both are free, I have included both. I don't understand what the issue is since both are free. Which would you like me to remove, if I remove one?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an issue actually. But just because its a free image doesn't mean its fine to choke the article with images. Unless there's a significant reason to add more than what is really needed to perhaps identify the artist in question. --Efe (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 4 Length
  • This song was made during a phase in Charles' career when he was performing a lot of country music. I think this sentence summarizes that section. So perhaps you could do another round of re-organization.
  • The same section. There are unnecessary details like "However, Tangerine did not appear on the label of his works until 1968." Although you did a good job in providing readers insight to the time when Charles was doing a lot of country music, still those details should be somewhere else but here.
  • Performance history. How does the song relates to that section?
  • Composition. According to the sheet music published by Dirk Music, "Here We Go Again" is a rhythm and blues and soul song Yes it first became notable as an R&B/soul song, but the article introduces it to the readers as a country song.
I am a little bit confused by this edit by a recently retired editor. The freely-accessible part of the ref doesn't mention R&B.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add soon as I can get back to this. Thanks Tony for the patience. --Efe (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: There's a real problem with NFC here. Concerning the covers, I'm not seeing why any but the original should be there. Yes, it is generally held that a single identifying cover image is acceptable in an article about a single; that does not automatically extend. None of the other two covers which you use are significant, and we are perfectly able to understand the article without them. Maybe if the covers themselves were in some way significant, but I'm seeing no reason to believe that they are. As for the samples... I'm very dubious. Some samples may be useful, but this seems excessive. Further, it's difficult to assess the use of the samples because of the utterly useless copy-paste rationales. J Milburn (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are using terms very loosely. Covers in my mind usually means redone songs, but I think you are using the term to refer to cover artwork. I can remove 2 & 3 pretty quickly. I will remove those and work on the rationales for the sound files.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely oppose The extreme overuse of non-free content is completely unnecessary to the purposes of this encyclopedic content. This mass overuse of non-free content places this article in the top .008% of all articles on Wikipedia in terms of non-free content usages. Extreme usage requires extreme justification. Yet here, on every...every...sound sample the rationale for usage is a cloned copy of what we find at {{Music sample info}}. I.e., no actual thought went into the idea of how these non-free sounds samples are used in the article and how that works within our WP:NFCC policy. They've been included because they can be included. That's it. I also concur with J Milburn's assessment of the covers. The 2nd and 3rd are totally superfluous. Strip all non-free content except the first image in the top infobox, and then very, very judiciously consider adding non-free content and paying very special attention to a real justification for the usage of each item. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are using terms very loosely. Covers in my mind usually means redone songs, but I think you are using the term to refer to cover artwork. I can remove 2 & 3 pretty quickly. I will remove those and work on the rationales for the sound files.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The album covers are covers. I'm not interested in the pedantics. As to the rationales, it isn't a question of fixing them. It's a question of stripping the article of the sound samples, and figuring out what passages in the article really need the reader to hear the sound sample to gain understanding. Since these sound samples were added so loosely, it's unlikely any of them are closely tied to the text. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that I was not referring to you as pedantic, but referring to the difference between covers, as in album covers, and covers, as in later performances of a musical work, as pedantics. There is a difference. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I do. There's still not a comprehensive understanding of the role of NFCC that needs to be present for this article to be understandable by the reader. For example, You modified [13] the rationale, which echoes unreferenced text in caption of the image, with the only connection to the prose of the article being that it mentions (without citation) the instrumentation used in the Strait version. So what? I don't need to hear the sample to understand that. You gotta go from basics; don't look at trying to figure out how to retain non-free content. That's backwards. Go from the other direction; start with nothing and work forward, finding stretches of referenced text in the article that isn't understandable without non-free content. This doesn't come close to that. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you saying is unreferenced? The text provides a reference for the instrumentation, the fact that it is a country song and the fact that it has not charted on the country charts. Do you want citations in both the article description and file description page in general? In this case, the article starts with a sentence that says "'Here We Go Again' is a country music standard . . . that first became notable as a rhythm and blues/soul music single". Isn't it encyclopedic to demonstrate to the reader what it sounds like as a country music song. Is your point that it does not help the reader to understand how the song was written?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is excellent. Right here you've highlighted the problem with using the non-free content in this way. Just because a song is mentioned doesn't mean we should include a non-free sound clip of it. There is no entitlement to using non-free sound clips. You can't use them just because the song is mentioned. See the last couple of sentences of WP:NFCC #1. Then go back, strip out all the sound clips, and start over. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I thank you for your patience and your promptness in reply. I always end up getting lost in NFCC issues, which is where I need a co-author. For a long time this article had no country music sample. I really wondered what the song sounded like in the country style. I think your point is that although the article has several facts about country music (This is a country music standard, this song has never charted on a country music chart, this song has instumentation consistent with country music style, etc.), but the article has no stylistic facts about a country music version requiring the reader to listen to the song to understand said fact. I am going to check a few reviews before conceding this point. However, confirm that this is the point please.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort of. The global issue is whether a particular sample from a particular song is referenced by secondary sources in a way that text alone can not convey. Alternatively, if something significant about the style is referenced by secondary sources is referenced by secondary sources in a way that text alone can not convey. Only then should a given sample really be considered for inclusion. From there, it's whether the reader can understand the article just fine without the sample. If no, then there's a better reason for inclusion. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to dig a bit, since the song is not really reviewed. Based on reviews of the album, I have cobled together a summary that this is the most straightforward and hard-core form of the song in the style it was written. I think that makes it something that the reader benefits from hearing a sample of. How do you feel now with the latest references and reformatted FUR and CAPTION.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And again this is backwards. You don't include non-free content and then go "had to dig a bit" to find references that mention it. That's completely backwards. You might as well start with non-free content for every cover that's ever been done with this song, and then figure out a way to keep them. Again, strip the content, and start from zero, then work forward. I still strongly oppose. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strip the content? not really sure how that would help. Basically, we have samples of both a commercial success and critical success version and two samples that are included as it relates to the style of the song as it has been promoted versus the style it was written in. I have removed what you might regard as a shoehorned version by Nelson that I had to dig a bit for. Could you consider my comment dated 13:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC) above and help me understand the relevant issue here. Whether I remove the sample and put it back in or not, I still have the same issue with the reader not understanding the stylistic controversy and the issue of what other parts of the project (FS) would consider the most encyclopedic version meeting with objection.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe we're at an impasse. I've made every attempt to explain the seriousness of the issue. I'm lacking in the necessary skills to convey this issue to you. Regardless of my shortcomings, I remain opposed. This article clearly does not pass. Good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Sandy: I have given up on including several fair use samples today and await an NFCC review. It is my belief that the current objections are largely based on NFCC concerns. Not sure that any will convert to supports, but I expect some opposes to be withdrawn and possibly to have an NFCC endorsement in the near future.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the best place to ask for an image review if WT:NFCC fails?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to get an FU file review so that I don't have to set up a whole separate PR just to do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have non-media concerns from a couple of reviewers, I am wondering if there is a way to get the NFCC review before this closes or during a PR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 14 August 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 01:29, 15 August 2011 [14].

Act on National Flag and Anthem (Japan)

Nominator(s): User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At an FAC last year, the main issue with the article seems to be prose. After a peer review, along with this article being submitted to the Guild of Copy Editors, I feel the prose is a lot better than it was a year before. Some new information was added to the article, mostly about legal ramifications since the passage of this law and what legal challenges it had. Enjoy. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Media Review Yay, I can justify using the word "media" instead of "image" this time. Everything is good from a copyright perspective. I'll do some touch up on the captions and the file description pages, but this is good to go. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 7: page(s)? Generally speaking, multi-page documents need page numbers
  • Don't mix different types of citation templates, as this creates formatting inconsistencies
  • Use a consistent formatting for multiple authors/editors
  • Be consistent in whether or not you include locations for book publishers
  • Use a consistent formatting for notes and bibliography entries
  • Be consistent in how you format newspaper citations, and whether or not you include publishers
  • Use a consistent date format
  • FN 30: hyphen should be dash
  • Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on the citations right now. I added the page numbers for FN 7, but the template seems to use p., even though it is multiple pages (which I been told have to use pp.). Trying to use http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php for the formatting, but having 500 errors with it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The prose still seems substandard:

  • "After Japan's defeat in World War II, there were suggestions to legislate the Hinomaru and Kimgayo as the official symbols of Japan. However, a law to make both symbols official in 1974 failed to gain a majority in the Diet, due to the symbols' connection with the militaristic history of Japan. It was suggested that both symbols be made official in 1999, after a school principal in Hiroshima committed suicide over a dispute regarding the symbols."—overuse of the word "symbols"; "in 1999" is in the wrong place
  • "collation partners"—coalition partners, surely?
  • "Other nations felt"—nations have feelings?
  • "in wake of this law"—in the wake
  • "have been challenged in the court systems due to the constitutionality of forcing teachers and students to honor both the flag and anthem against their wishes"—convoluted and wordy sentence; "against their wishes" is unnecessary, but even without that the sentence does not read well.
    • This sentence still doesn't make much sense.
  • In the first paragraph of "Text of the Act", it is said twice that rules about use of the flags weren't included. "Respect of" sounds odd.
  • "The 1870 proportions had a ratio of seven to ten units (7:10), with the red disc off-center by one-hundredth of the flag's length toward the side of the hoist, which were set in the Prime Minister's Proclamation No. 57"—rather too much space between "which" and its antecedent
  • "Japanese law did not designate a national flag from 1885 to 1999, although the Hinomaru was legally the national flag from 1870 to 1885."—odd chronology. Why was the law changed in 1885?

I haven't read further. This article needs a good copyedit. Ucucha 22:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to have the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests take a look at this article; any order passed before 1885 was declared null and void due to a change of government systems in Japan. This is mentioned in the citations at the bottom. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A copyedit is going to be provided. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit in progress. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the above comments haven't been fixed yet. Some other comments:

  • Act on National Flag and Anthem is a red link. Why is the disambiguator in the title?
  • "The debate surrounding the law also revealed a split in the leadership of the opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) and the party discipline of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and coalition partners."—the part about party discipline doesn't make sense. Did it reveal that party discipline was weak in the LDP?

Incidentally, the copyedit introduced some further errors into the prose (e.g., "Nineties"). Ucucha (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • For the "have been challenged in the court systems due to the constitutionality" I changed it to where it says "Regulations and government orders issued in the wake of this law, especially those issued by the Tokyo Board of Education, have been challenged in court due to conflicts with the Japanese constitution." so it removed a lot of text.
    • As for the disambiguator in the title, there are similar laws about the national symbols, such as Law_on_the_National_Arms,_Flag,_and_Anthem_(Mexico). I was suggested to add Japan in the title.
    • The DPJ was shown as split and fractured, unlike the LDP. I changed "party discipline" to just "unity." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:24, 9 August 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 01:29, 15 August 2011 [15].

Asif Ali Zardari

Nominator(s): Reformation32 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zardari's page highlights the enormous progress in Pakistan-related articles. He was President of Pakistan, a nuclear-armed Muslim nation with ambivalent ties to the United States. This guy has interacted with George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Not only that, his current popularity rating is 11%, down from 20%. His wife is Benazir Bhutto, the Islamic world's first female leader. He has been involved in corruption, kidnapping, scandals, and murder. Its amazing how much this guy is hated! If this article becomes featured it will be a huge accomplishment for Wikipedians. Reformation32 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question - has Mni9791 (talk · contribs) been consulted about this nomination. According to edit count tool, he/she has nine times the edits to this article that the nominator does, and has been working on it for several months. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. He/She approves the nomination. Reformation32 (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note that Mni9791 (the primary contributor) is currently indef blocked, as of July 5, 2011. Dana boomer (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media: File:CleggZardari.jpg has a broken source. A few of the others have direct links to the images, which should generally be avoided, but they all look legitimately PD. J Milburn (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was removed. Reformation32 (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Nikkimaria

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

  • Prose needs copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow. For example: "reduced his vast presidential powers to only a ceremonial figurehead"
  • WP:MOS issues - spell out "%" in article text, don't space emdashes, etc
  • Tone and word choice is problematic in places - tone should be neutral and encyclopedic
  • There are a number of very short paragraphs and sentences, which make the text seem choppy
  • Citation formatting needs to be much more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence of "reduced his vast presidential powers to only a ceremonial figurehead" has been corrected to "his vast presidential powers to that of a ceremonial figurehead."
  • The % was spelled out and the emdashes were unspaced. Any other MOS issues?
  • Where can I find copy-editing help?
  • I tried very hard to make citations consistent. I re-did all 265 citations to make sure every single one was consistent. You can verify that by looking at edit history. How are the citations inconsistent? I think I deserve a better explanation than a vague statement such as "needs to be much more consistent". Reformation32 (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can solicit copy-editing help from WP:GOCE. Other examples of MOS issues include hyphen/dash use, overlinking, inconsistent naming (for example, both "US" and "U.S."), etc. The neutrality concern is not because of any widespread bias, but simply an issue of tone and word choice - see WP:W2W for some guidance on this. For citation formatting: all web citations need publishers and retrieval dates, retrieval dates should all be in the same format, be consistent in what is and is not italicized, use consistent naming (for example, New York Times vs The New York Times), etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have requested copy-editing. But besides that one ignominious error that you already mentioned, can you find anything else? I don't think there is a need for copy-editing unless you provide more examples.
  • hyphen/dash use? I ctrl-F the whole Zardari page and couldn't understand or find any discrepancies.
  • All citations have retrieval dates now. If you disagree, out of the 265 references, could you find any more examples? If you agree, please cross out.
  • Retrieval dates are now in the correct format. If you disagree, please elaborate. If you agree, please cross out.
  • italicized? Whats inconsistently italicized?
  • Naming has been corrected. If you disagree, please elaborate. If you agree, please cross out. Reformation32 (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been copy-edited by Clarityfiend. MOS issues, tone and word choice, paragraph lengths have been significantly revamped. Reformation32 (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetoo comments

Reformation32 asked me to comment [16]. This article was rewritten starting about 6 months ago. At the time, in terms of edit count Huon and I were the primary editors of the page. Although the rewrite added a lot of sources and content, we both had concerns about bias in the rewrite. The subject of the article has received a lot of criticism, and it takes care - and multiple eyes - to state the criticism as criticism and not as fact. The page is better now (probably due to Reformation32's editing) but I still see instances of bias, such as where ideas appear in succession in a way that suggests something more. But that's my opinion. If others think the article is close, then I'm willing to work on the article and fix the biases I see. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do so. I encourage Nikkimaria, Huon, and Gimmetoo to provide examples of bias so I can correct them too. Reformation32 (talk) 13:17, 30 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 01:29, 15 August 2011 [17].

Mark Sanchez

Nominator(s): The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... As one of the up and coming members of the National Football League, Mark Sanchez is an intriguing personality caught in the midst of a world of constant physical body blows—all the while still trying to perfect his craft. Promoted to GA status, with significant input from Bobak, in February 2009, I have undertaken the task of taking the article to the next level so to speak and have put forth quite some time into improving the stature of the article which gradually deteriorated, prior to my arrival, due to persistent vandalism. The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-checking – Checked a handful or so of sources and am very unimpressed with what I found:

  • Reference 4 doesn't say anything about Sanchez's mother moving "to be closer to the family"; it just says that she stayed in contact through bus trips.
  • Source (ref 4): "had been one of the few Mexican-Americans in a mostly Jewish part of East LA." Article: "one of the few Mexican-Americans in a Jewish part of East Los Angeles...". Pretty close if you ask me.
  • More closeness from that source: "So now Sanchez talks to high school kids from predominantly Mexican East LA." This is in the article: "He began speaking to high school kids from predominantly Hispanic Santa Ana and East Los Angeles." Again, the structure is very similar in both.
  • From reference 6: "was the top quarterback in the nation coming out of high school in 2006." Article: "and was considered the top quarterback in the nation coming out of high school in 2005." The structure is almost exactly the same, with the exception of being about two different people. Still way too close for my comfort.
  • Later in the article: "Mustain, like Sanchez a year earlier, was the top quarterback in the nation coming out of high school in 2006." The full version of the source piece I quoted above: "of touted transfer Mustain, who, like Sanchez a year earlier, was the top quarterback in the nation coming out of high school in 2006." This is plagaristic by any standard.
  • From reference 84, "so he could do interviews with the Spanish-language media without a translator" is seen in both the source and article.
  • Still on ref 84, this is in the source: "He also participated in a fundraiser for Operation Teddy Bear, which provides school supplies to first-graders in heavily Latino areas of Long Beach and the South Bay, and recently joined L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in distributing holiday gifts to needy families in East L.A." Article: "He participated in programs which provides school supplies to first-graders in heavily Hispanic areas of Long Beach and the South Bay, and joined L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in distributing holiday gifts to needy families." Again almost identical.

Sorry, but I have to oppose over all the closeness present in just the sources I looked at, which are a small percentage of the total. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment First and foremost I would just like to say that I had not even noticed these similarties as the sentences were a product of older revisions of the article however, that is no excuse and for that I apologize. Had I known, I would have immediately rid of them because this certainly does not reflect myself as a writer and my previous works can certainly attest to that. That said, I hope you would reconsider your oppose as I have managed to rewrite the sections in question (Early life, College career and Personal life) however, I would understand if you did not. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 15:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've got Rex Ryan's book, so I can check sourcing there.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll appreciate the criticism. It only helps you get better. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 10:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not necessarily criticism. And I've been caught in problems because of "legacy text" from earlier editors. There's always a tension, you don't want to eradicate the influence of other editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for now at least. I think this still needs a careful reading of the prose. A few examples:

  • "Sanchez has been highly touted for his elusive nature, awareness and pocket presence when throwing the football." What on Earth does "pocket presence" mean? He knows where his pockets are?
  • "Sanchez has also been praised for his strong, athletic arm, immediately drawing comparisons to Hall of Fame quarterback Joe Namath, both of whom also drew a wealth of star power during their respective eras."
  • "Sanchez has displayed sincere dedication to the sport ...". In whose opinion? The whole Player profile section has a feel that it was written by an adoring fan.
  • "He is best friends with childhood friend Scotty McKnight ...". More fancruft. How do we know who his best friend is, and even if we do, why should we care?
  • "Sanchez has been involved in multiple charities including the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation to help raise awareness regarding Type 1 diabetes and Sam's Club's Giving Made Simple to help raise awareness about childhood obesity and ways to prevent it." You need to consider adding some punctuation to that, so that it makes sense.
  • From the Mexican-American identity section: "Sanchez was a third-generation, full Mexican ...". We were already told that in the Personal life section .
  • "It became a prominent issue after his nationally-televised game against Notre Dame." No hyphens after adverbs.
  • "... unlike most of his predecessors, Sanchez was a third-generation, full Mexican and none had been embraced to the extent the Sanchez was." Why "the Sanchez"?

Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed the majority of your concerns. The main issue seemed to be the player profile which I have re-written with a more neutral tone. Additionally, I removed the mention of Scotty McKnight and the hypen after the adverb. Per your sixth point, I removed the mention from the personal section but I felt you should know that the reason it appeared again was because it was necessary in the context of the sentence. As for "the Sanchez", that was just a grammatical error that went unnoticed until you found it! I appreciate your comments and look forward to any additional feedback you have. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 01:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait to see what Wehwalt has to say about the content, and then I'll comment again. Malleus Fatuorum 03:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to it today. I've been lazy this week.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it. I think the prose is borderline and could probably pass with some hand holding. Content. I did not read anything I found surprising , which is a good thing since I'm a Jets fan. My major concern is POV, a bio tends to be pro-the person, but I think this pushes the limits there. Why say he played for the Jets after playing "only" x games in college? I think the pro-Sanchez bits could be toned down so it doesn't sound a bit like one of those sports bios aimed a the younger set. I can either start with comments now or wait until Malleus is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please carry on Wehwalt, I'm probably not going to be around much until next week anyway. I completely agree with your POV comment, and I too see that as one of the article's greatest weaknesses. Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gearing up to leave on a trip early Saturday morning, so may not complete it by then as I want to squeeze the last ounce of having my references (for other articles) around me. TW2.0, you might want to get ahead of the curve.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have some free time this weekend and I'll make sure to pick through the article. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 11:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is very jargony, so much so that I am having difficulty understanding parts of it. Could it be rewritten for an international audience, with less jargon? Also, what are "Spring practice" and "Fall practice"? Per WP:SEASON we do not use seasons of the year to designate times. If these are jargon terms is there a way to gloss them? --John (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When this came up in an earlier FAC on American football, I argued that football is allowed terminology just like music and if you don't have to stop to explain arpeggio, you shouldn't have to for linebacker either.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even if it is just writing with this in mind; it could be as simple as linking arpeggio the first time it is mentioned for those who don't know. --John (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with something like "Spring practice", for example, is that, that is how college football operates. There are practices in both the Spring and Fall, it is not like an NFL Training Camp where it only happens once over a period of a few weeks or so. Unfortunately, I have not found any articles that make any mention of this so far. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 11:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "spring football" or "spring practice" are terms of art, even though we have no articles on them. They are not gratuitous references to seasons which are reversed in Oz, they are a way of keeping players fit and engaged in the offseason, and they are called spring practices because that is when they happen, the NFL lacks franchises in Sydney and Buenos Aires. I would take care to link any football position or any obvious bit of jargon.
Here are some comments to start:
Lede
  • Perhaps call him an American football player who plays the quarterback position.
  • "amidst" Too fancy. Perhaps "in"?
  • "well-disciplined". I think this is unnecessary.
  • " At USC, Sanchez was relegated as the backup quarterback though he rose to prominence in the community due to his Mexican-American heritage and brief appearances on the field due to injuries suffered by starting quarterback John David Booty" This sentence should be separated out, Sanchez's on-field stuff and off-field, into two sentences. Additionally, you should say what year and say that it was Sanchez's first, second, etc. season at USC.
  • "prestigious" I would omit.
  • " was awarded the Offensive MVP." I know this is difficult phrasing, but this is not the best, in my view. How offensive was he?
  • "After only starting sixteen games for the Trojans," Perhaps "Although many considered him too inexperienced"
  • "and became" becoming
  • Can something be said in the lede about media attention towards Sanchez in New York?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the "well-disciplined" adds to the fact that he is a leader however, we can debate this further upon your return. As far as the media attention is concerned, we could possibly do this unfortunately, most of the article I have found so far only make mention, or rather, obsess over his love life. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 11:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some more.
Early life
  • Given modern day lifestyles, I would add his parents' last name.
    Hey, I got an FAC going about a guy from Whittier too! Something about the water there. That being said, if he departed those happy climes as it seems before the age of six, I would not use the term "grew up".
    There is no objection to referring to a child by his first name, up to the age of 18. However, you should be consistent in whether you are calling him "Mark" or "Sanchez"
    Link Orange County, California.
    "raised them under firm discipline that called on them to be leaders and communicators." Perhaps "raised them strictly, seeking to influence them to become leaders and communicators". But I warn you, the term "communicators" may not lead to full understanding of what you mean. You might want to cut it off with "leaders", that has a good vibe, given we're discussing a QB here. Also, I would move this sentence to be the lead sentence of the next paragraph."
    "Throughout his childhood " This sentence does too much. Split it into at least two.
    "coaches Bill Cunerty and Bob Johnson" as these guys are not linked, I imagine they are not notable. Accordingly, you may want to describe who they are, briefly. As in "West Beverly Hills High School football coach ..."
    "informed the family" He didn't die in Iraq! Perhaps "opined" or "stated".
    " could potentially" I would strike the word potentially, but I don't feel strongly about it.
    "skills and drills". Unrhyme.
    "to further his football career" I hesitate to use the word career referring to high schoolers. Perhaps "would become a better football player" or some such.
    "Sanchez, who was attending Santa Margarita High School, joined the football team and during his first pass attempt as a sophomore, Sanchez threw a 55-yard touchdown" The second part of this is significant enough that it should be its own sentence. As for Johnson, the reader does not need to be so heavily reminded of his role in having him play QB. You should be able to fold it into the first sentence, perhaps wrapping it up "where Johnson, recognized as a 'quarterback guru', was head coach."

Piecemeal, I fear, but I'll get this done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to high school
  • "high school career in 2005" Graduation or last game? Needs clarification.
College
  • "Sanchez was well regarded upon his arrival at USC." The meaning of this may be unclear.
    I would spell out that the other two QBs were upperclassmen. You do imply it by "returning". Also throw a 2005 in there and a pipe to the article on USC's football season that year, for sure there is one!
    " instead took a redshirt season" Needless jargon, perhaps say that as he did not play, he was allowed to preserve the year of eligibility, and then use redshirt as an alternative term.
    "remaining subject to team-related discipline" better, "though he was disciplined by the football team for ..."
    "fake identification" "false identification"
    "once junior Booty" "once Booty, a junior"
    after the first day of Spring practice, This reads very oddly, after the first day? I would tie it to Booty's injury, or perhaps "once it was clear that Booty would require surgery following an injury sustained on ..." You get the idea.
    No matter how you slice it, seasons of the year, in isolation, are lower case. Even with spring practice. And the international readers' case becomes stronger as it is clear that none of the use of Spring or Fall are properly capped, like "Spring Practice" would be if it were to be capitalized. You might want to research the propriety of using that term.
    How can there by a Fall training camp when colleges play from late August to mid January these days, if they are good? And USC was.
    When did Sanchez get in games in 2007? Mop up situations? It is unclear why you are mentioning first games in which he did not throw a pass, then games in which he did. Surely the latter are the more notable and should be listed first?
    "subsequently " delete, adds nothing.
    I think the mention of Sanchez's being made starting quarterback. You might want to mention Carroll appointed him. You might want to mention, in the Jets part of the article that Carroll once, in a manner of speaking, and at least officially, "coached" the Jets, so to speak, allegedly. (I do not remember the 1994 season fondly).
    Arkansas-transfer and former Razorback starter Mitch Mustain" Why the "Arkansas transfer" The whole phrasing seems forced, I would reverse the two QBs and introduce Mustain more easily "Mitch Mustain, a transfer from Arkansas, where he had been the starting quarterback."
    "Mustain, similarly to Sanchez, was " "Mustain, like Sanchez, had been"
    "the coaches". Another good place to mention that incompetent pretender at "coaching".
    " thumb on his right hand" "right thumb"? Simplify, simplify, this is a good thing to notice when you read the article out loud to yourself.
    "the senior Booty" I just don't think class years work well this way, and also, you've already told the reader Booty's year in school, and they are capable of figuring out that he will be a senior a year after he's a junior.
    " at an away game against Oregon" in an away game ...
    "course of the season". It's unclear whether you mean the whole season or just the part after Booty returned. Please clarify.
    "were able to immediately put the kneecap back into place" A braver man than I, Sanchez, but I would strike "were able to".
    " opener against Virginia during the final scrimmage of Fall camp." This seems contradictory, was it a game or a scrimmage? Prose is murky here!
    "early Heisman consideration." The word "consideration" seems a bit much; the voting did not take place for months afterwards. At most "mentions", and you may want to look for a more specific word.
    There is more description of USC's season in that image caption than in the article! Surely that should not be. You need to establish how they got to the Rose Bowl (Who said "The Pasadena Freeway"?)
    You list three quarterbacks, and two years in school. "Respectively" will not work here.
    Since the draft occurred before graduation, I'd guess he finished work on his degree, rather than the degree itself. before the draft.
    Having the Marinovich mention where it is makes it sound like trivia. Why not move it to before the mention of Carroll being against Sanchez's leaving, then it sounds like a stand taken by USC coaches.

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 13 August 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 19:19, 4 August 2011 [19].

Pretty on the Inside

Nominator(s): Scottdoesntknow (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it is well-written, provides adequate information on the subject, has a neutral POV, and is comprehensive and informative enough to be considered FA status. It is well-sourced with reliable web citations as well as magazine and other sources. I am very well-informed on the topic and the music featured on the album, and I think the article lives up to FA status as far as music history and significance go. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a malformed nomination page that was never transcluded to WP:FAC. I'll begin fixing the mess now. Please read and follow FAC instructions in the future. Transcluded 3 August 2011. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Uncited statements, for example "She also cited her work as a dancer as being one of many inspirations for the songs on Pretty on the Inside: "I was blonde, wore makeup, had to support my band by dancing, and had to play this ridiculous archetype at work... so I took, you know, high heels and white pumps, and I had a wiglet— I just took that and messed with it.""
  • Wikilinking issues, mostly overlinking
  • Incomplete and inconsistent citations, a few non-high-quality sources
  • Some unclear, awkward or ungrammatical prose, for example "she picked Erlandson because he had a "Thurston Moore quality about him", and that he played guitar"
  • File:Pretty_on_the_Inside_clip.ogg: based on the length given for the original track, a proper sample should be no longer than 8 seconds. Also, needs a more complete FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I have to agree with Nikki that the article is not ready for FAC. Apart from the points that she raises, there are the following relating to sources, just from the first 20 or so I looked at:-

  • Refs 2, 3 and others use "pp." for single page numbers
  • Source medium is not clear in refs 5 and 15
  • Ref 7 lacks a publisher
  • No source details given for ref 14, also "pg." instead of "p."
  • Ref 17 lacks a page reference
  • Ref 19: non-standard format - title should be before publisher. Also page number missing
  • Ref 21: retrieval date missing

I haven't looked at the remaining 40 or so refs, but there are sure to be other issues. On a different point entirely, I think there is a misunderstanding about the function of the lead section. This is supposed to be a broad summary of the main article; at present it contains too much detail and too many quotations that would be better placed in te main article. I note that the article has not received a peer review, and strongly recommend that it be reviewed at WP:PR before being brought back here. Brianboulton (talk) 14:57, 4 August 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 03:19, 3 August 2011 [20].

Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)

Nominator(s): —Andrewstalk and Jivesh • Talk2Me 09:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You all probably know this song for its catchy hook and/or its viral dance video. As for the article, it has been through another PR since the last FAC, and the prose has been tightened up. Now, comment away! —Andrewstalk 09:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am taking part in the WP:CUP. —Andrewstalk 08:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose again - the article has been improved since its previous nomination, but in my opinion it still does not meet the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck some, more work needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - UK situation poorly researched and unverified. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the source: "In the US she trailed the album with two separate singles - one from each side - but things were played more cautiously over here. We got the classic balladry of 'If I Were A Boy', but not the club-pop throb of 'Single Ladies'. Until now. 'Single Ladies' has proved so popular, cracking the top ten on downloads from the album, that it's been granted an official release - as a download-only single." I have reverted your addition of {{OR}} and {{fv}}. Thank you —Andrewstalk 20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Hi Jivesh and Andrew and habitues here at FAC. Am I allowed to support or oppose? I am member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Beyoncé Knowles. Anyways, here are my comments
  • No citations please in the lead. WP:LEAD.
  • Per WP:LEADCITE some claims need refs in lead. Quotes should always have cites directly afterwards. The sales numbers in the lead have been contested in the past, so I added the cites to maintain stability and verifiability. —Andrewstalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Some critics noted its aural similarities to Knowles' 2007 single "Get Me Bodied". I can see only one two, and why the mention in the lead? "Single" is compared to a lot of Beyonce's songs. Thought this might have been compared with "Independent" (other female empowerment-themed songs) in lyrical interpretation
  • The lead is supposed to summarize the whole article. Are we gonna enumerate all those countries?
*I though the term certified should have been linked to Music recording sales certification instead of RIAA certification?
*The video achieved great success How do we qualify the term great? Might be POVish.
  • Tense issues: "Single Ladies" won numerous awards" it might still earn Knowles awards. "Single Ladies" was a commercial success in the United States the single I believe is still selling.
  • But it has won awards. Past tense doesn't mean it won't again. Eg "I ate some apples" doesn't imply I won't again. Re the second part: Knowles and her labels have moved on to new projects so SL was a commercial success. —Andrewstalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Inconsistencies: United States and US.
*"Single Ladies" was a commercial success in the United States, and peaked at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 Perhaps the use of and here is incorrect.
*The-Dream's main inspiration for the song was Knowles' engagement to Jay-Z. The source says this was recorded after their marriage.
  • First sections doesn't flow very well. Writing -> Mixing -> Inclusion in the CD -> Inspiration -> Wedding -> Recording -> Inspiration -> etc...
  • Still not smooth. Production (mixing) was relegated to the second para, which is an unlikely place where this info should be. Perhaps you could create another para for the production, so 1 for production, 1 for inspiration, 1 for release. Also, you could merge that block quote. --Efe (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still can find some. --Efe (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Italics: People Magazine to People magazine
  • The live performance section is trivia-like. Perhaps needs re-org and expound those with importance.

That's all for now. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional
  • No mention of J-setting in the lead
*There's a review included in the lead, its not supposed to represent the view of other reviewers/ people in general.

--Thanks. --Efe (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional
  • Why is it that Stewart's photo is in the article? What is the basis? How about the other contributor's to the song?
  • Further informs readers and helps to identify person(s) key to the song. I have added an image of The-Dream, as he and Stewart produced the song. I have asked the copyright holder of this image to release it under a free license; if he does, I will add it and a pic of Knowles as the four writers of the song. —Andrewstalk 10:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be interesting if you could provide a free photo of the ring and/or glove.

--Efe (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Single Ladies" was a commercial success -> "was" does not seem appropiate.
"digital downloads in the US" -> "US" is redundant as "in the United States" and "by the RIAA" has been mentioned.
Per WP:LEAD, cites are unneeded here, excepting those listed at WP:LEADCITE.
  • The sales numbers in leads often have {{cn}} tags added when without refs, so it is better for stability reasons. Also, it's better to undercite than overcite, and it helps readers locate the reference source more easily. The third ref verifies an opinionative quote. —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Composition
"According to the sheet music published at Musicnotes.com by Alfred Music Publishing," According to this, it was published by Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, not AMP
I am reading it at the sheet itself. At the bottom of it, it appears "©2008 EMI April Music, Inc., B-Day Publishing, Sony/ATV Music Publishing]], LLC," etc.
Fixed. —Andrewstalk 07:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recognition and accolades
""Single Ladies" contains musical similarities to Knowles' 2007 single "Get Me Bodied"; -> this needs a source, if it is somebody's commentary, then rephrase it to "it was/is/has been noted by whom that SL ..."
and in the "Record of the Year" category at the 2009 Premios Oye! Awards." -> There are two "Record of the Year" categories.
Fixed, nice catch :-) —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response and accolades
"and it was ranked at number 4 on BET's Notarized: Top 100 Videos of 2008 countdown,[109] and at number 3 on VH1's Top 40" -> WP:NUMBERS written below 10 are written out.
Fixed —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cultural impact
"included in her live album, I Am... World Tour (2010)" -> (2010) was mentioned when the album was linked
Removed —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Usage in media
Link mash-up, as far as I know it is not a common word.
Done. —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cover versions
"set-list" -> consistency needed
Fixed —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • References
Refs 13 and 14 -> According to Radio & Records VNU Media published them.
Added —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 18, 19, 22, 23, 95, 119, 157 and 159 are publisher by Amazon.com Inc.
Adding that an Amazon website is published by Amazon.com Inc. isn't that helpful to readers and just adds clutter, I feel. —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 29, 75, 118, 152, 155 are published by Rovi Corporation
These refs use {{Allmusic}}, so I cannot add the publisher. —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can. See Halo_(Beyoncé_Knowles_song)#cite_ref-65. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Andrewstalk 07:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 47 is published by Contactmusic.com Ltd.
Self-published source, we don't need to add the names of publications that are published by their own companies
Ref 55 is published by Viacom
Added —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 61 is published by the Consejo de la Comunicación
New Sabah Times says it's published by Inna Kinabalu Sdn Bhd; where did you find Consejo de la Comunicación? —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lol, wrong number, I meant the Premios Oye!. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My error, again, Los Premios Oye! are presented by the Academia Nacional de la Música en México and transmited by the Consejo de la Comunicación. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added —Andrewstalk 06:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 99, NPR was linked at ref 91; NPR is published by National Public Radio, Inc.
Unlinked. Self-published source, we don't need to add the names of publications that are published by their own companies —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Review

I put one of the images into a Template:Information page. The only other issue is that the quality of File:Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) screenshot.jpg is abysmal. Please consider doing it over (the video must be online). Sven Manguard Wha? 01:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Andrewstalk 06:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 22:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:43, 3 August 2011 [21].

Białystok

Nominator(s): Ajh1492 (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the Białystok article for FAC. Białystok is the largest city in northeastern Poland and is the capital of the Podlaskie Voivodeship, and has seen a significant number of political boundary changes over the last 500 years. The article is currently a good article which has gone through a rather extensive review during the GA process and with WikiProject Poland at B-Class review. I think this article is at or near the featured article standard. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I appreciate the work that's been done on this article, but don't feel it currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

  • Manual of Style issues, including hyphens/dashes and overlinking
  • Some instances of unclear and awkward prose. The article may benefit from being read by an experienced copy-editor
  • Given the length of the article, the lead should be at least 3 paragraphs long
  • Don't sandwich text between images and don't stack images
  • File:Bialystok_seal.png: don't use Wikipedia as a source, especially since that particular page has been deleted
  • File:POL_Białystok_COA.svg: source?
  • Maintain a neutral and encyclopedic tone at all times
  • There are a number of bulleted lists that should be written as prose
  • Citations should be complete: all web citations need publishers, all book sources need page numbers, etc
  • Citation formatting needs to be much more consistent

Suggest withdrawal to allow time for the article's issues to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Quick comments/question in regard to lede length. The lede IS 3 paragraphs long. I'm also wondering what you're basing this criteria on. I have looked through a number of FAs (granted, they were Military Hist FAs) and the relationship between article length and article lede is very weak [22]. The "average" relationship is given by: length of lede = 1560+.016*length of article net of lede. Since the article length, net of lede, is 25721 characters, this would mean that this article's lede, were it to fit the "average" exactly, would have a lede of 1971 characters. It's lede is 2547 characters, so if anything, the lede is longer than average for an FA.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Just like my voting predecessor, I also suggest quick withdrawal, and a slower, more meticulous pace of some very basic but badly needed improvements. The article is nowhere near the standard city FA in English. I already told the nominator once, get the "osiedla" and twin cities out of the infobox (check out the Help:Infobox and read some FAs for guidance, like Cleveland and Washington, D.C.). Anyhow, the History and the Economy are the worst. The barrage of bullets, stubby paras, one-lines, gaps and substandard prose are totally unacceptable at this level. — Raczko (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So where is the definition of Standard City FA in the MOS? The twin cities inclusion in the infobox is a valid field entry in the settlement template. I see no appreciable difference between the article and say, Lock Haven, Pennsylvania. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you trying to say Ajh1492? The infobox of Lock Haven, Pennsylvania doesn't show its smallest neighborhoods comparable with "osiedla", and the superfluous twin cities. The History section is well written and properly subdivided. The article doesn't have gaps, stubby sentences, one-line paras, tons of bullets in place of comprehensive prose, entire blocks of refs without publisher, etc. No need for an FA definition to see some of the most glaring inadequacies here. — Raczko (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There is no definition of "Standard City FA" in the MoS. However, looking at other city FAs can give an idea of the standard required, and there are significant appreciable differences between this article and the one you mention. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article needs a lot of work on the prose alone, in fact I don't even think it meets the GA criteria. A few examples:

  • "Białystok has traditionally been one of the leading center of academic, cultural and artistic life ..."
  • "Białystok has been a destination for internal and foreign immigration".
  • "Archaeological discoveries show that the first people settled on the territory of present-day Białystok already in the Stone Age".
  • "... built Branicki Palace on the foundations of former defensive castle of the Wiesiołowski family".
  • "After the war the city became part of newly independent Second Polish Republic".
  • "In the nineteenth century Białystok was an important center for light industry and was the reason for the substantial growth of the city's population."

Malleus Fatuorum 15:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest withdrawal - I concede I was too lenient/sloppy with the GA review and there is a lot of work needs doing. It will take at least a few days to sort this out. To the nominator, treat this as a mini-peer review as there is a lot of work listed in a few posts, and come back to FAC with a clean slate in two weeks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:43, 3 August 2011 [23].

Wishology

Nominator(s): 89119 (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Wishology is ready for its first FAC. The article went through a successful GA nomination and two peer reviews. I have checked this article against the FA criteria, and I personally think it satisfies (i.e. refs, images tagged, etc.), though I could have missed a few things here and there (as with everyone, I'm not perfect ;D). The article prose may be an issue, as pointed out by H1nkles in the article's second peer review, but hopefully a few copy-editing suggestions will help remedy that issue as much as possible.

With all that said, I wish this article good luck. 89119 (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You indicated at the above-referenced peer review

Thanks for your very detailed and thorough comments! I fixed them to the best of my ability and will plan to find a copy-editor as you suggested. 89119 (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

and there have been no edits since then. Please see the instructions at WP:FAC; if the article is not FAC-ready, this is not the place for peer review or improvements, and articles that don't meet criteria shouldn't be nominated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did submit a request to GOCE here, but no one did any copy-edits yet, and I doubt that would happen any time soon. I know, I'm being a little impatient on that. Sure, FAC isn't peer review, but if people feel an FAC currently does not meet FA-criteria, they would leave specific critical remarks, and I think that criticism here would help improve the article closer to success in its next FAC nomination. 89119 (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I appreciate the work that's gone into this article, but Sandy's right: FAC isn't peer review, and this article isn't currently FAC-ready. Here are some specific concerns:

  • Awkward and unclear prose, grammatical errors, for example "parts 1 and 3 of Wishology was viewed". You might consider having someone from WP:GOCE copy-edit the article
    • Fixed the grammatical error. As for the GOCE, that's what I'm trying to do so far. Again, if I'm being impatient because I'm requesting a copy-edit from the GOCE and nominating the article here at FAC simultaneously, I apologize. 89119 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange shifts in tense, for example "The trilogy is written by...and was directed by..."
  • WP:MOS issues, for example inconsistent italicization and capitalization
  • Over-emphasis on cultural references
    • I personally think every cultural reference made in the episode is equally important, like how in Family Guy FA "Road to the Multiverse each of its own cultural references is equally important. Thus, every cultural reference that can be reliably sourced is listed in the article's "Cultrural references" section. For the Wishology article, the only reason why the article seems to overemphasize the "Cultrual references" section is because the Wishology episode just happens to have a lot of them, given that the episode is reliant on them and is three hours long (with commerical breaks). Anyways, do you feel the section still need to be be condensed, given the reasoning above? If so, which cultural references should be removed? 89119 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heavy reliance on primary sources
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Foreign-language sources should be identified as such
  • Inconsistencies in reference formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media Review Everything is good from copyright and caption standpoints, however I'm not sure I like the George Lucas image being in the article, (actually I quite dislike its usage). It strikes me as having an image there for the sake of having an image there. He wasn't involved in the movie at all, his only relation to it is an akward tie in, that he created something that was referenced in the film. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:57, 2 August 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/August_2011&oldid=446311182"